The Nation Newspaper

Tag: impeachment

Law and politics of impeachment
A Lagos lawyer, Chijioke Emeka, argues that impeachment is essentially a political trial with predetermined outcome.

Recently, Murtala Nyako, former Adamawa State governor, was ‘impeached’. Shortly thereafter, Tanko Al-Makura, Nasarawa State governor narrowly survived ‘impeachment’. Mr. Sunday Onyebuchi, Enugu State deputy governor got the boot for allegedly running an ‘illegal poultry’ and refusing to represent the governor at functions.

Before these incidents, Jude Agbaso, Imo State deputy governor was ‘impeached’. These events have raised legal and political issues, which I would try to examine in this piece. Since I am a counsel in the Agbaso case, which is still before the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division, I would avoid any comment on the Imo incident.

Let me enter a caveat. The term ‘impeachment’ does not appear anywhere in the 320 Sections of the 1999 Constitution (hereinafter ‘CFRN’) or in its seven schedules and three alterations. It is, however, used in this text in its popular sense as the process of removal from office of an elected executive (president, vice president, governor and deputy governor), for gross misconduct.

Being essentially a feature of the presidential system of government, it was not until 1979 when Nigeria switched to the presidential system that the tool could first be put to use. (In parliamentary systems, confidence vote, vel non, was the equivalent political sledge-hammer to bring down a premier’s government).

Thus, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the then Kaduna State governor became the proverbial guinea pig used to test the brand new weapon of ‘impeachment’. If the resolution of the Kaduna State legislature removing Musa from office was a Zmapp drug experiment, it came out successful.

At the new turn of democracy in 1999, Abia State deputy governor, Enyinnaya Abaribe; Kebbi State deputy governor, Suleiman Argungu; both Lagos State deputy governors, Kofo Bucknor-Akerele and Femi Pedro; Oyo State governor, Rasheed Ladoja; Bayelsa State governor, DSP Alameseigha; Ekiti State governor and deputy governor, Ayo Fayose and Biodun Olujinmi; Anambra State governor, Peter Obi; Plateau State governor, Joshua Dariye; Bauchi State deputy governor, Mohammed Gadi; Bayelsa State deputy governor, Peremobowei Ebebi; Taraba State deputy governor, Sani Abubakar Danladi and others have had to swallow this bitter political pill.

The Ladoja, Dariye and Obi cases were most celebrated because the courts explained the law and firmed up jurisprudence. The three governors were restored by courts and effectively won the politics of return. A successful impeachment is a blend of politics and legality. The plotters must win the politics and then, if challenged in court (as is almost always the case), also pass through the legal crucibles.

As a political process, ‘impeachment’ is intended to constitute a political trial and judgment of the Legislature, while the courts are silent. This is apparently why the CFRN provides for an ouster clause; and partly defines gross misconduct as whatever is so “in the opinion” of the legislature. (There are equivalent provisions for removal of president and vice president in section 143(10) and (11).)

From Balarabe Musa forward, two bizarre consequences soon reared their heads to the consternation of well-meaning persons. The first was the creation of ‘gross misconduct’ from just ‘anything’, the most popular being refusal of a chief executive to open the public till to the legislature or a ‘godfather’ on demand.

Nigerians lost count of how many times former President Olusegun Obasanjo was threatened with impeachment by the legislature over ‘gross misconduct’ that was generally interpreted to mean ‘refusal to share the money’. None was however, consummated. Obasanjo himself later became infamous for aiding the impeachment of state executives on questionable ‘gross misconduct’ that ranged from not being a member of his political party to being perceived as hobnobbing with his political opponents, especially his vice president, Atiku Abubakar; or simply being ‘disloyal’, which could mean opposing his truncated bid to secure a third term.

In respect of deputy governors, who had been at the worst receiving end of the scourge, their ‘gross misconduct’ usually constituted a perceived political ambition without the blessing of the governor, or any other disagreement with the governor on private or policy issues, or simply the governor perceiving it as politically ‘strategic’. It should be noted that in all these, an ostensible ‘gross misconduct’ is normally minted. This has usually been corruption allegations, but recently running an ‘illegal poultry’ has made the fascinating list.

The second problem that exploited the CFRN’s politicisation of impeachment was jettisoning of due process by the legislature. During the Obasanjo years, once the blessing of the president or a ‘garrison commander’ was secured with the backing of the EFCC, the Legislature could proceed without due service of notice of allegation or even without a quorum; sit at un-parliamentary hours; sit without a Speaker or the Mace; sit in a hotel in town; or proceed without the required votes etc.

There was no end to the violation of procedure by the legislature. They apparently believed the ouster clause in Section 188(10) meant that even if the wrong procedure was adopted there was no judicial oversight, as Section 188(10) made them complainant, lord and master of procedure and the first and final Judge.

