Ex-Speaker’s Removal Irreversible – Ekiti Assembly, APC

Ekiti State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the state House of Assembly have responded to the stance of the seven legal luminaries on the crisis rocking the state legislative arm of government, saying the removal of Rt. Hon. Gboyega Aribisogan as Speaker had come to stay.

The party in a statement by its Publicity Secretary, Mr Segun Dipe said while the seven legal icons conveniently referred to the Constitution of the country and the Rules of the House, they deliberately ignored the Constitution of APC as a party as though it does not count.

Eminent lawyers, Aare Afe Babalola, Chief Wole Olanipekun, Femi Falana and five other Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) had condemned and described the impeachment of Rt. Hon Gbenga Aribisogan as new Speaker of the Assembly as illegal.

The Assembly in a separate statement, signed by its new Chairman, House Committee on Media and Publicity, Hon. Adeoye Aribasoye and dated November 24, 2022 said that the new Speaker, Mrs Bunmi Adelugba shall remain in office.

“It is unfortunate that our elder statesmen did not hear from the side of the new Speaker and the remaining 16 members who impeached the former Speaker, Rt. Hon. Gboyega Aribisogan, and elected Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba.

RELATED

Opposition Coalition: A Make-or-Break Moment for APC In 2027

2 hours ago

SDP Disassociates Self From Gombe Coalition Group

4 hours ago

“For the avoidance of doubt, Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba remains the validly elected Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly and she enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of the Honourable members, party leadership and the government of Ekiti State.

“Therefore, the advice of the legal luminaries that Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba who was duly elected by 17 members should stop parading herself as the Speaker of the Ekiti state House of Assembly, is unwarranted and we believe this is based on wrong information by the impeached Speaker”.

The party also noted that, since the matter, which the legal luminaries waded into and tried to adjudicate upon is already in court, their action is prejudicial and runs counter to the legal tenets, which they uphold.