Tag: Amaechi

Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi spoke yesterday on the cause of the insecurity in the state. He blamed it all on the desperation by Abuja forces working towards the 2015 general election.

He attributed the dwindling fortunes of the Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of Rivers state to the rising insecurity in the state.

The Rivers governor said insecurity came at a time when desperate politicians resorted to power-play at the national level, ahead of the 2015 elections and the recent influx of political thugs and miscreants, that were chased out of the state when he assumed office in 2007.

Amaechi spoke at the Government House in Port Harcourt when officers and students of the Armed Forces Command and Staff College, Jaji, Plateau State, visited him.

The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) chairman noted that the prevalent insecurity in Rivers state prevented most companies from operating outside Port Harcourt, the state capital, which he said negatively affected the state’s IGR, that would have hit N10 billion monthly.

He said: “Things were improving before now, with the Army, Police and the State Security Service (SSS), which enabled us to arrest the insecurity in the state.

“It is also important for you to know the economic interest of the people, and our private interest too.

“Now, people are being kidnapped like in recent times. Some of my colleagues in government, like a lawyer I met this morning, he was kidnapped and kept for eight days, but he was just released on Friday. You are also aware of the Bishop that was kidnapped, but these issues were not there after I assumed office in 2007. But because of the elections (2015), the Abuja front has released all the people (militants) we chased out of Port Harcourt back into the state.”

The pro-Governor Rotimi Amaechi’s Save Rivers Movement (SRM) has dragged Commissioner of Police Mbu Joseph Mbu to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), over the shooting of Senator Magnus Abe (Rivers Southeast), demanding N1 billion damages and an apology.

The SRM’s petition was addressed to the Executive Secretary of the NHRC by the group’s lawyer, Ken Atsuwete, a human rights activist.

The petition is titled: “Arbitrary use of police powers, weapons and coercive force on members of the Save Rivers Movement, Senator Magnus Ngei Abe, Chief Tony Okocha and innocent Nigerians, contrary to Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the Police Act and the decision of the Court of Appeal in IGP –v- ANPP (2007) AHRL, 179.”

Besides the police’s shooting of the ex-Secretary to the Rivers State Government (Abe) at the Rivers State College of Arts and Science, the pro-Amaechi group also frowned on the disruption of its rally and the injury sustained by the Chief of Staff, Government House, Port Harcourt, Okocha.

Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi signed into Law yesterday the 2014 Appropriation Bill at the Government House, Port Harcourt. He had a word for his “so-called Abuja brothers” and Commissioner of Police Mbu Joseph Mbu, who he described as enemies of Rivers.

He insisted that Mbu was not a policeman, but a known Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) politician, who had been attending meetings with members of the political party and carrying out illegal actions. Mbu has always defended his integrity, saying he owes no allegiance to the PDP as widely believed.

Amaechi, who is also the Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), said the 25 members of the Rivers House of Assembly loyal to him, on Tuesday, defended Nigeria’s democracy and upheld the rights of Rivers people to good governance, as being demonstrated by his administration.

The signing of the Appropriation Bill into law was witnessed by the Leader of the Rivers Assembly, Chidi Lloyd, a lawyer, who represents Emohua Constituency, who was detained by the police over the December 30 last year’s accident, which involved his Sport-Utility Vehicle (SUV), driven by his driver.

The All Progressives Congress (APC), Rivers chapter, through Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, the Senior Special Assistant, Media and Public Affairs, to the Interim State Chairman, Chief Davies Ibiamu Ikanya, maintained that the lawmakers acted within the confines of the law and powers vested in them.

The PDP, Rivers chapter, in a statement by Pastor Jerry Needam, the Special Adviser, Media to the Chairman, Chief Felix Obuah, described the NGF chairman and the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly as enemies of Rivers people.

The NGF chairman, on Tuesday at the old Banquet Hall of the Government House, Port Harcourt, presented the N485.524 billion budget, which is N4.797 billion (0.98 per cent) lower than the 2013 budget of N490.320 billion.

Amaechi said the budget would focus on completing ongoing projects in health, education, roads, transport, power, water, agriculture and other critical infrastructure.

Twenty three of the 25 lawmakers supporting Amaechi, led by Otelemaba Dan Amachree, were at the presentation, with the budget passed into law the same day, after a few hours of deliberations. Lloyd was not at the sitting.

The pro-Wike legislators: Evans Bipi (Ogu/Bolo constituency, the self-acclaimed Speaker), Michael Okechukwu Chinda (Obio/Akpor II), Kelechi Godspower Nwogu (Omuma), Martins Amaewhule (Obio/Akpor I), Victor Ihunwo (Port Harcourt III) and Ikuinyi-Owaji Ibani, the Chief Whip (Andoni), all boycotted the budget presentation.

