Jibrin Okutepa SAN, lead lawyer to the Chief Judge of Ondo State, Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu SAN, has lashed out at Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu and the state government over their bitter comment against last Thursday”s judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja, which barred the governor from sacking the Chief Judge.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, had in his judgment stopped Governor, Akeredolu from embarking on sacking the Chief Judge.
The court made an order nullifying any decisions made by the Governor and other defendants aimed at suspending, sacking and investigating the plaintiff, Justice Akeredolu.
More so, the court held that the powers to investigate, probe and indict any judicial officer for any misconduct in the line of duties is constitutionally vested in the National Judicial Council NJC only.
Apparently miffed by the judgment,
Governor Akeredolu had in a swift reaction by his government described the suit by the Chief Judge as “an ego trip which the government refused participation”.
The government reaction was contained in a statement signed by the Ondo state Commissioner for Information, Mr Donald Ojogo.
In reaction, the CJ’s lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa, described the government position as “most unfortunate and uncivilised”.
Okutepa, an Abuja based legal practitioner further said the Ondo state government’s reaction was “contemptuous”.
A press statement on Saturday, which was copied our Correspondent by Okutepa reads in part; “My attention has been drawn to a press statement said to have been issued by the Government of Ondo State on the judgment delivered by the Hon. Mr Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja, in favour of the Hon. the Chief Judge of Ondo State, Justice Oluwatoyin O. Akeredolu.
The said press statement was titled: “Re: Court Bars Ondo Govt From Probing CJ,
SUIT WAS AN EGO TRIP WHICH THE GOVERNMENT REFUSED PARTICIPATION” and signed by one Donald Ojogo Commissioner for information.
“It is sad and unfortunate that the government of Ondo State could authorise such contemptuous statement to be issued against a judgment that was delivered after all the parties were served with hearing notices on many occasions and the government led by an eminent Senior Advocate did not deem it fit to respect the processes served on the government.
“As lawyer to the Hon. CJ in the matter, I consider the press statement as insulting to my person as it portrays me as accepting brief to take the matter that was purely academic to court for judicial determination.