The Supreme Court Of Nigeria On This Day Four Years Ago Made Two Distinctive Judgments As Follows:-

1- ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI v. BARR. NASIRU AUDU DANGIRI & ORS
(2014) LPELR-24020(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 21st day of November, 2014

SC.416/2013

Before Their Lordships

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI - Appellant(s)

AND
1. BARR. NASIRU AUDU DANGIRI
(Chairman, Panel of Investigation into Allegations of Gross
Misconduct against the Deputy Governor of Taraba State)
2. ARCH. USMAN BINGA
3. BARR. R. J. IKITAUSAI
4. ELDER JAPHET WUBON
5. ALH. MUSTAPHA SANI
6. HAJ. AISHATU MUHAMMED
7. MR. JULIUS DAWHAI KAIGAMA (Members of the Panel) - Respondent(s)

Summary

This appeal was brought by the Appellant, who was serving his second term as Deputy Governor of Taraba State against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Division which confirmed the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State, which struck out his Originating Summons, seeking to set-aside his impeachment by the Taraba State House of Assembly. On 4/9/2012 members of the Taraba State House of Assembly laid before the speaker of the House a Notice of Complaint of gross misconduct against the appellant who was serving his second term in office as a Deputy Governor of the State. On that day the complaint was served on him for his reply, which he promptly did and forwarded to the said House.

Pursuant to Section 188(4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic (as amended) the House of Assembly on 18/9/2012 passed a motion to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct against the appellant. Consequently the speaker of the House of Assembly requested the Acting Chief Judge of the State to constitute a 7-member panel to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct against the appellant pursuant to Section 188(5) of the Constitution (supra). Agitated by the happenings, appellant filed an Originating Summons, followed by a motion restraining the Panel from investigating him. In spite of his motion, the panel went ahead with the investigation against him. The respondents concluded and submitted their report to the State House of Assembly which was adopted by the House and the appellant was removed from office. Appellant, however, continued to prosecute his Amended Originating Summons to which the respondents raised their preliminary objection challenging the procedure. The learned trial judge sustained the objection and struck out the case. The appellant was not satisfied with the judgment. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In his appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment, appellant formulated the following three issues from his grounds of appeal for determination in his brief of argument:

"1. Whether having regard to the fact that no order or relief is sought against either the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State or the Taraba State House of Assembly their non-joinder is fatal to the plaintiff's suit. (Ground 1 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal). 2. Whether the action being commenced by originating summons is incompetent. (Ground 2 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal). 3. Whether the Honourable learned trial Judge ought to have set aside the proceedings and the report of the Seven-man Panel which investigated the allegation of gross misconduct against the appellant for want of fair hearing. (Ground 3 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal)" The above issues were adopted by the respondents in their joint brief of argument. The Court of Appeal resolved issues 1 and 3 against the appellant and issue 2 against the respondent. The Court below dismissed the appeal. Appellant was aggrieved and appealed to this Court on eleven grounds from which he distilled the following five issues in his brief of argument: "1. Whether having held that the mode of commencement of the action via Originating Summons was proper in the circumstance of this case, the Court of Appeal was right to have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit was improperly commenced. (Ground 1 and 2 of the appeal). 2. Whether the Honourable learned Justices of the Court below were right in striking out issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the appellant's amended Originating Summons without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. (Ground 3 of the Notice and Ground of Appeal). 3. Whether the Taraba State House of Assembly and the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State were necessary parties to the Amended Originating Summons. (Grounds 4 & 5). 4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the appeal when the Court did not dismiss all the reliefs. (Ground) of the Amended Originating Summons and when the self-same Court held that the trial Court ought to have ordered pleadings and tried the Suit on pleadings. (Grounds 6, 7 and 8 of the Grounds of Appeal). 5. Whether the Court below was right when it held that the Panel was right to have proceeded with the investigation activities and the forwarding of the Report to the Taraba State House of Assembly despite being served with the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction on 28th September, 2012. (Grounds 9, 10 and 11 of the Grounds of Appeal)".

In his brief of argument, learned Counsel for the Respondents reproduced and adopted the five issues framed by the appellant. After due analysis, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

It was hereby ordered that the entire proceedings of the Panel that purported, at the instance of the Taraba State House of Assembly, to investigate the allegation of gross misconduct made by the House against the appellant, the Deputy Governor of Taraba State, up to and including the incomplete and edited report relied on in removing the appellant by the House, is hereby declared null and void and of no legal or factual consequence whatsoever. In effect, the Court declared that the appellant, Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi still remains the Deputy Governor of Taraba State and he is to resume his interrupted duties of his office forthwith.

2- ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI v. TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS (2014) LPELR-24021(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 21st day of November, 2014

SC.418/2013

Before Their Lordships

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI - Appellant(s)

AND
1. TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
2. RT. HON. ISTIFANUS GBANA
(SPEAKER, TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY)
3. HON. JUSTICE J. Y. TURKUR
(ACTING CHIEF JUDGE OF TARABA STATE)
4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF TARABA STATE
5. THE GOVERNOR OF TARABA STATE
6. ALHAJI GARBA UMARU
(DEPUTY GOVERNOR, TARABA STATE) - Respondent(s)

Summary

This appeal emanated from the proceedings of a panel set up by the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State at the instance of the 1st Respondent to investigate allegation of gross misconduct against the appellant. Based on the report of the panel, the 1st Respondent removed the appellant from office as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State. Appellant challenged his impeachment and removal from office in the High Court of Taraba State. The trial Court ruled against him.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal which court dismissed the appeal. Appellant then further appealed to this court seeking the following reliefs: "a. Allow the appeal. b. Set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division in its entirety delivered on 19th July, 2013 which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. c. Set aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the appellant's Originating Summons. d. Nullify the impeachment proceedings and the impeachment (removal) of the appellant as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State. e. An order re-instating the Appellant as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State." In conclusion,the appeal was held not to have any live issue in it and the lead judge accordingly dismissed and struck it out. Parties are to bear their respective costs.

However, Justice Rhodes-vivour was of dissenting view about the whole case. He stated that having read carefully submission of counsel on this issue, he is not swayed by the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is preferred. He stated further that Legislative business especially for impeachment of a high official is a very serious matter that demands the highest standards from honourable members. Their legislative acts should be seen at all times as in the best interest of the country and not to settle political scores.

Conducting legislative acts in a Guest House becomes laughable in the eyes of the public. He went further to state that the commencement of impeachment proceedings from a Guest House is a clear move by the legislators to achieve set goals by subterranean procedure. It is wrong. The whole world saw on television the impeachment proceedings of one time President of the U.S.A Bill Clinton, by the House of Representatives. It was not a hidden affair.

The venue was the House of Representatives and every step in the impeachment proceedings was taken/done in the House of Representatives and not in a Hotel. It is unconstitutional, null and void for the members of the Taraba State House of Assembly to deliberate, and then prepare a notice alleging misconduct against the appellant in a Guest House. In his conclusion,the appellant was denied fair hearing and he held the appeal allowed.