Tag: Ekiti

On Tuesday, April 14, another election dispute that had progressed through the several adjudicatory levels in our court system was disposed of. It involved the emergence of Ayodele Fayose of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, as winner of the Ekiti State gubernatorial election held on June 21, 2014. The All Progressives’ Congress, APC, had lodged a petition at the Election Petition Tribunal after the said election, with several allegations, including fake certificates, harassment of opposition by security outfits and Fayose’s disqualification from contesting the election.

After all the legal wrangling in the courts leading to the Supreme Court decision delivered last Tuesday, the story from the onset at the tribunal remains unchanged; the election results remain valid. The decision, as we have seen, has addressed certain constitutional issues. The most prevalent issue, perhaps, is the question of whether an impeached governor is by implication disqualified from contesting future elections in the manner set out in section 182(1) of the 1999 constitution which lists grounds upon which a governor may be disqualified. Particularly relevant is Section 182(1) (e) and (i). Section 182 (1) (i) which state that a person is disqualified from running for election if “he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunal of Inquiry Law or any other law by the federal or state government which indictment has been accepted by the federal or state government”.

On October 16, 2006, a panel put together by then acting Chief Judge of Ekiti State, Justice Jide Aladejana recommended Fayose’s impeachment after which he was impeached. The panel was set up despite the fact that the Chief Judge at the time, Justice Kayode Bamisile, who was suspended by the state assembly in controversial circumstances, had previously constituted a panel of inquiry. The Bamisile panel had considered the impeachment notice and cleared Fayose of wrongdoing. Events in the state later deteriorated into chaos. The Aladejana panel recommendation and the subsequent impeachment of Fayose had been relied on as ground for canvassing Fayose’s disqualification from the 2014 elections. The court last Tuesday held that impeachment is not a ground for disqualification of a candidate for election. It further said that the second panel set up by Justice Aladejana, who was thereafter dismissed by the National Judicial Council, NJC, was illegal.

According to reports, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, further stated in that judgment that even if the second judicial panel of inquiry had been rightly constituted, Fayose still had to be tried and convicted before the Code of Conduct Tribunal notwithstanding the recommendation by the Judicial panel of authority, before he could be disqualified from running for election. The purport of this is that the decision of a judicial panel of enquiry ordinarily will not fall within the scope of an indictment of “…a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a Tribunal…” envisaged in section 182 (1) (i) reproduced above. However, a conviction under the Code of Conduct is specifically stated in Section 182 (1) (e).

Several questions still arise like what constitutes an “indictment” under that subsection. Though I have not had the opportunity of seeing the actual judgment, but if Justice Rhodes-Vivour’s views are mirrored in the lead judgment read by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, then the position of the Supreme Court of Nigeria would be to exclude the decisions of such judicial panels altogether from the contemplations of Section 182(1) (i). This appeared to be the crux of the APC appeal which was dismissed across all levels of court. The certificate allegations were equally dismissed as it had been brought before the courts previously and had been adjudged to be valid.

However, looking forward from this judgment, a thorny issue emerging from Ekiti State is the present bid by the majority APC lawmakers in the state assembly to impeach Fayose. A notice of impeachment has been submitted to the governor and by all indications, the state assembly is set for a repeat of 2006. There have been calls for the legislators to halt the  impeachment proceedings, which include letters to the NJC. It is curious that the NJC is being called to intervene in state legislative processes. It is clear that once the lawmakers follow the provisions of Section 188 or 189 of the constitution, nobody or other arm of government, may interfere in its proceedings. As such, it would seem that it is completely within the powers of the Ekiti State House of Assembly to exercise its powers under the constitution providing that all acts are done within constitutional boundaries. Therefore, the suits filed on behalf of the governor including that filed before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, cannot stop the state’s lawmakers from performing their constitutional role, but can only rule on whether certain acts are legal or otherwise.

The absurdity of the situation in the Ekiti State House of Assembly is reminiscent of the Rivers State crisis where the house mace was destroyed after it was smashed against the head of one member of that house. The facts are similar, with a PDP minority seeking to impose a speaker of their choosing on a majority APC House of Assembly, despite not having the required numbers to perform such an act under the constitution. In the Ekiti case, PDP lawmakers are carrying on an absurd legal anomaly by foisting Dele Olugbemi on the house as speaker, despite the fact that APC’s Adewale Omirin, the legally appointed speaker, has not been impeached as the constitution provides.

To make matters worse, the majority APC members have deserted the legislative complex to conduct sittings at the state university because their safety is not guaranteed. The seven PDP members of a 26-member house that presumably ‘impeached’ the Speaker present the presence of the Clerk of the House and the sergeant at arms in their midst as well as the house mace as proof of their legitimacy. Apart from the backing of the governor, no part of the constitution has been invoked to legalise their claims. The situation leaves the illegal faction conducting proceedings in the house while the otherwise legal faction is conducting sittings outside the legislative chambers, which, in itself, is against the Supreme Court judgment in Inakanju v. Adeleke.

These repeated occurrences continue within our political system, despite the apparent rascality of the acts and their illegality. It sends the message that the political class is immune to logic and are bent on dragging the country back to the old days of the rule of force rather than the rule of law. It is particularly distressing that while strides are seemingly being made towards a saner society fit for modern participation in civilised practices around the world, some elements within our system are unwilling to cultivate the art of statesmanship or learn the rudiments of modern politicking. It bothers the mind as to whether our moral fibre as a society is so stained as to reject progressive thinking and civilised behaviour at all levels.

It is not enough for hapless individuals to perpetrate unfounded illegalities and thereafter head to the courts to exploit the machinery of law. The law is not there to be used as an instrument in political warfare but stands alone as the sole authority in the country. As long as legal action is an afterthought for the ‘ruling class’, then real peace will always be threatened. The courts need to also be firmer in admitting or rejecting claims and where claims are admitted, final, definitive decisions must be made that will themselves stand as a backdrop for admitting future claims. As much as the law is open for aggrieved parties to lay their claims, it is also a pre-cursor to gaining that recourse that a case should contain actual legal issues and not mere confirmation of obvious outcomes that are plain in the constitution. May God help Ekiti State, help Nigeria.

‘It is particularly distressing that while strides are seemingly being made towards a saner society fit for modern participation in civilised practices around the world, some elements within our system are unwilling to cultivate the art of statesmanship or learn the rudiments of modern politicking’