Given their ordinary grammatical meaning, the words of the ouster clause are so clear that no court would on the face of that provision accept an impeachment case. This was the cruel fate suffered by both Musa and Abaribe. But this was soon to unravel. The Gestapo manner in which Ladoja was removed as governor, which shocked every normal person, became the catalyst.

Thus in ADELEKE V OYO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2007) 1 NWLR (PART 100) 608, the Court of Appeal courageously ‘redrafted’ the ouster clause using the judicial license of ‘interpretation’. Law is dynamic and bad times give rise to revolutionary times. It was held that since Section 188(1) – (9) prescribes procedures, the proper interpretation to be given to the ouster clause is that it could only be activated when such procedures had been complied with.

Many who thought that the revolutionary decision was judicial activism gone too far were surprised when the Supreme Court in INAKOJU V ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PART 1025) 42 not only upheld the decision but laid down far-reaching principles that effectively put impeachment procedure under the radar of judicial scrutiny. Thus, contrary to the decisions of the Court of Appeal in BALARABE MUSA V AUTA HAMZA (1983) 3 NCLR 229 and ABARIBE V SPEAKER ABIA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2002) 14 NWLR (PART 788) 466, judicial oversight is available over impeachment procedure.

So if the letters of Section 188(1) – (9) are strictly complied with, judicial power ends, and politics prevails. The courts would not question the finding of the panel of seven or question any of the two resolutions of the legislature in the process, that is, so long as the required majority was met. Where any of the letters is overthrown, the impeachment is legally wrong even if politically right.

The then emergent jurisprudence that the legal correctness of an impeachment as expoused in LADOJA was justiciable soon ossified as law. This was evident when the Court of Appeal applied it in Peter Obi’s case. See BALONWU V OBI (2007) NWLR (PART 1028) 488, Dariye’s Case, DAPIALONG V DARIYE (2007) 8 NWLR (PART 1036) 239; and in Ebebi’s Case. See EBEBI V SPEAKER BAYELSA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2012) 5 NWLR (PART 1292) 1.

While the problem that arose on the issue of due process was resolved by revolutionary judicial tactic, the political angle remains. It is noteworthy, however, that in LADOJA, Niki Tobi JSC (then) hinted on the need for a valid gross misconduct to exist. This could mean that judicial power may extend to test the grossness of an alleged misconduct. Hopefully this would be taken in an appropriate case.

However, my humble view is that since Section 188(10) opened with a constitutional definition of ‘gross misconduct’ as a “grave” violation of the Constitution and then leaves a discretion to add new strains, the ejusdem generis rule would apply to remove absolutism from such discretion. It would thus in my view be constitutionally invalid to proceed on an allegation that falls out of class with a “grave” constitutional violation. Running an alleged ‘illegal poultry’ is not a constitutional violation, talk much of “grave”. My view though.

Impeachment is political because once the master-mind and his co-conspirators secure a required majority of the legislature; and the Chief Judge (though expectedly apolitical) is ‘with due respect’ made to appoint the ‘right’ people as Panel of Seven, the impeachment is a done deal. The importance of the role of the Chief Judge was demonstrated in the failed bid in Nasarawa State. There, the legislature felt the ‘wrong’ people were appointed.

Being essentially a political trial with predetermined outcome, an apprehensive subject usually keeps off the panel’s sittings, but Al-Makura appeared. That was significant and too telling. It was also clear that the legislature lost the politics when they began to demand for reconstitution of the panel. Section 188(5) CFRN gives the Chief Judge discretion to appoint neutral persons. For the politics to succeed, the panel members are usually not neutral. By Section 188(8) CFRN the politics failed the day the panel reported that the allegations were not proved. The legislature only retained the liberty to commence a new process on new facts or submit a legal dispute.

The successful impeachment of Murtala Nyako is also a case study in the triumph of the politics. It is believed that his virulent epistle to the president was behind his travail. But the politics was effective as all hands were on deck (or forced to be on deck) to pull it off. The ability of the actors to unite on a common object explains why what succeeded in Adamawa failed in Nasarawa. It remains the legal crucibles of constitutional validity.

Successful politics (or bad politics) of impeachment is a skill honed by good students during the Obasanjo era. The irritating interventions in state affairs, which was not limited to impeachment, compelled Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN to publish two interesting books: “How Obasajo Subverted the Rule of Law and Democracy” and “How President Obasanjo Subverted Nigeria’s Federal System”. Since many good students of those years are still around today to offer their services, we expect more impeachments and of course, more court cases challenging them.
- Emeka, Principal Counsel at Auxano Law Consult, writes from Lagos.
September 2, 2014
Moghalu: Onyebuchi’s impeachment, a national embarrassment

The National Auditor of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief George Moghalu, has described the recent impeachment of the Enugu State Deputy Governor, Mr. Sunday Onyebuchi, as an embarrassment to democracy.

