The Nation Newspaper

Category: Politics

  • Reconciliation is tough in APGA, says Ufomba

    Reconciliation is tough in APGA, says Ufomba

    The Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Committee, Chief Reagan Ufomba, spoke with Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU on the protracted leadership tussles and way out of the crises.

    What is the latest on the APGA reconciliation?

    Our national chairman, Chief Maxi Okwu, set up a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Committee with us as members. We have been going round the country and we started with the Southeast where we met with Chief Victor Umeh, the very first day after our inauguration. We also met with the deputy national leader of our great party, Sir Peter Obi. We met with another leader and statesman, Chief Nwogbu Alor. Our train moved to Imo State where we met with one of our Igbo leaders, Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, the MASSOB leader. We have also been talking on phone to many stakeholders, including the wife of our late leader, Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu. Today, we have met with one of the leaders of our party, Barrister Obinna Obiegwe. We are in search of unity in our party. It is believed that in the end, we will have a united, cohesive, peaceful and ready to go APGA party in Nigeria.

    What has the committee achieved, so far?

    We have made giant strides in that we were able to talk to stakeholders, both those who are happy and aggrieved and they are opening up.

    As it is always said, a problem known is half solved. We have in our data base, a collection of issues, that are treatable, that are solvable, that we are solving and that we are going to solve so that we will have a one family APGA in the nearest future.

    That is why we are in Lagos today to talk with our stakeholders who include Barrister Obinna Obiegwe, Martins Agbaso one of our leaders from Imo and his junior brother was the former deputy governor of Imo traditional heads and opinion leaders in Ibo land.

    What was your meeting with Umeh like, given that he has also constituted a reconciliation committee?

    It does not matter how many committees that are in place to bring about peace, what is important is the achiement of that objective which is a united APGA. I also did tell you that we met Sir Victor Umeh, the following day after our inauguration and that alone is a remarkable success. I want to also inform that we are very hopeful that everybody is willing to make concessions in the interest of our party, in the interest of democracy in Nigeria and in the interest of Igboland where APGA is very, very dominant. People see APGA as their religion in that part of the country and we are drumming this to their very consciousness and it is making sense to all the people we have spoken to.

    What of the Imo State governor?

    We will see the governor as soon as we successfully book appointment with him. You know, he is a very busy governor and the moment we track him down, we will talk with him. For now, we have not been able to track him down.

    How did Umeh receive you and what did you discuss?

    We discussed about peace.

    How did he receive you?

    We were well received. We were inaugurated on Monday (penul-timate week) and on Tuesday we were in his house at about 12 noon. He waited for us, he met with us and everybody saw the need for unity in the party and everybody saw the need to make concessions because as far as this committee is concerned, there is no way we can bring about peace and unity unless people are willing to concede one thing or another and that is what we have been telling them and I think they are going to abide by that.

    But, in spite of receiving you, there are reports that he is standing his ground as the chairman of the party.

    We were not expecting an automatic answer or concession from him. This committee will also bring other stakeholders who have interest in Igbo land, in democracy and democracy in Nigeria to prevail on them and already we have picked some people that will help us broker peace. But to the best of our knowledge, I think peace is near.

    Now that the election is at hand, is this not a tough one?

    I agree it is a tough one, but there are also legal and political solutions to political issues. Look at what is happening in PDP. The leader of the party asked certain people to resign and they have resigned in the overall interest of the party. If it becomes absolutely necessary, we will apply the same method in APGA to ensure that we move forward. So, we are not ruling out anything.

    This committee is about truth and injustice. So, what truth has emerged and what injustice has been complained about?

    The truth as so far catalogued are being put together. we will not reveal everything all at the same time. but the truth is that there is need for us to recognise that there is a leader in the party and that there is party leadership. So, if we are able to note and reckon with the fact that parties do not exist in a vacuum, that parties exist for purposes of electing political office holders whom we must respect, that peace is near.

    So, who is that leader?

    Our leader as agreed in the party is Dim Odimegwu Ojukwu. He remains our leader, it is agreed it is written and Governor Peter Obi remains our deputy national leader. We owe him allegiance whether as party chairmen or as political leaders in the party. We found also from Umeh that he assumed his position as the chairman by virtue of affirmation and that there was no ward congress, no local government congress, no state congress that elected the national delegates and he admitted that it was mere affirmation.

    So, what is your fall back position, if all these efforts do not succeed?

    As a political party duly registered by INEC and functioning as so, we have the capacity to resolve our crisis whatever it is and that is why you have this committee.

    Most of the stakeholders are definitely talking so, the issue of plan B does not arise.

    Some of your members are already holding talks with other parties

    But so are other parties holding talks with us. As we talk to you, we have recorded 70% success in this assignment. I am talking to you factually.

    So, who do the state chapters relate with?

    Let me tell you, in most of the meetings I have attended, I saw them with Maxis Okwu, and for your information, if you check out the members of the NWC that were with Umeh, Umeh has only three of them.

    Let me tell you that besides this committee, there is another reconciliation committee (constituted by Umeh) and the chairman of that committee is allegedly a member of APGA. He is from the same state with him (Imo Chairman) and he knows that he is not a member of APGA.

    So, when you set up a structure outside the party because you have lost so much ground where you cannot agree with the BoT, you do not agree with the wife of our leader, you do not agree with the governor produced by the party, you do not agree with your deputy north, your deputy south, your national youth leader, your national women leader, and all these zonal vice chairmen and what you do is that you are alone and you are bringing people to answer APGA…

    I was the candidate in Abia State, I know where I stand even as the chairman of this reconciliation committee and most of the stakeholders are here. So you can see where one man is almost becoming the forest and we are saying no to that. While we must tell the world the truth, we are still amenable to reconciliation, to peace anchored on this truth as revealed to you.Even from the leadership of that committee you can see the bent or slant of the leadership under Umeh. We are not indicting him because we are here to make peace and to make reconciliation but these are things that we must correct, if we must have a strong and purposeful party called APGA.

  • Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    •Continued from yesterday

    The Tribunal, at pages 3113 3114 of Volume 4 of the Records, found “as a fact that the 2nd Petitioner (Appellant) was given the 2012 Voters Register on the 20th of September, 2012, as stated by PWs 4, 5, 23 and 40” and thereafter stated:

    Having got the 2012 Voters Register about one Month before the election took place, we agree with the 1st Respondent that all issues relating to the Voters Register 2011 as compared to the one of 2012 are purely pre-election issues over which the Tribunal vide Section 131(5) of the Electoral Act (over which this Tribunal) has no jurisdiction. See OLUYENNI V. ASHAOLU (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 522) 682 and IBRAHIM V. INEC (Supra).

    A distinction must, however, be drawn between the 2012 Voters Register which as we have held is a pre-election matter and its use as at the October 20, 2012 election, a fact within our jurisdiction. Put differently, if the Petitioners chose to ignore the injections in the Voters Register as they did rather than challenge it before the Ondo State High Court or the Federal High Court, they can only complain before us of any electoral malpractice in the election using the Voters Register during the election and not before. To that extent the evidence of PWs 34 and 35 propelled on Exhibits P52 (A & B) and P55, P56 and P57 (A1 – A20) attempting to analyse the Voters Register will be irrelevant. The irregularities in the 2012 Voters Register were known to the Petitioners about one month before the election took place. If they felt the Register was/is, for the reasons they state, invalid, they ought to have challenged it before the appropriate Court. They cannot come before us to seek a nullification of the Register and by extension the election due to the injections in it. It is a different matter if they are able to prove that the illegal or injected voters voted.

    Estoppel by conduct, under Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 seems to be the prop of this reasoning of the Tribunal.

