OYO GOVERNMENT MAKES CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS ON DEMOLITION OF AYEFELE’S RADIO STATION
‘This is to show that the action of the State Government is not to witch-hunt anyone as we even reported the radio stations to NBC. We also wrote to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on some banks contravening the Oyo State Physical Planning and Development Control laws, sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Oyo State Physical Planning and Urban Development Law of 2012.
“Music House submitted a building plan on June 14, 2018 which necessitated the joint inspection visit we carried out on June 25, 2018. It was discovered that it was meant to be an office complex and not a radio station among some other infractions including a building size measured 29.7 metres by 21.6 metres on ground as against the 11.925metres by 10.20metres in the survey plan/building plan submitted by Music House.”
Penpushing, however, reports that in contrast to the explanation at the press conference, the State Government through its counsel , Yomi Alliyu denied demolishing the Music House before Justice Iyabo Yerima of the State High Court , Ring Road , Ibadan.
Penpushing also reports that, in a case instituted by Ayefele against Governor Abiola Ajimobi and Bola Abimbola, the Attorney-General of Oyo State, Alliyu who is the counsel for both defendants said his clients were shocked to read about the reported demolition on Sunday morning .
The Counsel told the court that, the State Government is planning to set up a panel of enquiry to find out those responsible for the demolition, adding that, “my clients are men of honour that respect rule of law and constituted authority and will have no reason to demolish the said property ,” .
Penpushing further report that the lawyer , who had earlier denied that his clients were served with court processes , quickly reversed himself when the judge showed him evidence of actual service on the first and second respondents.
He, however, urged the court to adjourn the case pending the time the claimant would be able to file and serve his clients with notice of the ex- parte motion since the court was on vacation, arguing that filing of motion on notice and letter of urgency alone by the claimant was not enough.
Penpushing reports that, counsel to the claimant, Olayinka Bolanle, told the Court that the respondents had gone ahead to demolish the structure in spite of a court restraining order,arguing that, “even after the defendants had become aware of this proceedings , it is sad and unbelievable my Lord that the defendants in the wee hours of Sunday, August 19 , went to the property in dispute and demolished it.”
He prayed the court to reiterate its earlier order restraining the defendants from further demolition of the rest of the structure pending the determination of the suit.
Penpushing reports that, Justice Iyabo Yerima adjourned the case until September 12 for hearing of applications and urged parties to file necessary processes before the adjourned date.