The former National Secretary of the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party, told newsmen in Abuja that impeaching the deputy governor for allegedly running a poultry farm was ridiculous and unheard of.

He said those who drafted the 1999 Constitution intended impeachment clause only as a means of checking the excesses of the executive, pointing out that it was ridiculous that the deputy governor was not impeached for stealing or misappropriating government money.

He said: “What happened in Enugu State is an embarrassment. It is absolute madness as far as I’m concerned. The legislatures themselves should please ask themselves questions whether they are doing this in the interest of democracy,” he said.

On whether the party is considering adopting the principle of zoning in selecting its presidential candidate, he said: “One thing I know for certain which I can tell you is that we are going to provide the enabling environment for everybody to express him or herself. As a party, we have agreed that there will not be any imposition. We want a situation where the best candidate will emerge.

“But when you are looking at zoning, you must not also lose sight of the fact that in our constitution, there is provision for federal character, there is provision for balance and for you to achieve this, you must, out of political exigency, be compelled to bring in zoning.”

August 31, 2014
‘Impeachment denial diffuses tension in Yobe’

The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Yobe said yesterday that the dismissal of alleged impeachment plot against Governor Ibrahim Gaidam by the lawmakers has diffused tension among the citizenry.

This is contained in a statement made available to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Damaturu by the party’s secretary, Alhaji Abubakar Bakabe.

“The party hailed the response of the legislators to the allegation and also passed a vote of confidence in the governor,” Bakabe said.

The APC scribe said the lawmakers’ decision also calmed frayed nerves among APC supporters in the state.

He lauded the lawmakers “for refusing to be distracted by political job seekers planning to sow seed of discord among our party members and over heat the polity.

“As the ruling party in the state, APC has a sitting governor, three senators, six members of the House of Representatives, 24 members of the House of Assembly and 17 local government chairmen.

“The elected officers are united and focused on the task of developing the state.

“The legislators under the leadership of the Speaker, Alhaji Adamu Dala-Dogo, have disassociated themselves from the alleged impeachment plot and endorsed him (the governor) for 2015.”

The party supported the lawmakers, saying: “We assure you of our support and commitment to protect our party structure and government.”

Bakabe praised the people for their cooperation with the APC-led administration, pledging to provide viable development projects.

He listed them to include roads, healthcare delivery, functional education and employment opportunities.

Members of the House of Assembly last Tuesday dispelled the rumour that they had perfected plans to impeach Gaidam.

August 25, 2014
Impeachment: Enugu deputy governor lied, says Chime’s aide

The Enugu State government has described as false and misleading, the claims by Deputy Governor Sunday Onyebuchi that Governor Sullivan Chime operates a poultry and piggery at the Government House.

A statement by Chukwudi Achife, the Chief Press Secretary to Governor Chime, said the deputy governor’s claims were malicious and intended to deceive the public.

He said while the government maintains an Agric Unit as part of the Government House structure where livestock are kept for slaughter to serve the needs of the workers as well as both the governor and deputy governor’s premises, the unit was neither operated nor owned by the governor.

Achife said: “Our attention has been drawn to media reports credited to the deputy governor in which he alleged that Governor Chime owns a poultry farm and a piggery inside the Government House.

“Much as we would not want to join issues with the deputy governor, it has become necessary for us to put the records straight.

“The deputy governor’s claims that Governor Chime runs a poultry farm in the Government House is most unfortunate and surprising. This is because it is untrue and the deputy governor knows better.

“The truth is that there is an Agric Unit in the Government House where livestock are held for the use of the Government House. It has been in existence since the Government House was built and had served previous administrations in Enugu. It is neither commercially operated nor is it owned by the governor.

“The unit is manned by civil servants including a veterinary doctor. Funds for its maintenance are provided for in the annual budget of the government. The unit also serves the deputy governor. As a matter of fact, workers of the unit slaughtered a cow from the unit at the request of the deputy governor on August 4.

“So, if the unit as he (Onyebuchi) erroneously claims belongs to the governor, why should it form part of the state’s annual budgets? Why would the deputy governor request the unit to slaughter cows for him from its livestock holding? “

He went on: “It is important to clarify that the Agric unit is not within the governor’s residential premises, but a unit in the Government House, which has other units, such as the Press unit, Drivers unit, among others. The Agric unit serves the purpose of holding livestock for periodic slaughter for use by the Government House workers, the Governor’s lodge and the Deputy Governor’s lodge. It was on the strength of this fact that he (Onyebuchi) requested the workers of the unit to slaughter a cow for him from the unit’s holding on August 4 and this was done.

