Politics
On Supreme Court Ouster Of Five Governors
Democracy simply means meeting the wishes of the people. It is a government of the people by the people for the people, while the judiciary, another arm of government is placed in a way to strengthen democratic institutions by way of interpreting the law and to re-positioning and re-direct the process.
Democracy in Africa has not sufficiently helped the progress and development of the continent.
The people of Africa are yet to start choosing their leaders despite the fact that most countries in the continent practise democracy.
The people are yet to have the opportunity to elect their leaders. Leaders in some countries in Africa have used the process to sit tight in power and in government while some change the rules at the middle of the game.
Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe has held on to power for many years is a classical example.
The present President of Senegal whose tenure expires this year after being in office for two tenures of over eight years has succeeded in amending the electotal law of that country to suit his ambition to remain in power.
Those in government in Nigeria, the acclaimed most populated black nation in the world have tried both in the military era and civilian rules to stay put, but such attempts have failed due to complexity of the country and the people.
Last Friday, was another test for democracy in Nigeria where some governors whose intention to stay put in power longer than their allowed tenure were terminated by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its ruling terminated the tenures of Governors of Ibrahim Idris (Kogi), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Timipre Sylva (Bayesla), Aliyu Wamako (Sokoto) and Liyel Imoke (Cross River).
The Apex Court declared that there was no reasons whatsoever for them to stay beyond last May 29, having first taken oaths of allegiance on May 29, 2007.
A seven member Panel of the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Dahiru Musdapher delievered the judgement in an appeal filed by the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) governorship candidate in Adamawa State, Rtd Brig. General Baba Marwa and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The Apex Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the Governors and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the appeal.
The court in giving its ruling explained that no elected officers under the 1999 Constitution can remain in office beyond four years.
In its view that since the acts performed during the period prior to the nullification of the election remain valid and subsisting and the same persons contested and won the re-run election thereby taking another set of oaths and since what was nullified was the election, the oath they took in 2007 remain valid and the starting point in calculating their four years tenure in office as Governors of their respective states.
The Court stretched further that the 1999 constitution does not envisage a tenure exceeding four years by the same person who took the first oath following the election which kick started the tenure.
Legal experts have expressed divergent views about the verdict sacking the five governors from office.
Prof. Itse Sagey (SAN) said the judgement was a healthy one and that it will help set a moral tone for good practice of democracy.
Sagey said apart from the fact that the judgement would set a moral tone for democracy, it would as well discourage politicians and those who would want to sit tight in government and power from rigging elections.
According to him, people should not be made to benefit from their fraud and criminality.
Also in his own contribution on the issue, a Port Harcourt based Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Sabastine Tar Hon said the sack of the five governors by the Supreme Court would be mere academic exercise for those who have contrary views on the judgement.
Hon said although the decision is final, all parties must comply with, either favourable or not.
According to him, “the Supreme Court may have to revisit the decision some day. It was the same Supreme Court that held in 2009, in the case of the Labour Party (LP) versus Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), that when an election is annulled and re-run ordered, both the election and the oath taken are gone”.
“In this case, the original oaths the governors had taken ceased to exist, when they went in for fresh elections and subsequently took fresh oaths of office, there cannot be two oaths in one tenure, he said.
Hon however, said since the Supreme Court is the conscience of the nation which has the jurisprudential powers to give even policy decisions, we must be bound by it.
He said any contrary opinion is merely an academic exercise and urged Nigerians and politicians to always give peace a chance in order to move the country forward.
The issue of elongation came to limelight in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Governor of Anambra State, Chief Peter Obi.
Chief Obi who became Governor at the middle of the tenure after obtaining judgment from Appeal tribunal against the sitting Governor then, Dr. Chris Ngige of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The judgment was to allow the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate, Chief Obi the opportunity to serve and complete his 4 years tenure.
This became the reasons even though an election was conducted in Anambra in 2007, and by INEC and Chief Andy Uba was sworn in, Obi was asked to return to the Government House and complete this tenure as governor.
Many including Hon. Chinyere Igwe believed that the case of Chief Peter Obi versus INEC was different. He said Nigerian politicians always explore every opportunity that comes their way.