    It is trite to state that parties are bound by their pleadings. The Petitioners now Appellants, pleaded that what the INEC gave them when they complained that attempts were being made to inflate the Voters Register by injection of illegal registrants was the soft copies of the Voters Register which they could not open, because they had no software to do so. INEC, the 3rd Respondent, admitted in paragraph 19(viii) at page 287 of their Reply that “at the meeting on the 20th September, 2012, soft copies of the Register of Voters containing 1, 654, 205 names of registered voters in all the 18 Local Governments of Ondo State, were given to representatives of all the political parties.” INEC further pleaded in paragraph 19(x) “that it is impossible for any 3rd party or any unauthorized person to access its data.” On the state of the pleadings, on this particular issue, it is perverse, as held by the Tribunal that “irregularities in the Voters Register were known to the Petitioners about one month before the election took place”

    The Electoral Act 2010, as amended, by its Section 19(1) enjoins INEC to display for public scrutiny for a period of not less than 5 days and not more than 14 days “and during which period any objection or complaint in relation to the names omitted or included in the Voters’ Register or in relation to any necessary correction, shall be raised or filed”. There is no evidence that INEC complied with statutory commandment. There is however overwhelming evidence that INEC used this Voters Register in the Election. My understanding of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act, particularly the words “display for public scrutiny” is that the National Assembly intended that it is the hard copies or printed copies of the Voters Register that should be published by displaying same in a public place(s) for viewing and/or scrutiny. This, of course, excludes giving soft copies that can neither be opened nor accessed by the representatives of political parties. Transparency is obliviously the main objective of the provision of Section 19 and 20 of the Electoral Act.

    The only reason the Tribunal discountenanced “the evidence of PWs 34 and 35 propelled on Exhibits P52 (A & B) and P55, P56 and P57 (A1 – A20)” at page 3114 of the Record is the perverse finding that the petitioners had knowledge of the contents of the Voters Register at least one month before the election. There is no evidence that the contents of the Voters Register in its soft copy were known to the Petitioners. There is also no evidence that copies of the Voters Register were displayed for public scrutiny, as directed by the Electoral Act. In the similar view there is no evidence that the printed or hard copies of the Voters Register were made available to the Petitioners to justify or warrant the finding by the Tribunal that they were aware of its contents one month before the election.

    It appears to me that what the Tribunal has stated at pages 3113 – 3115 of the Records, in its judgment, is what while the making of the Voters’ Register is a pre-election issue; the use made of its contents is a post-election issue. that is what I think the Tribunal means by the statement: A distinction must, however, be drawn between the state of the 2012 Voters Register, which as we have held, is a pre-election matter and its use at the October 20, 2012 election, a fact within our jurisdiction.

    The grounds for questioning an election are eloquently stated in Section 138(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. It includes “non-compliance with the provisions” of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act is the only enabling statute for compilation and use of the Voters’ Register. By dint of Section 138(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, where it is alleged that the Voters Register, used in the election the subject of the Petition, was improperly compiled or not properly compiled in compliance with the Electoral Act, and that it was done to give undue advantage to one of the parties, and that the Voters Register was used to conduct the election; then I think, in my humble view, that Section 138(1)(b) Electoral Act, 2010 has been invoked. By the said Section 138(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, the election Tribunal, Including the instant Tribunal, has jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. After all compliance, as stated by I. T. Muhammed J.S.C in OJUKWU Vs. YAR’ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50 AT PAGE 140 B – C is ordinarily “an act of complying or acting in accordance with wishes, requests, commands requirements, conditions or orders. It is an act of yielding or conformity with the requirements or orders”. The learned jurist then concludes that where there is non-compliance, it postulates reversal of such definitions.

    In tandem of this simple definition of compliance or non-compliance, it is my view that an election conducted using Voters Register not compiled in accordance with or in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act will, in the circumstance, fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal under Section 138(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. The national Assembly, through the Electoral Act, has not given the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) free hand or powers to conduct elections any how or in any arbitrary and capricious manners. All powers vested in INEC to conduct elections, including compilation of Voters Register, are circumscribed and must be exercised in compliance with the Electoral Act.

    The Supreme Court, the majority view, held in OJUKWU Vs. YAR’ADUA (Supra) that non-compliance without more may not be sufficient to invalidate an election. One of the issues in the case is a declaration that the arbitrary failure of INEC to display copies of the Voters Register in the manner and form commanded by the Electoral Act, 2006. The Presidential Election Tribunal entertained the petition and dismissed it on the merits. There is a similar issue in the petition, the subject of this appeal. In my humble view the tribunal, in the instant appeal, was not right when it held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain issues bordering on non-compliance of the Voter Register with the Electoral Act. The register, criticized for its non-compliance with the Act, was used in the election.

    For the record the complaint of the Petitioners in this appeal are twofold, viz: (i) That the registration/injection of more names into the Voters Register was done secretly or surreptitiously and that it was not publicized, and (ii) That the Voters Register to be used in the October 20, 2012 was not displayed or published for public scrutiny as required by Section 19(1) and 20 of the Electoral Act, 2010.

    It should be noted that the Petitioners are not questioning the powers of INEC, under the Electoral Act, to continually update the Voters Register.

    The law is now settled that a Petitioner who challenges the election of a respondent, as this 1st Respondent, on ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act must plead not just the fact of the alleged non-compliance, he must go further to plead that the non-compliance had substantially affected the result of the election. See OJUKWU Vs. YAR’ADUA (Supra) at (pt. 910) 241; YUSUF Vs. OBASANJO (2005) 18 NWLR (PT. 956) 96.

    I do not think that there is any dispute about the figures. (i) Total number of registered voters in the 2011 Voters Register is put at 1,553,580 (ii) Total registered voters in the 2012 Voters Register were 1,654,205. (iii) The difference between figures in (i) & (ii) above is 100,725.

    These undisputed figures are the bench mark.

    The Appellant submit that the PW.35, through his Exhibits P56 and P57, established that over 164,072 were unlawfully injected into the 2012 Voters Register. If the balance of 100,725 is, arithmetically, the difference between 1,654,205 and 1,553,580 figures in 2012 and 2011 Voters Registers respectively, then the calculation of PW35, the expert, appears preposterous, outlandish and perverse. The wise Counsel in FAYEMI Vs. ONI (2009) 7 NWLR (PT. 1140) 223, as rightly submitted by Chief Olanipekun SAN of counsel to the 1st Respondent is worth heeding to. At Pages 276 – 277 of the Report the admonition goes thus:-

    “The court must be weary of admitting a report prepared by an expert, not at the instance of the court but at the behest of any of the parties to the dispute. Such a report must be taken with a pinch of salt (See WAZIRI Vs. THE STATE (1997) 3 NWLR (PT. 496) PAGE 689)”.

    The PW.35 was seriously discredited by the cross-examination of 3rd Respondent’s Counsel. The PW34, who also under cross-examination, had admitted that he was briefed, upon a fee “to look for evidence to sustain the petition that was already filed” was rightly dismissed as not being credible objective expert witness whose evidence would be of any assistance to the Tribunal. The evidence and reports of these two witnesses, PWs 34 and 35, were intended to prove that the non-compliance of INEC with in Electoral Act, in the compilation and use of the 2012 Voters Register, had substantially affected the outcome or the result of the election conducted on 20th October, 2012. The findings of fact by the Tribunal that the PWs 34 and 35, and their reports are unreliable are findings that the appellate court does not readily interfere with, unless they are perverse. In the instant case the findings are not perverse as the printed evidence show. The Tribunal had adroitly evaluated the evidence of these two expert witnesses. The same manner of evaluation of evidence was done as regards other witnesses on the sundry acts of non-compliance complained of.

    The Appellants in paragraphs

    7.05 and 7.06 at pages 27 – 28 of

    their brief submitted that “since the Tribunal found that there were unlawful injections, the effect ought to have been a total invalidation and nullification of the Voters Register and the Election conducted thereon”. The law, as I stated earlier, is: it is not enough to plead and prove non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; the Petitioner is further enjoined to plead and prove that the non-compliance alleged had substantially affected the outcome or result of the election: OJUKWU Vs. YAR’ADUA (Supra); BUHARI Vs. OBASANJO (Supra); YUSUF Vs. OBASANJO (Supra). The Appellants have not proved how the non-compliance by INEC, in the compilation of the Voters Register and its use in the 20th October, 2012 election had substantially affected the outcome of the said election. The Election Act deliberately directs Tribunal and Courts in election matters not to disturb returns made, unless non compliance with the Act has substantially affected the result of the election and the return. See Section 139(1) of the act.

    There were other allegations of none or improper accreditation, over-voting, plural voting, and sundry electoral malpractices and non-compliance. I repeat that it is not enough to adumbrate these facts that tend to establish that the election was not conducted in a free and fair manner as directed by the Electoral Act. The Petitioner who alleged all these acts of electoral malpractices has the additional burden of pleading and proving that these malpractices did in fact impact substantially on the final outcome of the election. Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended is very clear when it provides:

    “139(1) An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of this Act and that the non-compliance did not substantially affect the result of the election.”

