Court warns Daniel, Bankole, Salako against contempt

A Federal High Court in Lagos has warned a former
Governor of Ogun State, Gbenga Daniel; a former
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji
Bankole; and a former member of the House
Representatives from Ogun State, Dave Salako, against
taking the court for a ride.
Justice Okon Abang, on Monday, threatened that the
court would not hesitate to order their arrest to show that
“the court would not only bark but it could bite and where
adequately provoked, it would even crush bones.”
The warning was issued following the failure of Daniel,
Bankole and Salako to appear in court on Monday in a
contempt suit instituted against them by the Ogun State
Peoples Democratic Party executives.
Other respondents in the suit are the PDP and the
Independent National Electoral Commission.
The Adebayo Dayo-led executive of the PDP in the
state, believed to be loyal to Prince Buruji Kashamu, a
chieftain of the party, had asked the court to jail Daniel,
Bankole and Salako for allegedly failing to comply with
two separate judgements of the court in respect of the
party executives in the state.
It was the allegation of the applicants that Bankole,
Daniel and Salako had been engaging in series of
activities to dissolve the Dayo-led executive, despite two
separate judgments of the Federal High Court affirming
the legality of the Dayo-led executives.
When the matter came up on Monday, out of the three
alleged contemnors, only Salako was represented in court
by his lawyer, Dele Oloke.
Bankole’s lawyer, Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), sent a letter
informing the court that he was before the Court of
Appeal in Ekiti and therefore asked for an adjournment.
But opposing the prayer for adjournment, the applicants’
counsel, R.A. Oluyede, said adjournment at the instance
of the respondents was not allowed in a contempt
proceeding.
Ruling on the application for adjournment, Justice Abang
noted that a contempt proceeding was not a civil proceeding
but a quasi-criminal one, in which personal appearance of
the respondents was mandatory.
Frowning on their absence, the judge said, “The alleged
contemnors are not in court, but they ought to be in court.
It is mandatory that they have to be here. They cannot be
in the comfort of their homes and be controlling the court.
They must be in court before any application filed by them
can be taken.”
The judge described their behaviour as “reprehensible to the
extreme,” adding, “I will not be a party to this kind of
unwholesome development where an accused stays in the
comfort of his home to be controlling the court. If the
alleged contemnors failed to willingly report themselves by
being in court, I will compel their appearance.”