“Now, the other question to ask is, since the deputy governor is aware of the existence of this unit and benefits from its services, why was he operating another one? The truth, however, is that he was operating a commercial poultry with his own workers, including as he admitted in his evidence, a marketing manager.

“The poultry in his residential quarters was relocated after he refused all official entreaties to do same, fully aware that running a commercial poultry within his residential premises violates the policy of government. So, why would the state’s Number Two citizen violate a policy made by his own government?”

On Onyebuchi’s claims on what transpired between the panel and counsel to the parties on the day he slumped, it would be recalled that Mr. Nduka Ikeyi, counsel to the Enugu State House of Assembly at the panel investigating the allegations of gross misconduct against the deputy governor, clarified the events, contrary to what some sections of the press deliberately and mischievously chose to report.

August 22, 2014
Enugu impeachment: The roots, the intrigues and the power game

The impeachment proceedings against the Deputy Governor of Enugu State, Sunday Onyebuchi, has recorded a lot of twists and intrigues. But as it enters its final stages, Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, dug into the genesis of the crisis, and reports that it is rooted in the power game ahead 2015

As Enugu State House of Assembly this week rounds up the impeachment proceedings against the Deputy Governor, Chief Sunday Onyebuchi, there are indications that the outcome may untie the web-like political texture of the South-East state ahead 2015 general elections.

Varying interpretations to the forces that led to the political crisis have already been offered. But our investigation confirmed that all the interpretations point to different political interests, a fact that suggests that the post impeachment realities of Enugu State may not only define the existing political interests of the top players but also expose where each of them stands.

Until now, some major political stakeholders in the state have carefully hidden their interests, their loyalties and where they stand, but it seems the wind of impeachment will finally blow open some carefully hidden political secrets and expose who is where in the intricate game for 2015 elections.

For now, as has been the case since last year when the face- off at the Government House began, the Enugu State politics has remained largely anchored on a delicate blame game.

So, notwistanding the fact that the House of Assembly made its position and reasons for the impeachment proceedings very clear, there still exist different accounts of what led to the action.

While the deputy governor is accusing his boss, Governor Sullivan Chime, of being behind his predicament because he wants to create political opportunity for his Chief of Staff, Mrs. Ifeoma Nwobodo, officials of the state government and other insiders to PDP leadership in the state, who spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity, said it was members of the House of Assembly that noted the gross impeachable offenses committed by Onyebuchi and decided to do their constitutional duties in order to save the state and the inherent threats to democracy. They said Onyebuchi has since ceased to respect, obey or take instructions from the governor, a development that, according to them, has hampered governance in the state.

For example, a source in Enugu, a civil servant, explaining the genesis of the crisis, has this to say: “The principal impeachable offense against the deputy governor, that of deliberate disobedience to the governor, is neither false no a secret here. It has been there for long. As you must have read in the papers, it led to serious embarrassment of the state during the visit of President Goodluck Jonathan to flag-off the construction of the Second Niger Bridge in Anambra State and during a recent meeting of South-East Governors Forum in Enugu. These are just the few instances that finally brought out this obvious case of deliberate insubordination to the public sphere. The instances have been much but the governor had chosen to manage the situation. In most cases, when the governor directs the deputy to represent him in some critical occasions, the later will claim to be indisposed or sick even when everybody knows that he would attend more strenuous personal assignments at the same specified time. I think both the House of Assembly and the people of Enugu State saw it clearly that these two political leaders, who have been political allies since the days of former Governor Chimaroke Nnamani, can no longer work together, hence the impeachment proceeding.”

Another source, a top PDP chieftain in Enugu, who refused to be named in order not to be seen as taking sides, said the matter has to do with the 2015 politics and the control of the state power. “It seems the deputy governor is caught in a fierce political battle between Governor Chime and Senator Ike Ekweremadu for the control of power in Enugu State from 2015. It may not be false that Onyebuchi associates greatly with Ekweremadu and the former governor, Dr Chimaroke Nnamani, but whether he deliberately disobeys the governor on account of his relationship with these powerful political personalities is what I can neither ascertain now nor realistically comment upon, but I can tell you without any fear of contradiction that for Chime and Onyekwere, things have really fallen apart and we in the party know that it may no longer be in the interest of the party and the state to insist they must work together. Something has to go in the interest of peace and progress of the state,” he said.

Genesis of the face-off

The Nation’s investigation shows that the disagreement between the governor and his deputy dates back to last year when the governor went on a prolonged medical leave.

During the leave, it was alleged that the deputy governor refused to represent the governor in some vital state functions, a development that not only ridiculed and embarrassed the state but also exposed the cat and mouse relationship between the governor and the deputy.

In fact, the face-off preceded this recent leave as it can actually preceded the famed poultry evacuation saga.