Hon. Chinyere Igwe, a former member of House of Representatives, said last Friday judgement was in order since the effected governors had served four years in office.
According to him, I see no legal backing why they should stay in office more than the stipulated time frame.
Igwe, a legal practitioner, commended the Supreme Court for its wisdom, adding that the verdict will surely reposition and strengthen democracy in Nigeria.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed, through a second reading, a bill seeking to retain immunity for the Office of the President and remove immunity from the Vice President, the Governors and the Deputy Governors.
The bill was one of the 42 considered and passed through the second reading stage during plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Benjamin Kalu, in Abuja.
Sponsored by Hon. Solomon Bob (Rivers PDP), the bill is seeking the amendment of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to guard against abuse of office and to ensure transparency in governance.
The long title of the proposed legislation read: “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity and enhance accountability in public office and for related matters.”
Key amendments include changes to Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants immunity to the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors while in office.
The proposed bill will amend subsection 3 to ensure that immunity only applies to the President and the vice president when acting as President under Section 145 of the Constitution.
Additionally, a new subsection 4 will be introduced to make the immunity clause inapplicable if the office holder is acting in an unofficial capacity, engaging in actions beyond the powers of the office, or involved in criminal conduct.
“The bill seeks to foster transparency and strengthen the fight against corruption by making public officials more accountable for their actions, both in and out of office.”
“Section 308 of the principal Act is amended by:(a) substituting a new subsection (3) as follows: “(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President, in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.
Creating sub section (4) thereto as follows:”(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.
“This Bill may be cited as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) Act 2024.
The bill is currently awaiting further debate and consideration by the National Assembly.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has written to notify Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central, about the petition by constituents seeking her recall from the national assembly.
INEC said it has also received the contact details of the petitioners.
“Pursuant to section 69 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, I write to notify you of the receipt of a petition from representatives of registered voters in your constituency seeking your recall from the senate.
“The notification is in line with the provisions of clause 2 (a) of the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024.
“This letter is also copied to the presiding officer of the senate and simultaneously published on the commission’s website. Thank you”, the letter read.
The letter was signed by Ruth Oriaran Anthony, secretary to the commission.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued on Wednesday, INEC said it has now received the updated contact details from representatives of petitioners seeking to recall the senator.
In the statement, Sam Olumekun, INEC’s National Commissioner and Chairman of Information and Voter Education, said a letter notifying the senator of the petition has been delivered to her official address, copied to the senate presiding officer, and published on the commission’s website.
“The next step is to scrutinise the list of signatories submitted by the petitioners to ascertain that the petition is signed by more than one half (over 50%) of the registered voters in the constituency. This will be done in the coming days.
“The outcome, which will be made public, shall determine the next step to be taken by the Commission. We once again reassure Nigerians that the process will be open and transparent”, Mr Olumekun said.
Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan had recently accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexually harassing her.
The allegation came in the wake of seating arrangement related altercation between Senator. Akpabio and the Kogi Central senator at the red chamber
She was subsequently suspended from the senate for six months for “gross misconduct” over the incident.
The constituents behind the recall move also accused her of “gross misconduct, abuse of office, and deceitful behaviour”.
The senator has denied wrongdoing and called the recall effort a “coordinated suppression” of her voice.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the second reading of a bill to upgrade the Lagos State 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) to full-fledged Local Government Areas (LGAs ).
The bill, was sponsored by James Faleke, Babajimi Benson, Enitan Badru, and 19 other lawmakers.
The bill is titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to Accommodate the Thirty-Seven (37) Development Area Councils of Lagos State as Full-Fledged Local Government Areas, Increasing the Total Number of Local Government Areas in the Federation to Eight Hundred and Eleven (811), and for Related Matters (HB. 1498),”
Once fully enacted, Nigeria’s total number of LGAs will rise from 774 to 811, with Lagos overtaking Kano and Katsina, which currently have 44 and 34 LGAs, respectively.
Proponents of the bill argue that granting full LGA status to the LCDAs would bring governance closer to the people. The 37 LCDAs were created by President Bola Tinubu in 2003 when he was governor of Lagos State.
However, it’s worth noting that the Lagos State House of Assembly has been working on a bill to replace the 37 LCDAs with newly designated administrative areas.