    The discretion vested in the Tribunal or Courts by this provision is judicial; which discretion has to be exercised judicially and judiciously.

    The law reports are now replete with statements of our superior courts espousing the law as in Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010. They are all to the effect that the non-compliance must be shown to have substantially affected the result of the election. See AJADI Vs. AJIBOLA (2004) 16 NWLR (PT. 898) 91 AT 170 – 171; ADEBIYI Vs. BABALOLA (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 267) 1; BUHARI Vs. INEC (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 459) 419 AT 525; etc. The most recent on this by the Supreme Court, interpreting Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, is CPC Vs. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) 493 AT 544 – 545, 573 – 574. Since failure to prove this vital or material fact is very fatal to any election petition, one expects Petitioners and their counsel, when formulating or settling election petitions, to be very conscious of this charge to Election Tribunals or courts under Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 an amended, and/or its equivalent provisions in other statutes. It does not help the judicature and the course of justice for Petitioners to rush to court to challenge the election or return therefrom on grounds of non-compliance without seriously addressing the issue of the non-compliance not substantially affecting the outcome of the election. The court are quite congested by flimsy election petitions.

     •To be continued

  • Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    Being the text of the judgment delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko, JCA, on July 1, 2013 at the Court of Appeal, Akure, in the governorship litigation between the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) candidate, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), and Governor Segun Mimiko.

     

    ON being text of the judg-ment delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko, JCA, on July 1, 2013 at the Court of Appeal, Akure, in the governorship litigation between the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) candidate, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and Governor Segun Mimiko.

    October 20, 2012 The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd Respondent in this appeal conducted Governorship Election in Ondo State. The 1st Appellant, a candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), contested the election with other candidates, including the 1st Respondent, Dr. Rahman O. Mimiko, who was sponsored by the 2nd Respondent, the Labour Party (LP). On October 21, 2012 INEC declared and returned the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election.

    Dissatisfied with the declaration and/or return of the 1st Respondent by the INEC the Appellants filed their petition challenging the return of the 1st Respondent on 9th November, 2012 at the Governorship Election Tribunal sitting at Akure, Ondo State (hereinafter called “The Tribunal”). The petition is at pages 1- 150 of the Record.

    The Respondents filed their respective replies to the petition. The Reply of the 3rd Respondent, at pages 276 – 342 of the Record, was filed on 30th November, 2012. The 2nd Respondent filed its Reply on 3rd December, 2012. It is found at pages 343 – 387 of the Record. The reply of the 1st Respondent is at pages 389 – 589 of the Record. It was filed on 10th December, 2012.

    At the close of the pleadings the petition went into trial before the Tribunal. The Appellants called a total of 41 witnesses, including two expert witnesses. The 1st Respondent called 14 witnesses. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents called no witnesses. The counsel for the respective parties, at the close of the evidence, filed and exchanged their respective written Addresses, which they later adopted as their argument in the petition. In its considered judgment, delivered on 3rd May, 2013, the Tribunal dismissed the petition in its entirety; hence this appeal. The Appellants filed a total of 38 Grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal copied at pages 1775 – 1796 of Vol. 3 of the Records.

    Briefs were filed and exchanged by the parties through their counsel. The Appellants’ main brief was filed on 4th June, 2013. In addition the Appellants filed Reply Briefs in response to the briefs filed, each, by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The three Reply Briefs were filed on 12th June, 2013. These briefs and the main Appellants Brief were all adopted as the arguments/submissions of the Appellants in the appeal on 25th June, 2013 at the hearing of the appeal.

    The 1st Respondent’s Brief, filed on 7th June, 2013, was adopted as the argument of the 1st Respondent in the appeal. Before then, the 1st Respondent had, on 7th June, 2013, filed Notice of Preliminary Objection wherein a number of the Appellants’ grounds of appeal were attacked. The Preliminary Objection was argued in the 1st Respondent’s Brief. Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN moving the Preliminary Objection had urged us to strike out the defence grounds of appeal, the particulars in some of the grounds of appeal and the issue formulated for determination of the appeal wherein the defective grounds were included. Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN of Counsel to the Appellants, relying on the S.P.D.C V. AMADI (2011) 6 SCM 183 at page 196, in response, submitted that preliminary objections are filed against the hearing of the appeal, with the view and aim of terminating same; and that there are other grounds which can sustain the appeal the proper procedure is to come by way of motion on notice praying for an order striking out the defective grounds of appeal. Notwithstanding the vehement opposition of Chief Olanipekun, SAN, on the ground that Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 does only provide for the respondent to file preliminary objection, and not the other way round, I am in complete agreement with Chief Olujinmi, SAN on this. If the Notice of Preliminary Objection is a process in the appeal and it is for any reason, on points of law, not one that can be countenanced; then it could be objected to. I need not belabor the issue. The Supreme Court in S.P.D.C. V. AMADI (Supra) at page 196 has settled the issue when per Rhodes-Vivour, it states the law thus:

    Preliminary objections are against the hearing of an appeal, and so, once it succeeds, the appeal no longer exists. All too often we see preliminary objections filed against one or more grounds of appeal. Once there are other grounds that can sustain the appeal, a preliminary objection should not be filed. Instead a Notice of Motion seeking to strike out the defective grounds of appeal should be filed.

    This statement of law, in view of Section 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, binds this Court and the parties. The matter therefore, rests there. The Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st Respondent on 7th June, 2013 and argued in the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed also on 7th June, 2013 will not be countenanced since it purports not to terminate the entire appeal, but only some grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal.

    The 2nd Respondent’s Brief, filed on 7th June, 2013 was adopted at the hearing of this appeal on 25th June, 2013 by Yusuf O. Ali, SAN as the argument of the 2nd Respondent. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN of Counsel to 3rd Respondent formally adopted the Brief of the 3rd Respondent, filed on June 7, 2013 and prayed, like the counsel respectively for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, that the appeal be dismissed.

    The Appellants’ Brief, filed on 4th June, 2013 containing arguments on which Chief Olujinmi, SAN urged us to allow the appeal, has a total of 13 issues for determination as follows:-

    Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the expert evidence of PWs 34 and 35 and failing to rely on the Exhibits tendered by them and admitted in evidence. (Grounds 21, 22, 23, 25, 35, 36).

    Whether the Tribunal having held that there were injections into the 2012 Register of Voters used for the conduct of the October 20, 2012 Governorship Election was right in declining jurisdiction to consider the allegation on the use of the invalid Voters Register to conduct the 2012 Election on the pretext that they were pre-election matters. (Grounds 8, 9, 11, 18 and 19).

    Whether the evidence of improper accreditation and non-accreditation of voters during the Election placed before the Tribunal vide EXHIBITS P52A & P52B and testimony of PWs 34, 40, 41 were not cogent enough to justify the nullification of the election conducted on 20th October, 2012. (Grounds 2, 12 and 17).

    Whether the Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence before it and came to the right conclusion particularly when no rebuttal evidence was given and several facts were corroborated by documentary and oral evidence of the 1st Respondent witnesses. (Grounds 4, 5,6 and 38).

    Whether failure of the Tribunal to properly review the evidence and evaluate it before making its findings has not engendered serious miscarriage of justice. (Grounds 20, 28 and 29).

    Whether the evidence on record did not sufficiently establish allegations of irregularities and various acts of non- compliance with the Electoral Act and regulations made pursuant thereto to justify nullifying the election in dispute. (Grounds 3).

    Whether the Tribunal was not wrong when it failed to hold that the petitioners through the evidence led have met the standard of proof required to establish the allegations contained in the petition. (Grounds 31 and 32).

    Whether having regard to pleadings, the evidence and the law, the petitioners have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them. (Grounds 10 and 14).

    Whether the Tribunal was right in its application of the decision of the Court of Appeal to discountenance and expunge evidence already properly admitted by it. (Grounds 7 and 16).

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have

    discounte-nanced evidence relating to

    the paragraphs of the petition struck out having previously held that the petition would be heard on its merit and in any case having regard to the paragraphs of the respondents’ replies which accommodated the evidence. (Grounds 1 and 30).

    Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition when the copious evidence led by the petitioners’ witnesses was neither rebutted nor challenged. (Grounds 13, 24, 26 and 33).

    Whether in the light of its earlier holding that the petitioners did not dump documents on the tribunal, the materials on record and the law, the tribunal was right when it later held that some documents were dumped on the tribunal and that the petitioners did not demonstrate the electronic copies of 2011 and 2012 voters registers. (Grounds 15, 27 and 34).

    Whether the in the light of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led by the Petitioners and the failure of the 3rd Respondent to give any evidence, the Tribunal was not wrong in the way it considered the issue relating to the injected voters. (Ground 37).

    On the other hand, the 1st Respondent at pages 6 & 7, particularly paragraph 3.1 of his brief formulated two issues for determination. They are:

    “Whether the lower tribunal was not right when it relied on its own earlier decision of 4th February, 2013, which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in appeal number: CA/AK/EPT/GOV/04/13, in discountenancing paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 46, 48,49, 51, 55, 71, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 146, 149 and 181 of the Appellants’ petition, as well as the evidence led in support thereof (Grounds 1, 7, 16 and 30).

    Considering the grounds of the Appellants’ petition, the extant state of the pleadings and the evidence in support thereof vis-à-vis the state of the law on the burden and standard of proof as well as the relief sought in the Appellants’ petition, whether the trial tribunal was not right in dismissing the Appellants’ petition and affirming the election and return of the 1st Respondent (Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38).”

    The 2nd Respondent has distilled three issues for determination. They are as follows in paragraph 3.00 at page 3 of the said brief:

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right in its conclusion that the Appellants did not proof improper or non-accreditation, improper voting, non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, and sundry other allegations made by them, and that the election was held in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right in its view that the testimonies of PWs 34 and 35, apart from being incredible or unbelievable, will not qualify as expert testimonies, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, moreover, when the testimonies did not prove the allegation of injection of fresh or illegal names into the voters’ registers, on which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right that the Appellants failed to prove the various allegations of electoral malpractices in the conduct of the Ondo State Governorship elections of 20th October, 2012.”

    For the 3rd Respondent the three issues formulated for determination of the appeal are at page 7 thereof as follows: “Whether the Learned Tribunal rightly rejected the testimony of PW34 and PW35 and their respective reports in Exhibits P55….

    Whether the learned judges of the Tribunal were right to have held that issues bothering on the state of the voters register of 2011 as compared to that of 2012 are pre-election matter covered by Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 and totally outside the jurisdiction of the Honourable Tribunal.

    Whether in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was not right to have dismissed the Appellants’ petition.

    I have read all the briefs of argument and the proceedings of the Tribunal, including the pleadings and the judgment. In my humble view the issues for determination in this appeal are:-

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have held that issues bordering on the contents of the Voters Register are pre-election issues and therefore not within its jurisdiction?

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have held that the Appellants did not prove that the Ondo State Governorship Election of October 20, 2012 was not conducted in substantial compliance with the letters and spirit of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended?

    Whether on the pleadings and evidence of all the parties the Tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition?

    • To be continued

     

  • My plan for Ekiti, by aspirant

    My plan for Ekiti, by aspirant

    What gives you the impression that there is vacancy in the Ekiti State Government House?

    That is what they say everywhere – that there is no vacancy. It is not only in Ekiti State. Anyway, there was no vacancy when Governor Kayode Fayemi tried it in 2007 and won. That is the same way we are going to try under the umbrella of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). We are going to display what we have and tell Ekiti people who we are.

    Politics is capital intensive. How do you intend to raise funds for your campaign?

    Not only that I can raise fund myself, I have friends and I have business associates who believe in my dream and are ready to go all out for me. So, raising funds will not be an issue for us.

    There are other strong contenders in your party. What gives you the impression that you will get the ticket?

    We are going to go through the primaries and whoever wins the primary will get the ticket of the party. We are all equal in the party, nobody is bigger than any other aspirant.

    Who is your godfather?

    I don’t have any human godfather. The Almighty God in heaven is my godfather. That it is why we call Him God the father. I have good friends and associates but I don’t have a man that will tell me what to do and what not to do. But I can assure you that I have the Almighty God, like I said earlier.

    Ekiti State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant Dr. Peter Obafemi spoke with SEGUN AJIBOYE on why he wants to govern the state.

     

    What is the main thrust of your campaign?

    Our major thrust is to tell Ekiti people that our administration will take the creation of jobs very seriously. Ekiti people need jobs and we will give jobs to the people of the state. Beside, Ekiti State has for so long worn the tag of being a civil service state. Our primary pre-occupation will be to industrialise the state in a way that it will make immediate positive impact on the lives of the people. And we are not just talking about industrialization in the local sense, we want to industrialize the state to world standard. So what I want to do in the state is to create industries, manufacturing plants, bring in investors that will establish world class manufacturing plants in the state and partnership in agriculture. Ekiti and Ondo states are known as the education centres in Nigeria and I want us to tap into that again. We want to bring back that old glory of Ekiti in terms of education where our students will be able to cope in any educational system in the world.

    Talking about experience, you are the first Nigerian to open up the Lagos/Atlanta route. But the business failed. What is the guarantee that you will be able to manage Ekiti State successfully?

    I appreciate this question, but it is a very disturbing one. I have been to the North, Northeast, Northcentral, and people there always ask me why did that business fail? They always appreciate me for doing what government of the day couldn’t do. Yes, I was the man that opened that, a direct flight from Atlanta to Lagos. I opened that same route for Delta Airline, now they are enjoying it, I discovered that proposals were written by over 3,000 people to my partners in the US that they wanted to take over the route from us. What really got into them is corporate greed, they wanted to take me out of that market and do it on their own, which they later achieved. But that has nothing to do with Ekiti State. I have learnt a few important lessons and of course, the experience will come handy in the future.

     

  • Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    Appeal Court judgment on Ondo governorship poll

    Being the text of the judgment delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko, JCA, on July 1, 2013 at the Court of Appeal, Akure, in the governorship litigation between the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) candidate, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), and Governor Segun Mimiko.

     

     

    ON being text of the judg-ment delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko, JCA, on July 1, 2013 at the Court of Appeal, Akure, in the governorship litigation between the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) candidate, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and Governor Segun Mimiko.

    October 20, 2012 The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd Respondent in this appeal conducted Governorship Election in Ondo State. The 1st Appellant, a candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), contested the election with other candidates, including the 1st Respondent, Dr. Rahman O. Mimiko, who was sponsored by the 2nd Respondent, the Labour Party (LP). On October 21, 2012 INEC declared and returned the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election.

    Dissatisfied with the declaration and/or return of the 1st Respondent by the INEC the Appellants filed their petition challenging the return of the 1st Respondent on 9th November, 2012 at the Governorship Election Tribunal sitting at Akure, Ondo State (hereinafter called “The Tribunal”). The petition is at pages 1- 150 of the Record.

    The Respondents filed their respective replies to the petition. The Reply of the 3rd Respondent, at pages 276 – 342 of the Record, was filed on 30th November, 2012. The 2nd Respondent filed its Reply on 3rd December, 2012. It is found at pages 343 – 387 of the Record. The reply of the 1st Respondent is at pages 389 – 589 of the Record. It was filed on 10th December, 2012.

    At the close of the pleadings the petition went into trial before the Tribunal. The Appellants called a total of 41 witnesses, including two expert witnesses. The 1st Respondent called 14 witnesses. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents called no witnesses. The counsel for the respective parties, at the close of the evidence, filed and exchanged their respective written Addresses, which they later adopted as their argument in the petition. In its considered judgment, delivered on 3rd May, 2013, the Tribunal dismissed the petition in its entirety; hence this appeal. The Appellants filed a total of 38 Grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal copied at pages 1775 – 1796 of Vol. 3 of the Records.

    Briefs were filed and exchanged by the parties through their counsel. The Appellants’ main brief was filed on 4th June, 2013. In addition the Appellants filed Reply Briefs in response to the briefs filed, each, by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The three Reply Briefs were filed on 12th June, 2013. These briefs and the main Appellants Brief were all adopted as the arguments/submissions of the Appellants in the appeal on 25th June, 2013 at the hearing of the appeal.

