The Oyo State Government on Friday justified its decision to dissolve the local council administrations in the state, saying the election that produced them was conducted against a court order.
An explanation given by the governor’s Chief of Staff, Chief BisiIlaka, also labelled the court order secured by the council bosses that restrained a governor from sacking them as an “arrangeejudgement”.
The Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), Oyo State Chapter, has now responded to those claims raising four points.
In a press release issued by the body’s chairman, Prince AyodejiAbass-Aleshinloye, ALGON said: “In its response to its act of illegality of dissolving democratically elected local government administration, all discerning minds expected Oyo State Government to defend its act of lawlessness and contempt of a subsisting court judgement on point of law and on absolute truth. But unfortunately, Governor SeyiMakinde administration opted for the path of ‘white lies’, arrogance and executive lawlessness.”
Tackling the state government’s claims, Aleshinloye raised four points. Below are the four points published as released by Aleshinloye, who was the chairman of Oluyole Local Government before the dissolution.
- Unlike the concocted lies spewed to the press by Makinde’s Chief of Staff, Chief BisiIlaka, we hereby restate that the local government election conducted during the administration of the ex – governor AbiolaAjimobi was never conducted against a Court Order.
The court order that Chief Ilaka ‘got stranded with’ was vacated on May 10, 2018.
There was an order of the Federal High Court Ibadan restraining the OYSEIC prior to our election from conducting the said election but the said order was discharged on the 10th May, 2018 by Justice Joyce Abdul Malik of the Fed High Court sitting in Ibadan while delivering her judgement on the suit FHC/IB/CS/47/2018 (OlugbengaAdeyemi& Others V INEC, OYSIEC and OYSG) paving ways for the Local Govt election which was conducted on d 12th May, 2018.
- Do not ridicule the Judiciary.
It is very ridiculous and scary for a top government official of Chief Ilaka status to describe a judgment of a competent court that restrained Oyo State government from dissolving a duly elected local government as an ‘arrangeejudgement’. We advise Oyo State government not to do anything that will bring the Judiciary, an independent arm of government, to ridicule and opprobrum in the face of the public. Such uncouth language expressed by Governor Makinde’s chief of staff should have been left on the soapbox after political campaigns and not be used in the arena of civil governance. Governance is a serious business, so government should be civil in conduct and public discourse.
The only constitutional way to redress any court judgment is to appeal not to disparage it or result to self-help.
- Advising ALGON to go to court by Chief Ilaka on behalf of his employer is hypocritical and self- contradictory. How can a lawless government whose spokesperson described a court judgement as ‘arrangee’ now turn around to advise ALGON to go to court? Do they have the sincerity and credibility when the same government that flouted and derided court now advised that we should go to court?
This government is not competent to so advise, our lawyers are already in court to do needful and also proceed with a contempt of court case against the state government.
- All court judgments are valid.
The new government in Oyo State Should be enlightened that all court orders / judgements are valid until a higher court upturned them. It is dangerous for a state government to declare that it would only respect a court order that is valid as Governor Makinde’s Chief of Staff arrogantly stated to the press. Anarchy results when individual or government cherry – pick which court judgement he / it considers valid or not.
Constitutional democracy is about rule of law not rule of men.
“We advise Oyo State government to always tow the path of civility and rule of law. It has no power to dissolve a democratically elected local government, more so when there is a subsisting perpetual injunction / judgement by a competent court of law,” Abass-Aleshinloye concluded.
