Tag: Gov Wike

Without prejudice to the cause(s) of last week’s misunderstanding in Yeghe and Bori communities in Gokana Local Government Area of Rivers State, and the controversy surrounding Governor Nyesom Wike’s impartiality in the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) tango in the state, it is about time the deployment of the military in crisis spots be addressed. The military insisted soldiers went after cultists and other miscreants disturbing the peace of the community, but members of the Yeghe community insisted the military brutalised their kinsmen. Whichever party to the clash is telling the truth hardly matters as much as the argument of Gov. Wike that the military could not be deployed to crisis areas in his state without his knowledge. He is right, even assuming his party and party men were responsible for the breakdown of law and order.

“The Rivers State Government will take up this unfortunate incident with the appropriate authorities,” warned the governor. “The military must subject itself to civil authority.” He then explains: “I am the chief security officer of this state. Before any deployment of soldiers, I should be informed. But in this case, I was not aware. I will always support the security agencies in the fight against criminals and criminality, but I will never support the killing of innocent persons. That is why I am here today for an on-the-spot assessment. I have seen for myself the destruction in Yeghe and the killings that took place. I went to the mortuaries to see the corpses and the relatives of the deceased confirmed they were killed during the operation.” The governor has called for an investigation and the prosecution of those responsible for the killings. It is not clear whether his call will be heeded.

The Rivers deployment reminds the country of the deployment of soldiers during the Zaria clash between Shiites and the Army in December 2015. Though the Army still insists the Shiites attempted to assassinate the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, a claim denied by the Shiites, many observers suspect that whatever the causes of the Zaria clash were, the deployment of soldiers probably did not follow laid-down constitutional procedure. Hopefully, the judicial panel of inquiry in the Zaria case will unearth what happened and how.

It is anomalous to deploy the military in internal security duties without the knowledge of the elected governor. It is time the Muhammadu Buhari administration addressed this major and unacceptable constitutional lapse in order not to set bad precedence that will endanger democracy.

Responding to his victory at the Supreme Court, Governor Nyesom Wike has described the apex court judgement that set aside the judgements of the election petition tribunal and the Appeal Court as victory for democracy. The lower courts had overturned Mr Wike’s April 11 governorship election victory and ordered a rerun. It is understandable that in the flush of victory, the governor would celebrate the judiciary. He did not quite celebrate the judiciary when he lost at the lower courts, forgetting that the judicial system is a process that begins at the lower courts and terminates at the apex court. Given his temperament and disposition, had Mr Wike lost at the Supreme Court, it is uncertain he would have described his defeat as victory for democracy. Indeed, the talkative Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, who has crowned himself as the great national defender of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has described the Wike victory paradoxically as the judiciary redeeming itself.

In the past few months, the judiciary has been under some enormous strains, helped in no small measure by corruption allegations against some judges, inexplicable and contradictory judgements, and slow and incompetent administration of justice. Until these vices are tackled, the strains will continue to ensure that head or tail, the judiciary will find it difficult to win. When courts give their judgements, winners will exult about democracy, while losers will chafe at its subversion. But win or lose, because the Supreme Court has sometimes overruled its own decisions in a worrisome display of fallibility, the controversy over judicial independence and incorruptibility will continue to rage for some time to come. Political leaders, therefore, have a responsibility to act and speak more maturely over disputed cases, while those in public office, especially at very high levels, have a yet greater responsibility to ensure the sacrosanctity of the rule of law. For, as everyone knows, the sustainability of democracy, nay civilisation itself, depends on the rule of law, a concept often creatively but mendaciously interpreted by the government in power.