    The 1st Respondent’s Brief, filed on 7th June, 2013, was adopted as the argument of the 1st Respondent in the appeal. Before then, the 1st Respondent had, on 7th June, 2013, filed Notice of Preliminary Objection wherein a number of the Appellants’ grounds of appeal were attacked. The Preliminary Objection was argued in the 1st Respondent’s Brief. Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN moving the Preliminary Objection had urged us to strike out the defence grounds of appeal, the particulars in some of the grounds of appeal and the issue formulated for determination of the appeal wherein the defective grounds were included. Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN of Counsel to the Appellants, relying on the S.P.D.C V. AMADI (2011) 6 SCM 183 at page 196, in response, submitted that preliminary objections are filed against the hearing of the appeal, with the view and aim of terminating same; and that there are other grounds which can sustain the appeal the proper procedure is to come by way of motion on notice praying for an order striking out the defective grounds of appeal. Notwithstanding the vehement opposition of Chief Olanipekun, SAN, on the ground that Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 does only provide for the respondent to file preliminary objection, and not the other way round, I am in complete agreement with Chief Olujinmi, SAN on this. If the Notice of Preliminary Objection is a process in the appeal and it is for any reason, on points of law, not one that can be countenanced; then it could be objected to. I need not belabor the issue. The Supreme Court in S.P.D.C. V. AMADI (Supra) at page 196 has settled the issue when per Rhodes-Vivour, it states the law thus:

    Preliminary objections are against the hearing of an appeal, and so, once it succeeds, the appeal no longer exists. All too often we see preliminary objections filed against one or more grounds of appeal. Once there are other grounds that can sustain the appeal, a preliminary objection should not be filed. Instead a Notice of Motion seeking to strike out the defective grounds of appeal should be filed.

    This statement of law, in view of Section 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, binds this Court and the parties. The matter therefore, rests there. The Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st Respondent on 7th June, 2013 and argued in the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed also on 7th June, 2013 will not be countenanced since it purports not to terminate the entire appeal, but only some grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal.

    The 2nd Respondent’s Brief, filed on 7th June, 2013 was adopted at the hearing of this appeal on 25th June, 2013 by Yusuf O. Ali, SAN as the argument of the 2nd Respondent. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN of Counsel to 3rd Respondent formally adopted the Brief of the 3rd Respondent, filed on June 7, 2013 and prayed, like the counsel respectively for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, that the appeal be dismissed.

    The Appellants’ Brief, filed on 4th June, 2013 containing arguments on which Chief Olujinmi, SAN urged us to allow the appeal, has a total of 13 issues for determination as follows:-

    Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the expert evidence of PWs 34 and 35 and failing to rely on the Exhibits tendered by them and admitted in evidence. (Grounds 21, 22, 23, 25, 35, 36).

    Whether the Tribunal having held that there were injections into the 2012 Register of Voters used for the conduct of the October 20, 2012 Governorship Election was right in declining jurisdiction to consider the allegation on the use of the invalid Voters Register to conduct the 2012 Election on the pretext that they were pre-election matters. (Grounds 8, 9, 11, 18 and 19).

    Whether the evidence of improper accreditation and non-accreditation of voters during the Election placed before the Tribunal vide EXHIBITS P52A & P52B and testimony of PWs 34, 40, 41 were not cogent enough to justify the nullification of the election conducted on 20th October, 2012. (Grounds 2, 12 and 17).

    Whether the Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence before it and came to the right conclusion particularly when no rebuttal evidence was given and several facts were corroborated by documentary and oral evidence of the 1st Respondent witnesses. (Grounds 4, 5,6 and 38).

    Whether failure of the Tribunal to properly review the evidence and evaluate it before making its findings has not engendered serious miscarriage of justice. (Grounds 20, 28 and 29).

    Whether the evidence on record did not sufficiently establish allegations of irregularities and various acts of non- compliance with the Electoral Act and regulations made pursuant thereto to justify nullifying the election in dispute. (Grounds 3).

    Whether the Tribunal was not wrong when it failed to hold that the petitioners through the evidence led have met the standard of proof required to establish the allegations contained in the petition. (Grounds 31 and 32).

    Whether having regard to pleadings, the evidence and the law, the petitioners have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them. (Grounds 10 and 14).

    Whether the Tribunal was right in its application of the decision of the Court of Appeal to discountenance and expunge evidence already properly admitted by it. (Grounds 7 and 16).

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have

    discounte-nanced evidence relating to

    the paragraphs of the petition struck out having previously held that the petition would be heard on its merit and in any case having regard to the paragraphs of the respondents’ replies which accommodated the evidence. (Grounds 1 and 30).

    Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition when the copious evidence led by the petitioners’ witnesses was neither rebutted nor challenged. (Grounds 13, 24, 26 and 33).

    Whether in the light of its earlier holding that the petitioners did not dump documents on the tribunal, the materials on record and the law, the tribunal was right when it later held that some documents were dumped on the tribunal and that the petitioners did not demonstrate the electronic copies of 2011 and 2012 voters registers. (Grounds 15, 27 and 34).

    Whether the in the light of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led by the Petitioners and the failure of the 3rd Respondent to give any evidence, the Tribunal was not wrong in the way it considered the issue relating to the injected voters. (Ground 37).

    On the other hand, the 1st Respondent at pages 6 & 7, particularly paragraph 3.1 of his brief formulated two issues for determination. They are:

    “Whether the lower tribunal was not right when it relied on its own earlier decision of 4th February, 2013, which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in appeal number: CA/AK/EPT/GOV/04/13, in discountenancing paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 46, 48,49, 51, 55, 71, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 146, 149 and 181 of the Appellants’ petition, as well as the evidence led in support thereof (Grounds 1, 7, 16 and 30).

    Considering the grounds of the Appellants’ petition, the extant state of the pleadings and the evidence in support thereof vis-à-vis the state of the law on the burden and standard of proof as well as the relief sought in the Appellants’ petition, whether the trial tribunal was not right in dismissing the Appellants’ petition and affirming the election and return of the 1st Respondent (Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38).”

    The 2nd Respondent has distilled three issues for determination. They are as follows in paragraph 3.00 at page 3 of the said brief:

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right in its conclusion that the Appellants did not proof improper or non-accreditation, improper voting, non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, and sundry other allegations made by them, and that the election was held in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right in its view that the testimonies of PWs 34 and 35, apart from being incredible or unbelievable, will not qualify as expert testimonies, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, moreover, when the testimonies did not prove the allegation of injection of fresh or illegal names into the voters’ registers, on which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

    Whether the trial Tribunal was not right that the Appellants failed to prove the various allegations of electoral malpractices in the conduct of the Ondo State Governorship elections of 20th October, 2012.”

    For the 3rd Respondent the three issues formulated for determination of the appeal are at page 7 thereof as follows: “Whether the Learned Tribunal rightly rejected the testimony of PW34 and PW35 and their respective reports in Exhibits P55….

    Whether the learned judges of the Tribunal were right to have held that issues bothering on the state of the voters register of 2011 as compared to that of 2012 are pre-election matter covered by Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 and totally outside the jurisdiction of the Honourable Tribunal.

    Whether in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was not right to have dismissed the Appellants’ petition.

    I have read all the briefs of argument and the proceedings of the Tribunal, including the pleadings and the judgment. In my humble view the issues for determination in this appeal are:-

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have held that issues bordering on the contents of the Voters Register are pre-election issues and therefore not within its jurisdiction?

    Whether the Tribunal was right to have held that the Appellants did not prove that the Ondo State Governorship Election of October 20, 2012 was not conducted in substantial compliance with the letters and spirit of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended?

    Whether on the pleadings and evidence of all the parties the Tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition?

     

  • ‘Yagbaland should produce next Kogi West senator’

    ‘Yagbaland should produce next Kogi West senator’

    Kogi State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain Chief Tunde Olusunle spoke with reporters on the zoning principle in the state and other partisan issues. Musa Odoshimokhe reports the excerpts:

     

    WHAT is your position on zoning in Kogi State?

    I imagine that the early campaigns for the National Assembly offices in Kogi West, especially that of the Senate, cannot be divorced from the political undercurrents at the federal level where the national discourse has been focused on the issue of the Presidency, come 2015.

