A Federal High Court, sitting in Osogbo, on Tuesday adjourned proceedings in a matter, regarding an order to compel the National Assembly to impeach President Muhammadu Buhari over alleged constitutional breaches toNovember 26, 2018.

The plaintiffs in the suit, Barrister Kanmi Ajibola, who is the current chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ilesa branch and a human rights activist, Mr Suleiman Adeniyi who spoke to journalists accused the legal team of Buhari of allegedly slowing down the hearing of the matter by their failure to file notice of preliminary objection to their application.

It is recalled that the suit had earlier came up came up onJuly 4, 2018, but the presiding judge, JusticeMaureen Onyetenu adjourned it toNovember 26for a hearing following the inability of the council to Mr President to file the notice of preliminary objection to the processes brought before the court by the applicants.

President Muhammadu Buhari’s counsel, Barrister Solomon Ogunlowo informed the court that he just found out that the applicants had not been served the notice of preliminary objection to the reliefs being sought before the court.

While admitting that other respondents in the suit had been served, he sought for an adjournment, just as the counsel to the applicants,Mr Samuel Echeonwu and counsel for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Felix Ukaegbu did not oppose the application for adjournment of the matter by Mr President’s counsel.

But, Ogunlowo, who also spoke to journalists after the court session said “thereason for non-service was that the litigation officer that came to file the processes undertook to effect the service on all parties in the matter. Unfortunately, she served all other parties but she didn’t serve the applicants.”

Ajibola, however, contended “the matter came up in July this year and they were served in July. Ordinarily, they have seven days after service to respond to the processes served on them. But what happened in court today showed that they failed to respond within the required time by the law, maybe they did that in a way to scuttle the process, but it doesn’t stop at that.

“They ought to have commissioned bailiff to serve us but instead they offered to serve personally and having undertaken to do that, they failed to serve us.

Even the service copy they are supposed to serve us today, they said it was not in their file. Because of that, we couldn’t make progress in court today.

•Sourced from Tribune report