AFTER a month of controversies over the dissolution of the 18 councils in Ondo State, an Akure High Court yesterday restrained the Council Chairmen from parading themselves as Chairmen of the councils pending the determination of the suit challenging the dissolution of the councils by the state governor, Dr Olusegun Mimiko.

Justice Nelson Adeyanju, the presiding Judge gave the ruling on the interlocutory application brought by the state Governor, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko through his counsel, Mr. John Baiyeshea (SAN).

Governor Mimiko had on March 4, 2009 dissolved the Executive and Legislative Arms of all the 18 Local government councils in the state citing impending litigations restraining the former administration of Dr. Olusegun Agagu from conducting the local councils’ election.

Adeyanju said the plaintiffs (chairmen and the Councillors) and their agents are also restrained from administer or act in any other form or disrupting all the activities of the 18 local government councils in the state until the case is determined.

However, Adeyanju equally restrained the state government and the House of Assembly from nominating or passing the list of caretaker committee members to run the affairs of the local governments pending the determination of the substantive suit.

According to him, “In view of the undertaken entered into by the governor, no caretaker committee, nominees should be constituted or persons to run the affairs of the council until the case is determined.

Mimiko had asked the court to restrain the chairmen of the local governments from resuming offices as chairmen or doing anything capable of disrupting the smooth running of the local government administration pending the determination of the substantive suit.

He supported his application with 12 paragraphs affidavit and predicated his arguments on three main issues with included the legality of the governor’s action, the balance of convenient and the need to maintain the status quo.

Baiyeseha said the issue before the court at the interlocutory stage was not to determine the legality or otherwise of the governor’s action but to maintain status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.

According to him, the status quo as at now was that the governor has dissolved the local government and that was reason for the suit, he argued that since the council bosses could not access the council secretariats, the reality of the governor’s action has dawned on them.

Baiyeseha said the court should grant the order of interlocutory injunction. He added that section 5 and 7 of the 1999 constitution gave the governor the legal right to tamper with the structures of the third tier of government.

According to him, “we have filed a reply to the counter affidavit of the plaintiffs and we rely on the affidavit in support and we want the court to determine whether the chairmen are justified on the legal processes that brought them to office. We also refer your lordship to paragraph 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of our affidavit.

“Also, the status quo we are saying is that the dissolution has taken place and the plaintiffs have seized to be in office since March 4, 2009 which they have accepted. The legal right of the governor is based on section 5 (2) and 7 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”, he said.

Mimiko’s counsel further stated that there was no evidence that local government workers were instigated by the state government and that there was no place in their affidavit that they have been functioning in their offices since the dissolution of the councils.

“My lord, the status quo is that they are out of office but trying to force themselves into the office. And since they have joined issue in the court, they should not have done any extra-judicial activities by forcing themselves in office again”.

Otunba Kunle Kalejaye (SAN) counsel to the council chairmen while replying said the order being sought if granted would affect the substantive suit as the application is a verbatim copy of the substantive suit.

Kalejaye pointed out that section 2 of the constitution does not give the governor blank cheque to deal with the local governments.

He argued that the defendant could not restrain the council bosses from parading themselves as council chairmen unless the governor agreed that they still occupied that position in which they were to be restrained.

“Our argument is that the status quo is known to law that is with peaceful state of affairs before the litigation and not unlawfully contravene state of affairs before the litigation. My counter submission is that the constitution did not give the governor a blank arbitrary power to dissolve the councils. The governor under the constitution must act in accordance with the law”, he added.

He therefore urged the court to discountenance the interlocutory injunction sought by the governor and should be struck out accordingly.

But the counsel to the governor who doubled as the Director of Civil Litigation, Mr Cyril Akinrinsola said the governor would not do anything to overreach the decision of the court.

On his honour, Baiyeseha said “my client (Mimiko) would not constitute caretaker committee pending the determinations of the substantive suit.

However, in his ruling the Presiding Judge, Justice Adeyanju said the defendant that is Dr Mimiko was right in his application and thereby restrained the council’s bosses from parading as council chairmen pending the determination of the substantive suit.

Adeyanju therefore adjourned the case till April 29, 2009 for the hearing of the substantive suit.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/content/view/33176/46/