Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, warned against delay in the suit filed by ex-Edo State Deputy Governor, Philip Shaibu, to challenge his impeachment and removal from office.

The judge gave the warning while further adjourning the hearing in the case till June 28.

Also read : Impeachment: Shaibu writes CJN, APC members warn against ex-deputy’s return

The adjournment followed the absence of the defendants in the suit.

Among the defendants are the Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki and others.

Shaibu’s political crisis began after he declared his intention to contest the governorship of the state, against the wishes of Governor Obaseki, leading to a frosty relationship between the two.

He subsequently lost the governorship primary to Asue Ighodalo, the governor’s preference.

Shaibu was thereafter impeached on April 8, 2024, following the adoption of the report of a seven-man committee set up by the Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, to investigate allegations of misconduct brought against him.

He, however, approached the court to declare his impeachment unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

At the last sitting, Justice Omotoso granted permission for the Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly and the new deputy governor to be joined in the suit as ninth and tenth defendants, respectively.

At the hearing on Wednesday, Shaibu’s lead counsel, Ayotunde Ogunleye (SAN), told the court that the matter was initially for Monday, June 3, but the industrial action by the organised labour disrupted the sitting.

He then asked the court for a short adjournment.

He earlier informed the court of an order stating that all parties must file and exchange their processes based on the abridgement of time and accelerated hearing granted in respect of the suit.

Following the agreement of the counsel in the suit to settle for June 28, Justice Omotoso subsequently adjourned till that date.

The judge warned parties in the suit against footdragging the matter, as he held that he would not tolerate any further delay from any party in the hearing of the matter.

He also said any party seeking objections against the suit must do so along with the substantive matter, adding that in a situation where any of the parties was refusing to be in court, he would invoke relevant laws to proceed with the matter and processes filed would be adopted to do justice to parties in the suit.