The poultry saga

Although the argument over the poultry farm run by the deputy governor in his private residence at the Government House had dragged for a long time, it came to a head on February 28, 2014, when news reports of its evacuation hit headlines.

That day, over 3,000 fowls plus 40 crates of eggs from the poultry farm were evacuated in the presence of news men and other onlookers.

The evacuation was carried out by the Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority (ECTDA) and the Ministry of Environment. The officials, led by their commissioners said the poultry farm was constituting public health hazard.

The ministry officials, who carried out the duty said the Deputy Governor had earlier been directed to relocate the poultry farm in two letters dated December 24 and 27, 2013 with reference numbers GHE/CAO/31/239 and GHE/CAO/31/240, signed by Mr. G.O.C Ajah, Permanent Secretary in-charge of Government House, Enugu.

However, the deputy governor described the evacuation of his poultry as a wicked act of impunity intended to humiliate him, alleging that Mrs Ifeoma Nwobodo, the Chief of Staff to the governor was behind the action.

But an official of Enugu Ministry of Environment, who spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity said “none of the letters to the deputy governor, allegedly signed by the Chief of Staff was actually signed by her. In fact, as if divinely ordained, when most of those correspondences to the deputy governor were to be signed, it happens that Madam is usually not around. The ones that emanated from her office or from the Government House were usually signed for her by an officer or by G.O.C Ajah, the Permanent Secretary in-charge of Government House, Enugu.

“But as you know, even if she signs any of those letters, it would be unfair on her to allege she was the one trying to boss the deputy governor. No, that is cheap politicking, chief blackmail of an innocent woman. Her office as the Chief of Staff is simply designed to convey the governor’s instructions and directives. Everybody, including His Excellency, the Deputy Governor, knows that when a letter comes from the Chief of Staff office, it is not a directive from the Chief of Staff herself but a directive from the governor. It is both laughable and painful that people who know are deliberately striving hard to drag Mrs Nwobodo into everything, projecting her as if she is super human. Is it not instructive that even when the Deputy Governor collapsed at the hearing of the Impeachment Panel this week, the people were careful enough to put it in the papers that he collapsed shortly after the arrival of Mrs Nwobodo. Why must we link everything to this simple woman? She only got to the panel because she was summoned to go and give evidence, just like the other officials.”

According to the official, during Poultry evacuation saga, both the deputy governor and his loyalists also accused the Chief of Staff of being behind it all.

It would be recalled that at the peak of the poultry saga, Onyebuchi had said, “I told them that the poultry farm was designated Agriculture Unit and I want them to deny that the structure had been used as a poultry farm before I became deputy governor. Let them also deny that I have not operated the poultry farm since 2008. That was why I put in my Assets Declaration at the end of my first term and at the beginning of this term that I have operated the poultry farm and this was verified by the Code of Conduct Bureau. How suddenly my poultry farm became a health hazard when it has been in existence since 2008,” he said, adding that it was Mrs Nwobodo that gave the instruction just to ridicule and humiliate him.

But the Ministry of Environment official, who saw it all said it is not true that Nwobodo simply gave that directive to get at the deputy governor. “I can assure you that the directive is from the very top. Everybody was complaining about the offensive odour emanating from the farm. This was because, as at that time, the deputy governor was not living in the quarters and his workers were obviously unable to keep the place tidy.

“I was involved in the Poultry matter. I learnt, I don’t know how correct it is, that at a point, the governor was so disturbed by the unending complaints of staff and visitors to the Government House that he offered to give the deputy governor a piece of land outside the Government House to relocate the birds, but he reportedly refused it. I also remember vividly that even that very morning, the deputy governor was contacted on phone by the commissioner or some other top official I cannot remember clearly and told that the ministry will evacuate the birds to a temporary location to enable us tidy up the place. But you know politicians, he said okay, that there were people there to open the gate for us. But as soon as we got there, the deputy governor arrived with camera men and other newsmen and made a big case of the matter. He said it was the Chief of Staff that instructed the destruction of the farm to humiliate him. I felt sorry for the Madam.”

The parting encounter

Until a recent historic meeting between the governor and his deputy at the governor’s office, which insiders ironically see as the parting encounter, the face-off was averagely managed by both parties as an open secret. But it got out of control as the two leaders ended up in an open quarrel at that meeting. Today, loyalists of the two personalities are peddling different versions of what transpired between Chime and Onyebuchi in that meeting.

A source close to the deputy governor said it was the governor that summoned the governor to a meeting in his office. At the meeting, said the source, the governor accused the deputy of disobedience to lawful orders. At a point in the discussion, he became so angry that he asked the deputy governor to walk out of his office and to resign his position immediately. The source claimed that Chime’s anger was Onyebuchi’s insistence that he must contest the senatorial seat of Enugu East. The source said, “The deputy governor frankly told the governor that he must exercise his right to contest election into the senate in the coming elections but the governor opposed the move. When voices started rising, the deputy had to leave,” he said.