    There are those clamouring for the position to return to a particular section of the country, while there are also apostles of the retention of the status quo, in 2015. And both sides do have their convincing and compelling arguments.

    If the noise from the Kogi West is the loudest, compared to the other two senatorial zones, Kogi East and Central, it is because the present occupant of the senatorial seat in Kogi West is serving his second term and that should be his concluding term. The senators representing the East and Central zones are serving their first terms. The general expectation among the people of Kogi West therefore, is that 2015 offers an opportunity for a change in the occupant of the seat, by which time he would have served two full terms of four years each, totaling eight years.

    The former occupant of the senatorial seat in Kogi West, under the post-1999 democratic dispensation, Senator Tunde Ogbeha, served for eight years before the incumbent. It stands to reason therefore, that the people of Kogi West deserve a change in 2015.

    Can you give a brief insight into the mutual understanding on the rotation arrangement in Kogi West? Why do you think it should be respected?

    Like I was saying before, there was an understanding between the three federal constituencies, which make up Kogi West senatorial zone that the position should rotate between the three constituencies, after each occupant would have served two terms. The first federal constituency to produce a senator for Kogi West, with the advent of democracy in 1999, is the Lokoja/Kotonkarfe federal constituency. In 2007, it shifted to Kabba/Bunu-Ijumu federal constituency where the incumbent comes from.

    Some of us who took a shot at the position from the Yagba Federal Constituency in the run-up to the 2011 general elections, heeded the advice of our political leaders and elders and stepped aside from the race, on their admonition and advice. They felt we should allow the rotational agreement take proper root, so that Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu will serve its two senatorial terms, and we reasoned with them, all in the process of developing a sustainable political culture.

    Indeed, we paid so much obeisance to the pleas of our elders that we resolved to work for the return of the incumbent and to frustrate what we considered the meddlesomeness of the former Kogi State Governor, Alhaji Ibrahim Idris, in Kogi West politics, because it was obvious he favoured a particular candidate from Yagba federal constituency who served his administration for over five years.

    That was just how committed we were to the rotational arrangement and which we believe should be respected in the spirit of political fairness, justices, and equity, even morality come 2015.

    Some have argued that, since zoning is undemocratic, the best candidate should be considered on merit and performance. Do you subscribe to this thinking?

    Don’t forget that the zoning of political offices didn’t also pass the test of the recent constitutional amendment effort undertaken by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Federal House of Representatives.

    At the same time, don’t forget that, if we have not made sacrifices as a people and a nation and reached an understanding to zone particular offices at various levels of government and administration, the fragile peace and national unity, which we enjoy, will be precipitously endangered.

    Why are PDP chieftain not respecting presidential zoning?

    And don’t forget that zoning at the senatorial level is not peculiar to us in Kogi West alone. It is everywhere. It engenders peaceful co-existence and political harmony. The Rivers East Senatorial Zone in Rivers State, for instance, is the home of the Ikwerres, the Okirikas and the Etches. Senator Azuta Mbata, who represented Rivers East Senatorial Zone from 1999 to 2007, is Ikwerre. The incumbent who has been in office since 2007, Senator George Sekibo, is Okirika. There is an understanding between these three groups – the Ikwerres, the Okirikas and the Etches, that an Etche senator will take over in 2015.

    Then, when you talk about performance and merit, you cannot assess a man who has not occupied an office to be a performer or a non-performer. You have to give him an opportunity to serve before you draw up a marking scheme for him. And just like the Yoruba proverb popularized by the late Chief MKO Abiola goes, “You cannot shave a man’s head in his absence”.

    You can only attempt an objective, dispassionate appraisal of performance and merit, when all parties concerned have been given a fair chance on a level playing ground.

    Are you saying that Senator Smart Adeyemi does not deserve a third term, despite his performance in the Senate?

    The people of Yagba Federal Constituency will consider it a gratuitous insult, the insinuation that they are in short supply, of credible, competent, enlightened and experienced human resources to fly Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come 2015, or to hold any position at whatever level for that matter.

    You seem to forget that from Nigeria ’s immediate post-independence to the present, some of the most reputable actors on the national socio-political stage form Northcentral Nigeria, are Yagba people from our three local government areas of Yagba East, Yagba West and Mopamuro. I am talking about the likes of Chief Sunday Bolunrunduro Awoniyi, CON; Chief Silas Bamidele Daniyan, CON; Chief S. Ade-John; Chief Moody Olorunmonu; Chief Olayinka Simonyan; Prof. Eyitayo Lambo; Chief Kola Jamodu, OFR; Ashiwaju Jide Omokore; Otunba Funso Owoyemi; Dr Joseph Eyitayo Adetoro (Federal Commissioner for Agriculture, Health and Industries, respectively from 1967 to 1974 during General Yakubu Gowon administration, respected activist, Chief Seth Abel Mayekogbon, who is listed in the first edition of the 5000 intellectuals of the world; sixth edition of Who’s Who in the World and Who’s Who in the Commonwealth; Pioneer Military Administrator of Taraba State, Col Joseph Awoniyi, immediate Director of Petroleum Resources, Mr. Osten Olorunnisola; Chief Duro Adeyele, (SAN); Brig-Gen. Samuel Teidi; Brig-Gen. Paul Okuntimo, etc all prominent Yagba people for crying out loud..

    To the best of my knowledge, two out of the three Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian universities we have so far produced from the Okun country in Kogi State , are Yagba. I’m talking specifically about the venerated Prof. Adeoye Adeniyi (University of Ilorin – 1985 to 1989) and Prof. Felix Anjorin ( Bingham University ). Indeed, the joke is often cracked that, like in Ekiti State , the preponderance of seasoned technocrats and intellectuals in Yagbaland is per square kilometer.

    These front liners definitely bred a successor generation who are holding their own creditably and flying the flag of our people in all the places and positions they have found themselves.

    It is important to espouse the infinite human resource capacity of the Yagba people to debunk the fallacy about who can be put forward for any form of political office in the state or elsewhere.

    And the last time I checked, Yagba land had not been ravaged by any holocaust of any kind which has been so impactful as to engender a holistic extirpation of our people! We are not deficient in high quality human capacity at all.

    Again, I think it may be too early in the day to begin to narrow down to specific individuals. Yagba land is blessed with an abundance of such individuals and they will take their own decisions when the time is ripe.

    And when you talk about resources, the people of Kogi West, of Okun land and indeed, Yagba and are not subscribers to the politics of mercantilism. Our people are traditionally republican by nature. They tell you off if you try to flaunt your pseudo-affluence in their face by our famous expression: “Me je la be re”, (translated as “You don’t feed me, anyway).

    The Kogi West Senatorial seat is not for sale. It is not for the highest bidder.

     

     

  • Group seeks support for Okorocha

    Group seeks support for Okorocha

    The National Coordinator of the Target Ahead, Comrade Tony Onye, has called on the proposed All Progressives Congress (APC) to field an Igbo candidate as its presidential candidate in the 2015 elections.

    In a statement by the group, Onye said an Igbo presidential candidate would lead APC to victory in the 2015 elections. He, however, tipped the Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha, as the best Igbo man for the job.

    Onye said: “In the Southeast and Southsouth, no other person has updated his or her record than Rochas Okorocha. He is a detrabilised Nigerian, who plays politics without bitterness and represents unity.”

    “He is the governor who has over 50 northerners, 30 westerners and other none Igbo employed in his government.”

    Onye maintained that, when other governors were busy sacking none indigenes from civil service, he was busy recruiting none indigenes.

    He urged the APC not to allow narrow interests to becloud its choice of the presidential candidate that commands the support of all Nigerians, irrespective of where the candidate comes from.

    He added: “APC should not rely on sentiments or tribalism to fail to score the very point of its essence, by saving the country from the draconian rule of the People Democratic Party (PDP), which has milked its citizens dry.”

    Onye commended the bold initiatives of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and a faction of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) for coming together to save this country from the cabal that had held it hostage.

    “With what the citizens of this country has gone through in the past 12 years under the current ruling party, we must be prepared to halt the season of kidnapping, assassination and other bloodletting activities going on in the country, which is further climax by organised corruption.”

     

  • ACN chieftain calls for part-time legislature

    ACN chieftain calls for part-time legislature

    Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) chieftain prince Tajudeen Olusi has called for a part-time legislature at the federal and state levels, saying that it is cost ffective. The former member of the House of Representatives said that the move will encourage professionals to participate in elective politics.

