Femi Makinde, Osogbo
A Magistrate Court, sitting in Osogbo,
the Osun State capital, has issued a bench warrant against the Oluwo of
Iwo, Oba Adewale Akanbi, following the monarch’s refusal to appear in
court in a case instituted by the Oluwo of Iwo Oke, Oba Kadiri Adeoye.
The implication of the bench warrant,
according to lawyers, is that the monarch should be arrested and brought
before the court at its next adjourned sitting.
Although Oba Akanbi was represented in
court on Tuesday by his counsel, Mr. Olaide Yekeen, Magistrate Olusola
Aluko issued the bench warrant despite the application for a stay of
proceeding, notice of preliminary objection and a notice of appeal filed
before the court.
Oba Akanbi, the paramount ruler of
Iwoland, was dragged before the court by the Oluwo of Iwo Oke, for
alleged criminal offences.
The magistrate had, at the last sitting
of the court on December 2, threatened to issue a bench warrant on the
monarch if he refused to appear in court on Tuesday (yesterday).
Counsel for Oba Akanbi had told the court that his client had several
applications before the court, adding that the notice of preliminary
objection, which bordered on competence and jurisdiction of the court,
should be heard first before the substantive application.
He said Section 19 (1) of the Magistrate
Court Laws highlighted the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the
court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
“When there is an application
challenging the jurisdiction of the court, such application should be
taken first. We are vehemently and seriously challenging the competence
and jurisdiction of this court and our applications should be taken
first,” he said.
But counsel for the applicant, Soji
Oyetayo, in his submission, told the court that the court made an order
which the Oluwo had refused to comply with.
He stated that the applications, filed
by the first respondent (the Oluwo) could not stop the order of the
court that the monarch should appear before it.
“I urge the court to jettison the
applications. They have to obey the earlier order of the court. The
first respondent should be in court today but he is not in a flagrant
disobedience of the court order,” he said.
The magistrate, in his ruling, agreed
with the respondent (the Oluwo) on the issue of jurisdiction, but said
the notice of appeal was not ripe.
He said, “The court mandated the first
respondent to appear in court. He has violated the court order of the
last adjourned date. I hereby issue a bench warrant against him.”
The counsel for Oluwo, while speaking
with journalists on the court premises, said the applications for a stay
of proceedings, notice of appeal and application on the jurisdiction of
the court, ought to have been heard first before the magistrate issued
the bench warrant.
Yekeen stated that the authorities he
cited during the hearing should suffice, adding that even in a case of
contempt of court, the court should hear such objections first.
He argued that the order was made in error.
Yekeen added, “As it is, what we have is
that we are following the due process of the law and we believe that
the law should be and grow and it should be allowed to follow the due
process.
“If a doctor makes a mistake, the
mistake is buried six feet under the ground but if a lawyer or a judge
makes a mistake, the mistake will be inherited by generations unborn.
That is what we have today.”
Comments
Post a Comment