Amaechi, shortly after signing the 2014 Appropriation Bill into law at the Executive Council Chambers, lauded the lawmakers for promptly passing the budget.

He said their prompt action would empower his administration to sustain the provision of more people-oriented projects.

The NGF chairman also acknowledged the legislators’ determination to press on with their legislative responsibilities, despite attempts by “enemies” of the state to forestall their progress.

He lauded them for their firmness and decision to stand with the people in their legislative functions and thanked them for their patriotism.

The Rivers governor said: “Let me thank the members of the House (Rivers Assembly) for your actions yesterday (Tuesday). There was the need to defeat those who wish the state evil and I am sure the whole state is extremely pleased with the level of patriotism that you have displayed.

“The initial plan of those led by our so-called ‘Abuja brothers’ and the Commissioner of Police (Mbu Joseph Mbu) is to stop you (lawmakers) from dealing with legislative functions. I hear that one of them is telling people that he has been able to stop the House from sitting; he has been able to stop the judiciary from functioning.

“The truth of the matter is that none of such things could be happening other than the fact that they are using the state apparatus, which is the police. The Commissioner of Police is completely not a policeman. He is a known PDP politician, who attends meetings with them and carries out illegal actions.

“Yesterday (on Tuesday), you were able to assert that democracy is about the people and that when you talk about democracy, it begins with the legislative arm of government, for the reason that you represent each unit of our people and you actually go down to the people.”

Prior to presenting the appropriation bill for the governor’s assent, the leader of the Rivers House of Assembly, said the legislators were impressed with the current achievements of the Amaechi’s administration.

Lloyd said: “May I, by leave of Mr. Speaker (Rt. Hon. Otelemaba Dan Amachree) invite Your Excellency (Amaechi) to kindly assent to the 2014 Appropriation Law, as passed by the Rivers State House of Assembly. Your Excellency, we urge you to continue to deliver on the dividends of good governance, as you have done.”

The main opposition party also lauded the Rivers governor for coming up with a realistic budget for the 2014 fiscal year and for its successful presentation, passage and signing into law.

APC described the budget as one of realism and a good example to the Federal Government and other state governors, stressing that there was no need to be deceiving members of the public, by making unrealistic promises.

The opposition party said: “The 2014 budget is 0.98 per cent lower than the 2013 budget of N490.32 billion, which shows a lot of wisdom, in view of the reality of steadily declining revenue to the State, due to the wicked ceding of some of the oil wells of Rivers State to neighbouring States of Baylesa, Abia and Akwa Ibom, by the PDP-led Federal Government.”

An Abuja-based lawyer, IHEANYICHUKWU MARAIZU argues that there is nothing legally wrong with appointing the President of the Customary Court of Appeal as state Chief Judge.

A crisis of succession is rocking the Rivers State Judiciary and if not checked or halted forthwith, it is capable of worsening the already bad political situation in that state

How it all started

On August 19, last year, the former Chief Judge of Rivers State retired, thereby making it imperative for a successor to be appointed immediately.

In the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 271 (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (as Amended), the state Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, appointed the Hon. Justice P. N. C. Agumagu (President of the Rivers State Customary Court of Appeal) to act as the Chief Judge pending the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge.

It was this appointment that sparked off the controversy which has raged unabated in the state Judiciary from August 20, 2013 when it was made till date.

The appointment was criticised by some powerful interests in the state, who hinged their criticisms on the same Section 271 (4) of the Constitution on which the appointment was based in the first place.

The vociferous critics, who rejected the acting appointment made by the governor charged that Justice Agumagu is not the most senior judge of the High Court of Rivers State whom the Constitution says must be appointed to act as the Chief Judge. They argue that the Customary Court of Appeal of whic Justice Agumagu is the President is not part of the High Court of Rivers State.

This is notwithstanding the fact that it is part of the state Judiciary. The Rivers State Government explained that the said Justice Agumagu was appointed and sworn in as a Judge of the Rivers State High Court long before the rest of his colleagues. He (Justice Agumagu) was only seconded to the Customary Court of Appeal upon its establishment.To it (Rivers State Government) therefore, Justice Agumagu is the most senior Judge of the High Court of the state.

According to Section 271 (4) of the Constitution, if the office of the Chief Judge of a state is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office or until the person holding the office has assumed those functions, the Governor of the State shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court to perform those functions.

This unambiguous provision of the constitution will be examined later against the refusal of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to recognise Justice Agumagu.