    Olusi spoke in Lagos at the media parley organised by Senator Oluremi Tinubu, who represents the Lagos Central in the Senate. He said: “We need to return to part-time legislature. We have monetised everything. The main desire of the people now is to acquire wealth. During the colonial era, there was a Lagislative Council. It was part-time. In the First Republic, the House of Representatives was part-time.

    “In the 50s, we had councillors-Adeniran Ogunsanya, MacWeen, Itwas part-time. I was a part-time councillor. I was working with an oil company. I served as a councillor on part-time basis”.

    The politician alleged that cases of absenteeism are rampant among the legislators, maintaining that full-time legislators are not more effective than part-time legislators. He said that, if the part-time parliamentary method is restored, it will give room to more professionals, including lawyers, architects, town planners and others, to serve the country.

    Olusi also advocated for pensions for legislators as it is done in Canada, Brazil and Australia. he alleged that public officials steal money because of the fear of the future. He doubted, if a former legislator can be employed anywhere after leaving the parliament.

    The former legislator also spoke on the state of emergency in some northern states, stressing that it would not produce the desired result because, as he put it, “the problem is in the mind”.

    Olusi, who is a former commissioner in Lagos State, said that the state deserved a special status. he stressed: “Nigerians collectively have continued to oppress Lagos. A substantial part of the revenue from the port, which is our oil in Lagos, should accrue to us. Lagos was the Federal Capital Territory from the colonial days. During the colonial era, Lagos Town Council got two million pounds from the colonial government. All Nigerians dwell and trade here. Lagos deserves special status”.

  • Pdp’s hypocritical, mischievious antics in Ekiti

    In this piece, Lagos lawyer Dr Akintola Benson contends that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s hypocritical and mischievious antics in Ekiti State will further weaken the troubled chapter in the build-up to the next governorship poll.

    Apparently anxious to divert attention from the many internal crises ripping the party apart and daily rendering it more and more vulnerable in the forthcoming 2015 elections, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) has launched a mischievous and utterly misleading attack on the National Leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The PDP has seized on the recent fence-mending mission of the party leadership to Ekiti state to describe Tinubu as a despot bent on imposing a choice on the people of Ekiti. Of course, there is neither rhyme nor logic to this baseless accusation. In the first place, what moral right has the PDP to accuse anybody of despotic tendencies? This is a party that wanted to impose a chairman on the Nigerian Governors Forum in the person of Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State and when this failed, it suspended the winner of the NGF election, Governor RotimiAmaechi from the party for enjoying the support of majority of his colleagues!

    A party that ordered a sitting governor not to seek re-election of a voluntary association like the NGF is now preaching the tenets of democracy to others. How ridiculous! This is a party that has made it so obvious that it is bent on harassing, intimidating and preventing anybody from challenging President Goodluck Jonathan for the PDP presidential ticket in 2015.Towards this end, members of its National Executive Committee (NEC) are removed and replaced at will. Its National Chairman, AlhajiBamangaTukur, remains in office against the will of majority of its NEC members all because of his willingness to manipulate intra-party processes in favour of Jonathan towards 2015. All National Chairmen of the party since inception have all been imposed and removed at will by the presidency- Solomon Lar, Barnabas Gemade, Audu Ogbe, Vincent Ogbulafor and now BamangaTukur. The so called National Conventions that produced President UmaruYar’Adua and later Goodluck Jonathan were clearly manipulated to arrive at pre-determined outcomes despite the deceptive charade on national television. We can all recall how former Governor Timpre Sylva of Bayelsa state was brazenly prevented from asserting his right to seek re-election as the party’s governorship candidate while the favoured candidate of the presidency, Seriake Dickson was foisted on the party and is today the Governor of the state. In Kogi State, aggrieved PDP candidates who were manipulated out of contrived governorship primaries are still in court seeking justice. We can go on and on citing instances why the PDP has no moral right to preach intra-party democracy to anybody.

    But then, let us come to the substance of the PDP’s baseless allegation. How true is the claim that Asiwaju Tinubu is despotic and disdainful of democracy? In the first place, AsiwajuTinubu was not in Ekiti State in his personal capacity. He was on a delegation of the national leadership of the ACN, which included the National Chairman of the party, Chief BisiAkande, the leader of the party in Ekiti State, Chief Niyi Adebayo and a prominent member of the party from Ekiti, Mr Dele Alake among others. The position forcefully articulated by AsiwajuTinubu at the Ekiti parley was, therefore, that of the party. Again, the fact that the party leadership expended time, energy and resources to go to Ekiti to settle internal disputes and put its house in order towards next year’s election is indicative of a party that respects the electorate and refuses to take them for granted.

    It shows that the party, despite Governor Kayode Fayemi’s outstanding performance in office, is approaching the next elections with all seriousness. And the logic of the ACN leadership is impeccable. Why do parties exist and why do candidates seek office? In a healthy democracy, the purpose is to fulfil the party’s manifesto and pursue the greatest welfare of the greatest number of the people. Now, if an incumbent is widely acknowledged as delivering on this mandate, why should a party dissipate energy on intra-party contests? Shouldn’t such energy be better saved to confront the opposition in the general election especially given the desperation of the PDP to regain a foothold in the Southwest? Is there no virtue in continuity when a government is delivering democracy dividends to the people the way Fayemi is doing in Ekiti?

    The people of Ekiti are known to be fearless, independent minded and knowledgable. Nobody can push them around. Asiwaju Tinubu and the ACN national leadership spoke to the entire gamut of the state leadership of the party including members of the executive council, national and state legislators as well as local government councils and wards. Yet, there was not a single dissenting voice to the position of the national leadership from the large gathering of party members. Of course, we can understand the antics of the PDP. The party wants the ACN to hold contentious primaries and go into the general elections as a divided entity. It will not realise this dream. The ACN is the party to beat across the Southwest and many aspirants will naturally seek to fly its flag for any elective office. Furthermore, the outstanding performance of ACN governments has further endeared the party to the electorate thus making its platform for electoral purposes even more valuable. The party leadership thus has a responsibility to carefully manage internal party nomination processes so that its tremendous success does not become a liability. This was evidently the reason for the party leadership’s mission to Ekiti.

    Asiwaju Tinubu spoke for close to one and a half hours at the event but the media reported only a minute fraction of what he said and mostly out of context. The ACN national leader’s concern and passion for the cohesion and success of the party in the entire Southwest is understandable. It must not be forgotten that in 2003, Asiwaju Tinubu remained the only governor standing in the Southwest following the electoral blitzkrieg of the PDP. He could easily have chickened out, abandoned the progressive platform and succumbed to the ruling PDP. The Jagaban did not take that easy and tempting option. He not only held on tenaciously to Lagos State but played a pivotal role in the current resurgence of the progressives across the Southwest. He can thus lay claim to a greater stake in the survival and strengthening of the party in the region than any other person. In any case, the people have greater trust in the judgement of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu than that of the thoroughly inept PDP leadership. When he was to vacate office in 2007, Tinubu expressed his preference for his Chief of Staff, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN), to succeed him. The PDP then accused him of imposition and dictatorship. Lagosians however trusted his judgment and today Fashola is rated as easily the best governor in the country. What happened at the federal level? Obansajo handed over to an intelligent but physically incapacitated successor who has been succeeded by a glaringly incompetent President Goodluck Jonathan. The difference is clear.

    The PDP cannot pretend to love Hon. Bamidele more than Tinubu or other ACN leaders. It is unfortunate that Tinubu’s reference to Bamidele’s ambition was completely reported out of context, perhaps not deliberately but because the media could not reproduce his extensive remarks in full. Asiwaju Tinubu had discovered Opeyemi Bamidele’s potentials and had drawn him close ever since the latter was a student union leader. When Tinubu was elected to the Senate in the aborted Third Republic, he engaged Bamidele as one of his legislative aides on legal matters. Both Tinubu and Bamidele were in exile during the pro-democracy struggle against military dictatorship. When he was elected Governor of Lagos State in 1999, Tinubu engaged Bamidele first as a Special Adviser in the office of the Deputy Governor and later Commissioner for Sports and Youth Development. He played a role in the appointment of Bamidele as Commissioner for Information and Strategy by Governor Fashola in 2007. At every point in time Tinubu has played a positive role in the evolving political career of Opeyemi Bamidele.