Insiders to Enugu State Government however gave The Nation in Enugu a more graphic account of what happened that day. According to the accounts by two of such sources, it was the deputy governor that actually came on his own to meet with the governor and to seek permission to attend to some personal family affairs.

According to the accounts, “before granting the oral request, Chime, who at that time just returned from his annual leave abroad, used the opportunity to ask his deputy why he could not represent him in two very important state functions while he was away in spite of the fact that he was given a formal invitation to the event by the Chief of Protocol, the right officer to convey such invitation

“The functions include the visit of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to Anambra State to flag-off the construction of the Second Niger Bridge and the meeting of South-East Governors’s Forum in Enugu?

“The governor also expressed displeasure to the report that in his absence for a mere leave, the deputy governor attempted to remove from office the Chief of Staff, Mrs. Ifeoma Nwobodo, who as a personal staff to the governor and as such cannot be removed in that manner without the governor’s consent.

“To the governor’s rude shock, instead of being at least civil in his explanations, the deputy governor said pointedly that declined to show up at the South-East Governors meeting because the governor did not give him any directive to act in his absence. On the presidential visit Onyebuchi fired back at the governor at the presence of some other governor’s aides, “why should I represent you at those functions? Tell me why I should represent you at those functions.”

“Almost dumbfounded at the sudden outburst, Chime first said, ‘okay, tell me also why I should grant your permission now.’ “Then, he paused as if in deep thought over the development. By the time he spoke again, he was visibly angry. It was at this stage that the governor listed other cases of alleged insubordination on the part of the deputy governor, accusing Onyebuchi of dancing to a secret song from political rivals. He therefore concluded that the deputy is obviously tired of working with him as he could not be working under another person and be taking instructions from his boss’ political rivals. He therefore advised Onyebuchi to leave his office and to resign his position forthwith.”

The impeachment charges

Following the obvious breakdown in the relationship between the governor and the deputy governor, the House of Assembly, in what a lawmaker described as a timely move to save the state from a possible descent to anarchy and chaos, served the deputy governor a notice of impeachment, signed by 20 out of the 24 lawmakers at the Enugu State House of Assembly.

The lawmakers accused Onyebuchi of maintaining a poultry farm in his official residence contrary to a resolution of the House prohibiting the maintenance of and operation of commercial livestock and poultry farms within residential neighborhoods in Enugu Metropolis.

They also accused him of defying the governor’s directive to represent him at some occasions which they said violates Section 193 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

On the first charge, the deputy governor replied that he came and met an area in his official residence designated as ‘Agricultural Unit’, which includes a poultry farm, and whose facilities were installed by the first premier of Eastern Nigeria and that all his predecessors used it and maintained the poultry farm.

On the second charge, Onyebuchi said, “Let me start by saying that on June 9, 2014, the Governor commenced his 2014 annual vacation. This was made public through various news media. He did not tell me to take any action on his behalf pending his return, and I am not aware that he sent a formal letter to the Enugu State House of Assembly informing the Assembly that he was proceeding on vacation. The governor did not tell me to take any action on his behalf pending his return, neither did he tell me that he would pass instructions to me through a third party. I did not receive instructions from him personally, by phone or in writing asking me to represent him at the meeting of the South East Governors Forum that took place in Enugu on July 6, 2014.

“I did not have any reason not to represent him if he had so instructed me to do so. I do not think it is appropriate for a deputy governor to act in the absence of the governor deriving authority from a subordinate or based on press release to the effect that the governor handed over to his deputy.

Reacting to these response, a top government official said it is unfortunate for the deputy governor to pretend not to know the usual channel of giving official directives. The source asked rhetorically, “If the Chief of Protocol delivers an invitation to any official in the Government House, is it not the usual way of giving the governor’s instructions? Why would the deputy governor prefer a telephone instruction from the governor to the universally acknowledged medium?

While the supporters of the two leaders defend the cause of their principal, the House on Thursday, 31 July, 2014 went ahead to direct the State Chief Judge, Justice Innocent Umezurike, to constitute a panel to investigate the allegations.

Why Chime, Onyebuchi parted ways

Ironically, the governor, Sullivan Chime and the deputy governor, Sunday Onyebuchi were considered strong political allies when they were both favoured by the former governor, Chimaroke Nnamani. For a long time, insiders said they worked hamounously until alleged political interests put a wedge between them.

The resultant icy relationship first manifested when the governor became ill and had to stay away for a very long time. According to a source, it was at this period that political intrigues to wrest control of the political structure from Chime started.