No one has disputed the fact that Justice Agumagu was appointed and sworn in as a judge of the High Court of Rivers State long before the rest of his contemporaries. What remains to be determined is whether this undisputed fact makes him the most senior judge of the High Court of Rivers State.

As has been pointed out above, the position of the Rivers State Government is that Justice Agumagu is the most senior judge of the High Court of Rivers State. It, therefore, believes that it has satisfied the requirements of Section 271 (4) of the Constitution. The antagonists of the government counter this position by insisting that the Customary Court of Appeal where Justice Agumagu works is not part of the High Court. To this group therefore, the government should do the right thing by appointing somebody from the High Court.

In my humble opinion, the proponents of this view (that is, that the Customary Court of Appeal is not part of the High Court) are wrong. In the first place, the president and other judges of the Customary Court of Appeal are High Court Judges. No one can be appointed to the office of a judge of the Customary Court of Appeal without being first sworn in as a High Court judge. The only difference is in the nature of duties performed by judges of the High Court and those of the Customary Court of Appeal.

Whereas judges of the High Court handle all manner of cases (in exercise of both original and appellate jurisdictions), those of the Customary Court of Appeal only handle appeals emanating from Customary Courts.

In some places, original jurisdiction has by law been conferred on Customary Courts of Appeal on specific subject matters. In the Federal Capital Territory for example, the Customary Court of Appeal Act has been amended to confer original jurisdiction (to the exclusion of any other Court) on the Customary Court of Appeal in chieftaincy disputes.

Apart from the differences in their duties, there is no other difference between judges of the High Court and those of the Customary Court of Appeal.

The qualification for appointment in both cases is the same. Thus Section 271 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that for anybody to be qualified to be appointed a judge of the High Court of a state, the person must be qualified to practise as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and must have been so qualified for not less than 10 years. Section 281 (3) of the same constitution equally requires a person who wishes to be appointed president or a judge of the Customary Court of Appeal to be not less than 10 years at the Bar.

Apart from qualification, appeals from the High Court go straight to the Court of Appeal. The same thing is applicable to appeals emanating from the Customary Court of Appeal.

Customary Courts of Appeal and the High Courts have coordinate or concurrent jurisdiction. None can, therefore, sit on appeal in cases emanating from the other. Section 210 of the 1999 Constitution is very clear on this point. It is needless to add that the Conditions of Service for all judicial officers are the same (see inter alia Section 291 of the 1999 Constitution).

I have taken the pains to highlight the foregoing points just to prove that the High Court of a state is not in any way superior to the Customary Court of Appeal of that state.

In the light of this, there is no reason the president of the Customary Court of Appeal cannot act as, or, indeed, be the Chief Judge of a state. This is my humble submission and I stand to be corrected. The only thing that can disqualify the president of a Customary Court of Appeal from acting as or becoming the Chief Judge is if he is not the most senior judge.

In the instant case, the fact that the person appointed to act as the Chief Judge of Rivers State is the most senior judge in the State is not in dispute. It will, therefore, not only be unfair, but also a dangerous precedent to disqualify him merely because he works in Customary Court of Appeal.

The contention that the Customary Court of Appeal is not part of the High Court is in my respectful opinion fatally flawed. This is because the proponents of that view seem to understand the word “court” as a building. It is apparently for this reason that they erroneously argue that the Customary Court of Appeal is not part of the High Court.

This is ridiculous to say the least. Section 258 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 defines the “court” to include all judges and magistrates and … all persons legally authorised to take evidence. In the light of this statutory definition of “court”, how can it be reasonably argued that a High Court judge is not part of the High Court merely because he works outside the building designated as High Court?

 

The role of National Judicial Council (njc)

As noted above, the NJC rejected the acting appointment made by the Rivers State Governor in preference for the person it sees as the most senior judge of the Rivers State High Court. The NJC reportedly followed up this position by writing to all judges in the state directing them not to accept acting appointment from the state governor or face its wrath. Needless to say that by this singular act, the NJC has worsened an already bad situation.

But it is imperative to point out that the NJC lacks the power to meddle into an appointment validly made by the governor as Section 271 (4) of the Constitution is clear as to whose duty it is to appoint an acting Chief Judge whenever a vacancy arises.

More importantly, by directing the governor as to how he should perform his constitutional duty, the NJC is in breach of the principle of Separation of Powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Being a body made up of human beings, the NJC cannot lay claim to infallibility. Whenever it errs therefore (as in the instant case), the NJC should have the humility to admit its error and retrace its steps.

The political situation in Rivers State is already bad enough. If the stalemate in the state judiciary is not quickly resolved, anarchy could result and only God can predict what will happen next.