Follow Us on Google
From Oluseye Ojo, Ibadan
The Osi Olubadan of Ibadanland, Rashidi Ladoja, , has asked the state High Court to set aside the report of Justice Akintunde Boade-led Judicial Commission of Inquiry on the review of Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957.
Ladoja, who was a former governor of Oyo State and Otun Olubadan, Lekan Balogun, had sued the government over the constitution of the commission in May, this year.
They listed Governor Abiola Ajimobi and members of the commission of inquiry as defendants.
The claimants prayed the court, in the suit number M/317/2017, to restrain the commission from sitting, accepting any memorandum or in any way taking any step in furtherance of its assignment, pending the determination of motion on notice in respect of the subject.
In the latest case, counsel to Ladoja, Michael Lana, in a motion filed before Justice M. I. Sule, yesterday, prayed the court to nullify the proceedings of the panel and its report.
The commission recommended 32 beaded-crown wearing monarchs for Ibadan, while the Olubadan of Ibadanland will be the paramount ruler of Ibadanland and the remaining 31 kings will be subject to him.
The commission, among other things, also recommended reduction of steps to become Olubadan and pegged the age of entry into Olubadan chieftaincy to between 25 and 35 years.
But, in the latest suit, Lana asked the court to compel Justice Boade and members of the panel to appear before it so that they could explain why they should not be held for contempt of court in respect of the first suit he filed on the review of the Olubadan chieftaincy declaration.
Though application for the removal of Balogun from the first suit was moved by Lana yesterday, the motion for court contempt could not be moved because the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in the state, Oluwaseun Abimbola, who appeared for Governor Ajimobi, said the governor was yet to be served with the processes.
Justice Sule, after listening to the parties, adjourned the case to September 5, 2017, before which the claimant must have properly served the attorney general so that he could also file his reply to the processes.
