Embattled Governor of Nasarawa, Tanko Al-Makura who is seriously fighting to stall his impeachment process has asked a state High Court to quash the impeachment notice issued against him by the state House of Assembly.
The governor filed the suit before a Nasarawa State High Court in Lafia today following the resumption of judicial workers from their three weeks old nationwide strike.
Al-Makura is through the suit seeking judicial interpretation of sections 36(1) and 188(1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of the Constitution in relation to the issuance of the impeachment notice on him.
The state House of Assembly and its 24 members are the defendants in the suit which is marked NSD/LF3/M/14
The governor’s lawyer, Udechuchuwu Udechukwu (SAN), who is leading Funke Aboyade (SAN) and seven others in the governor’s legal team, argued that the lawmakers failed to serve the notice of impeachment on his client as required by the constitution.
The governor therefore wants the court to declare the impeachment notice as nullity.
Al-Makura lawyer contended that the publication, “of a purported notice of impeachment dated July 14, 2014 by the Clerk of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly in the Daily Trust Newspaper of July 17th, 2014, or any other newspapers cannot amount to service of the same on the governor of Nasarawa state within the context of section 188 (2) of the constitution.”
The governor’s Special Adviser on Special Duties, Mohammed Abdullahi, who deposed to an affidavit filed in support of the suit stated that the governor made unsuccessful efforts to obtain the impeachment notice when the House of Assembly failed to serve him as required by the Constitution.
The governor, through the suit, urged the court to either quash or set aside the impeachment notice allegedly issued by the state’s House Assembly.
He wants the court to declare that the notice of impeachment published by on July 17, 2014 by the clerk of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly was unconstitutional or invalid within the meaning of section 188 (2) of the constitution.
He is equally seeking a declaration that the notice was not served on him in line with sections 36(1), 188(2) and (3) of the 1999 constitution and therefore that he was not obliged to respond to it.
He also wants the court to declare that having regard to the provisions of sections 36(1) and 188(1)-(9) of the constitution, the lawmakers have no authority to issue the notice of impeachment dated July 14, 2014 wherein they purported to have found the plaintiff guilty of gross misconduct, even before any inquiry into the allegations made by them when no notice of allegations was served on him.