So, when Chime miraculously recovered and returned home, all was no longer as before. At a stage, the governor reportedly accused Onyebuchi of fraternizing with the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, whom he sees as his major political opponent in 2015.

Up till today, insiders say Ekweremadu wields enormous influence on Onyebuchi. In fact, as soon as it became known that an ultimatum had been given by the Enugu State House of Assembly to Sunday Onyebuchi, the state deputy governor to respond to the impeachment notice served him, a group led by Ekweremadu and former Governor Chimaroke Nnamani, reportedly stormed Abuja in a bid to stop the impeachment.

Also, Enugu State House of Assembly sources confirmed that on the day the Assembly served the impeachment notice, the deputy governor had travelled to Abuja to contact his benefactors in an attempt to stop the impeachment.

A day before the incident, Onyebuchi had raised the alarm that there was a plot to impeach him, alleging that Chime was behind the plot.

He allegedly old a group known as Ebeano Machinery, at a meetings with top chieftains of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in Abuja that they must work hard to stop the impeachment plot

A source in Abuja confirmed that the group actually met with the National Chairman of PDP, Alhaji Adamu Muazu, to plead for his support.

Mrs Nwobodo’s angle

Perhaps because Mrs Ifeoma Nwobodo hardly speaks to the media to defend herself over the numerous allegations about her alleged quest for power, her name has never ceased to appear in the various controversies surrounding the Enugu power game.

Some of the questions most observers are asking are who is this woman, what does she want and why does she enjoy so much confidence of the governor? A top government official who attempted an answer to these questions simply said: “Chief is a simple woman, a dependable workaholic who is being accused of things she knows nothing about. I think her fault is that she calls a spade a spade and is not willing to follow the ways of politicians.

“She is being opposed because she is like a formidable pillar to the government of Enugu State. We call her our Madam due process and I don’t see that as an offense though I know many politicians who hate her for it.”

August 17, 2014
Nasarawa’s botched impeachment and aftermath

Following the failed impeachment move against Governor Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, Assistant Editor, Blessing Olaifa, puts in perspective various issues connected with the political development in Nasarawa State and their implications for the build-up to the 2015 elections.

For several weeks, moves by members of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly to impeach the incumbent governor, Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, dominated Nigerian media. The lawmakers needed two-thirds of members of the State House of Assembly to carry out their self-imposed task. And more importantly, they needed to explore all constitutional provisions and procedures as spelt out in the 1999 Constitution before they could successfully impeach the governor.

Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended spelt out the constitutional provisions and procedures needed for the Assembly members to carry out impeachment of any sitting governor.

Buoyed by these provisions, the Assembly members, 20 of who were members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) embarked on impeachment exercise against Governor Al-Makura. Of the 24 member-strong Assembly, only four belonged to the party of the governor, the All Progressive Congress (APC).

So on July 17, 2014, after series of deliberations, the Assembly members published a Notice of Impeachment in some national newspapers, accusing the governor of gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties. The lawmakers said in the notice that Al-Makura had committed 16-count charges bordering on “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the constitution” and committed misconduct punishable by impeachment. Thus, the stage was set for impeachment moves against the governor.

On July 23rd, 2014, the Speaker of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly, Ahmed Musa Mohammed, wrote a letter to the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State, Justice Suleiman Dikko, mandating him to set up a seven-man panel to investigate the governor. So, on July 25, the Chief Judge replied the letter by appointing a seven-man investigative panel to carry out the assignment.

The letter sent to members of the panel read: “By virtue of the powers conferred on me by section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and the letter from the Hon Speaker of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly with reference NSHA/MM/166/Vol1/XXXVII, dated 23rd July 2014, requesting me to appoint a seven-man panel to investigate the governor, I do hereby appoint you: Yusuf Shehu Usman, Mohammed Sabo, Joel A Galadm, Abdu Usman, Samuel Chaku, Daniel Chaga and Muhammad Abdulhamid Liga as members of the panel”. Yusuf Shehu Usman was appointed as Chairman and Muhammed Abdulhamid Liga was appointed as Secretary.

The panel members swung into action and had their first sitting at the Conference Hall of the Nasarawa State Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs on Thursday 31st July. But no sooner had the names of the panel members appointed by the Chief Judge of the state hit the airwaves than the 20 members of the State Assembly who belong to the PDP in the state kicked against the composition of the membership, alleging that majority of the members are card carrying members of the two dominant political parties in the state.

Specifically, the spokesperson for the Assembly members, Hon Mohammed Baba Ibaku, said Rev. Joel Galadm is a staff of the State Christians Pilgrims Welfare Board. He added that there were two card carrying members of PDP and four card carrying members of the ruling party, the APC, in the panel. He said the House has no confidence in the panel and called for its disbandment.