    If the Jagaban had not recognised Bamidele’s intelligence and competence, he would not have given him those responsibilities over the years.AsiwajuTinubu has never said that Opeyemi Bamidele is not eminently qualified to be governor. But there are scores of eminently candidates in the party equally qualified to govern Ekiti effectively and there can only be one governor at a time. If, therefore, Asiwaju this time around asks Bamidele to voluntarily shelve his ambition for now in the interest of the party, he is eminently qualified to do so and no one can accuse him of bad faith. Indeed, Tinubu told the gathering in Ekiti that Opeyemi Bamidele was one of those who brought Dr. Kayode Fayemi to the party leadership and strongly canvassed for his candidacy in 2007. He urged the governor to draw Bamidele close and cautioned some of those close to Governor Fayemi to desist from creating any bad blood between the two men. The PDP should, therefore, concentrate on resolving its internal contradictions and stop meddling in matters that do not concern it.

     

    • Dr Benson Akintola is a seasoned political scientist and lawyer based in Lagos.

  • Furore over budget implementation, constituency projects

    Furore over budget implementation, constituency projects

    The protracted feud between the Presidency and the National Assembly over the inclusion of the constituency projects in the budget may stall its final passage and implementation. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN writes.

    The frosty relationship between the Presidency and the National Assembly on the amendment of the 2013 Appropriation Act has deepened. Experts warn that it is not in the interest of this financial year.

    The Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has said that government would not be able to pay salaries by September, if the legislature failed to resolve the lingering impasse.

    Four months ago, President Goodluck Jonathan had forwarded a bill seeking to amend the 2013 budget of N4.987 trillion to the National Assembly, an act which the lawmakers rejected.The delay over the amendment had prompted the minister to issue the warning.

    The Presidency had accused the National Assembly of removing some capital votes from the initial proposed amendments, thereby making the execution of such projects impossible.

    In the new proposal, President Jonathan indicated new changes across the expenditure categories. He also sought to restore the original budgetary allocations of some capital projects “to promote national development”. Some of the affected the projects include the projects under the Ministries of Works, Health, Power, Transport and Education in budgetary allocation for projects under the Subsidy Reinvestment Programme (SURE-P).

    The President advised the National Assembly, to reverse itself on the zero 2013 budget allocation for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    He also drew the attention of the law makers to the fact that the personnel cost, cut across all Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), which will make it difficult for the government to meet its obligation to its workers.

    Why the delay?

    There is no end in sight to the lingering face off between the executive and the legislature over the budget implementation. The leadership of the National Assembly is furious that the amendment sought by the President is just a disguise for the lawmakers to rework the 2013 budget. The lawmakers have vowed to resist the move, more so, when the heads of some MDAs have confided in some committee chairmen that they are implementing the directives from the Budget Office and not the budget passed by the National Assembly.

    The executive is not happy with the legislators for dragging their feet over the amendment it sought on the 2013 budget. It noted with dismay that, four months after the budget was returned, the National Assembly is yet to commence deliberation.

    However, the National Assembly has exonerated itself. Senator Babafemi Ojudu (ACN, Ekiti Central) told The Nation in an interview that the copies of the bill have not been distributed to members. He said: “It is true that Mr President had written the National Assembly to that effect and the letter was read on the floor of the National Assembly, but the bill has not been made available to the members.

    “We have to get copies so that we can study the president’s new proposal in the bill. We can’t consider a bill that we have not seen. How do we scrutinise and contribute to the debate on the bill. It’s not possible. There is a protocol that must be followed”.

    The Senate spokesman, Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe (PDP Abia State), explained that the delay over the amendment bill was due to its volume. According to him, the third budget amendment proposal sent by Dr. Jonathan to the Senate was more voluminous than the original 2013 budget document, adding that, as a result of the size of the new proposal, the Senate could not deliberate on it, until the senators return from their annual vacation in September. The vacation begins in August.

    Abaribe said: “If there are differences, we shall discuss with the President in order to thrash them out. The President cannot expect us to pass the proposal without looking into the voluminous documents”.

    On the accusation by the Presidency that the National Assembly removed some capital votes from the initial proposed amendments, Abaribe said it was impossible to pass a budget as submitted to the National Assembly.

    In a move to kick-start work on the amendment, it was learnt that the Senate President, David Mark, mandated Senate Leader Victor Ndoma-Egba to meet with the Committees on Appropriation, Finance and Special Duties. The meeting was reportedly held on April 22.

    Sources close to the committees disclosed that there was no headway on the budget. “After briefing the Senate Leader, it was concluded that what the President wanted was not just an amendment of the budget, but a re-working of the budget,” the source said.

    According to the source, the meeting concluded that the Senateannot do that because it is on record that the President signed the 2013 budget on February 24 although the National Assembly forwarded it to him on January 30.

    To re-work a budget already passed and signed by the president is strange to us, Ojudu remarked. “It has never happened. Any way when we start deliberation on the amendment bill, Nigerians would know our position”, he added.

    Senator Aloy Etuk (PDP, Akwa Ibom) said it is wrong for the executive to ask for a fresh approval of the whole budget. Etuk opines that the President could make a request for amendment or alteration of certain things or present a supplementary budget. “But not to ask for a fresh approval of the whole budget already signed into law by Mr President himself. That is wrong. It’s never done,” he added.

    Constituency projects funds withheld

    The law makers are angry over the non-release of N100 billion meant for the constituency projects . They are unhappy that the first and second quarter allocations for the projects have not been released. It has been alleged that the Finance Minister is withholding the release of the funds for the constituency projects as a pre-condition for fast tracking the amendment to 2013 budget.

    A member of the National Assembly who doesn’t want his name in print said warned the executive to stop blackmailing the legislators on constituency projects funds, saying that it is a statutory allocation, and not a favour.

    According to him, the issues concerning the constituency projects had been settled as far back as 2008. The issue of our constituency projects being in the budget was settled during the administration of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, he said. He recalled that, in 2008, the late president returned the budget where he demanded an amendment and part of the resolution then was that there would be a threshold for constituency projects for the National Assembly members of which N100 billion was agreed upon.

    The Chairman House of Representatives Committee on Public Accounts Hon Solomon Adeola, (ACN Alimoso , Lagos), said it was wrong for the executive to withhold the allocations meant for Constituency projects believing that such action would make the legislators do their biddings. The provision for the constituency projects was approved just like other headings in the budget signed by the president. We are in the third quarter of the financial year, the executive in its wisdom thought that constituency projects are irrelevant, hence, it has refused to release funds for the first and second quarters for the projects.”

    Adeola wondered why the Presidency is sitting over the funds. According to him: “We lawmakers don’t award contracts for constituency projects. We don’t recommend contractors. That is the business of the executive. Our responsibility is to monitor the execution of the projects, to ensure service delivery. The motive behind constituency projects is to guarantee even development so that people all over the country would feel government presence in their localities”.

    On his part, Etuk said withholding the constituency project funds by the executive is very wrong. His words: It is a very wrong idea. Whatever is in the budget must be implemented, it is a law, it must be obeyed. Selective implementation is a violation of Appropriation Act. The constituency project is part of what we promised our people, Ojudu said, adding, that is the benefit of those who elected us. He said: “We legislators don’t take money meant for this project, neither do we award contracts. It is the executive that awards contracts and select contractors. Ours is to ensure that projects approved for constituencies are executed because that is what the people we represent would benefit from government.

    Apparently defending the withholding of constituency projects fund, the Director-General, Bureau of Public Procurement (BPE), Mr Emeka Nze, said most projects awarded in the past were without proper designs adding that the present government says this can’t continue.

    Eze said part of global requirement was that public funds should be properly scrutinised while the law requires open competitive bidding. So with the directives of Mr President, by the end of October, virtually all projects would have been completed, he said.

    Asked if the National Assembly delaying action on the Amendment bill to hoodwink the executive into releasing the allocations for constituency projects, Ojudu said it was not true. “The National Assembly would not because of that abdicate its responsibilities. But for the reason I gave earlier that copies of the Amended bill have not been distributed to members of the National Assembly, we would have commenced deliberation on it,” he added.