Speaker of Cross River State House of Assembly, Hon. Larry Odey being sworn in as acting governor of the state
By Tunde Rahman and Tobi Soniyi
In the end, the Supreme Court has more clarifications and judgments to give. “The law is what the Supreme Court says it is. We are bound by the court judgment”. That was the reaction of a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) who represented Murtala Nyako, then governor of Adamawa State, while commending the justices of the Supreme Court after they delivered the landmark judgment that sent five states governors packing. But while the Supreme Court verdict with respect to Adamawa, Sokoto and Cross River seems straight forward in that the governors would vacate their seats and contest the upcoming governorship polls in their states where they have already emerged as candidates of the ruling PDP, the matter is not that straight in respect of Kogi and Bayelsa states.
Many are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court raised more questions than it solved in the two states and would lead to further litigations. For instance, the judgment did not say expressly state who should be sworn in with regard to Kogi State. Is it the Speaker of the state House of assembly or Captain Idris Wada who won the December 3 governorship election and is waiting in the wings to take over?
In the seeming confusion, the two of them have been sworn-in, Wada by the President of the Customary Court of Appeal and the Speaker by the Chief Judge of the state. The Attorney-General of the federation and Justice Minister Muhammed Adoke had given a blanket directive that speakers should be inaugurated to take over in the states where the governors have been sacked, failing deliberately or otherwise to single out the case of Kogi where Wada believes he has been elected and waiting to take over.
But the real issue at the heart of the problem in Kogi and Bayelsa revolves around the questions - which should be considered the authentic governorship primaries of the PDP in the two states and who are the bonafide candidates of the party? Is it the January 2011 primaries of the party that had produced Alhaji Jibrin Isa alias Echocho for Kogi and former governor Timipre Sylva for Bayelsa or the latter primaries that produced Wada in Kogi and Hon. Seriake Dickson in Bayelsa? Both Isa and Sylva are at present in courts - Isa insisting on the sanctity of the January PDP primary and Sylva battling against his exclusion from the PDP primary election held in November but now also canvassing that the January primary subsists.
Following Friday’s judgment, however, many take the position that the implication of the verdict seems to be that the January primaries of PDP stand since the governorship election should have held abinitio in the two states in April 2011 and that candidates had been picked for the elections that were postponed in the states because of the extension of the governors’ tenure, now declared illegal and unconstitutional by the apex court.
Another school of thought views the matter differently. To them, since the election did not hold at the time, their candidature may have lapsed. The courts would have to decide all that.
A counsel in the case, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN) who represented the former Cross River State Governor Liyel Imoke said the judgment would lead to further litigations. He specifically said that in the case of Kogi State, Wada was entitled to be sworn-in.
He said: “Wada is entitled to be sworn-in although I expect the matter to come back to the courts as there a lot of issues that are yet to be pronounced on. There are definitely going to be a lot of litigations in the days ahead.
“Like the issue of which primary should stand: the primary of January 2011 or that of September 2011. Another issue is that of the governors that were affected by the judgment if they eventually win their second term. When should their tenure begin? Should it start when they took their last oath of office in 2008 or begin afresh? These are the issues that will still need to be pronounced on.”
But the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Chief Joseph Daudu (SAN) has called on the citizens of the affected states to accept the judgment in the interest of peace.
Even if the citizens were willing to accept the judgment, from all indications, the politicians seem unlikely to so do. This is because the judgment had raised new issues. These issues are summarised succinctly by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome. He said: “If a person defeats an incumbent governor seeking re-election, will the new entrant enjoy four years from the date he is sworn in, or will he, as the Supreme court has held in relation to a coming back governor, be entitled to whatever unexpired residue of tenure his defeated predecessor had remaining?
“How is this judgment distinguished from Peter Obi’s case that sacked Andy Uba from office as the shortest reigning governor in Nigeria?
“What happened to the amendment of Section 182 of the 1999 Constitution? What mischief and lacuna did the legislature cure? Are oath of office and allegiance merely decorative with no constitutional import? Scholars and jurisprudential analysts will debate this judgment and dissect it for a long time to come.”
SOURCE: ThisDay, 28 January 2012. http://www.thisdaylive.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment