https://bio.site/dapurtoto1

https://linkr.bio/dapurtogel

https://heylink.me/dapurtoto88/

https://bio.site/dapurto88

https://potofu.me/dapurtoto88

situs toto

toto togel 4d

situs togel

10 situs togel terpercaya

10 situs togel terpercaya

situs togel

situs toto

bandar togel online

10 situs togel terpercaya

toto togel

toto togel

situs togel

situs togel

situs togel

situs togel

bandar togel

situs togel

toto togel

bo togel terpercaya

situs togel

situs toto

situs togel

situs togel

toto togel

situs toto

situs togel

https://www.eksplorasilea.com/

https://ukinvestorshow.com

https://advisorfinancialservices.com

https://milky-holmes-unit.com

toto togel

situs togel

slot online

Viral video: Why court stopped Ondo govt from investigating CJ

2 Min Read
Justice Akeredolu

The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, restrained the Ondo State government from investigating the state’s Chief Judge (CJ), Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu over a viral video made by a citizen of the state, Olupelumi Fagboyegun.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, who gave the order while delivering a judgment in the suit brought by the CJ against Gov. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, and others, described the move to probe the embattled judge as “unconstitutional and illegal”.

Fagboyegun, who claimed to be a stepbrother to the state’s chief judge, in the viral video, had alleged that Justice Akeredolu instigated his detention for three years for going to their father’s house.

The state government, through the Attorney General, had ordered for Justice Akeredolu’s investigation.

However, the judge had filed a suit challenging the action of the state government.

Read Also: Constitutional Review: S’East deserves 6th state – Uzodinma

While the chief judge is the plaintiff, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the National Judicial Council (NJC), Gov. Rotimi Akeredolu, the Ondo State Attorney General (AG), the state’s House of Assembly and the Inspector General of Police are 1st to 6th defendants respectively in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2016/2021.

Since the case began, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants had not been represented in court.(NAN

Share this Article