The panel issued a six page statement detailing guidelines for its proceedings and appearances of witnesses and principal actors. Governor Al-Makura, on his part indicated his willingness to appear before the panel and did appear on August 4, 2014.

The governor denied all the allegations levelled against him, saying he had done nothing wrong while discharging his responsibilities.

“I must state, Mr Chairman and panel members that making this appearance in person and for the records, I want to say I was not served any notice by the House of Assembly. I am appearing in response to the hearing notice served on me by the panel and my appearance is to defend myself and clear my name against these spurious and unfounded allegations made against me”, Governor Almakura said.

At the sitting, Al-Makura’s counsel, U. N. Udechukwu, SAN, drew the attention of the panel to the absence of the lawmakers, saying he also noticed that they failed to send their representatives to the panel. He urged the panel to dismiss the impeachment notice served on the governor as it was evident that the lawmakers were not prepared to appear before the panel to prove the allegations levelled against the governor.

Udechukwu, SAN, who led eight other legal practitioners, including Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, to defend the governor, further submitted that it was evident that the lawmakers could not substantiate or prove all allegations preferred against the governor and therefore urged the panel to dismiss the impeachment notice served on the governor for want of evidence.

But the panel chairman, Yusuf Usman, said it was only fair and just to give the lawmakers time to come and prove their allegations against the governor and therefore adjourned the matter till Tuesday, August 5, 2014.

When the panel reconvened on Tuesday, a six-man legal team, representing the lawmakers, turned up and demanded that the panel disband considering the fact that the State House of Assembly had said so.

The lead counsel to the lawmakers, Ocha Ulegede, said the panel was made of partisan politicians and a civil servant. He said they had turned up to ask the panel to disqualify itself from carrying on with the assignment.

However, the panel chairman noted the observation of the lawyers, but insisted it had no power to disband itself. At this point, the lawyers said they were withdrawing from further participation in the case. The lawyers representing Governor Al-Makura did not object to their withdrawal, so the panel granted the request.

Following the withdrawal, Al-Makura’s lawyers urged the panel to dismiss the case for want of evidence. Udechukwu, SAN, cited, among others, Supreme Court Judgments as well as section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act to buttress his point. He argued that it is well known in law that when a case is called for hearing and the prosecution fails to make appearance, the court is at liberty to dismiss the case.

He further cited paragraph 7 (c) of the panel’s guidelines, which says “where the House of Assembly fails or neglect to appear and lead evidence in proof of the allegations, the panel, upon proof of service, may dismiss the allegations”.

At this point, the panel adjourned for two hours to consider the submissions of the two parties.

Immediately the panel reconvened, its Chairman, Yusuf Usman, announced the dismissal of all the allegations in accordance with paragraph 7 (c) of the guidelines. Usman took his time to read out all the 16- count allegations and dismissed them accordingly, saying that the prosecution had failed to enter any proof of evidence on each of them.

Said the panel’s Chairman: “it is important to note that this panel had carried out its duties in compliance with section 188 (8) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The panel had taken notice of the appearance in protest by the counsels to the Nasarawa State House Assembly on grounds that the panel is illegal. Though the panel is not a court of law, it would report the presentation of the views of the parties to the Speaker of the State House of Assembly.”

Ulegede told journalists after appearing that “we are not ready to be part of the breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which they (House) sworn to uphold. The power given to the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State is not absolute, they are subject to certain conditions”.

But the lawyers representing Al-Makura praised the ruling of the panel, saying that the good people of Nasarawa State had been served justice. Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, who spoke on behalf of the lawyers contended that the panel had taken painstaking efforts to undertake its assignment.

Also, Enoch Ali Maku, the spokesperson for the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State, Suleiman Dikko, said it was now up to the committee to submit its findings to the House as required by the law and that the Assembly is at liberty to take any action they deem fit.

“The CJ has done his part. The panel has done its own. If the Assembly feels otherwise, it is their own problem, not the CJ’s”, Maku told reporters.

The Assembly’s spokesperson, Mohammed Baba Ibaku, however said everything the panel did amounted to illegality, adding that the Assembly would reconvene to know the next line of action.

But House Minority Leader, Tanko Maikatako, a member of the APC, urged his colleagues to swallow their pride, return to Lafia and resume work in order to move Nasarawa State forward. He said any attempt to drag the matter any farther would be at the detriment of the people.

The news of the failed impeachment was greeted with jubilations in Lafia, the state capital, as scores of youths stormed the Government House in solidarity with the governor. The Nation also observed that the state capital, Lafia and its environs remained largely calm after the panel made its pronouncement.

Some of the youths who had monitored proceedings of the panel via radio and television immediately rode their motor bikes to Government House, shanting “Sai Al-Makura, sai Al-Makura.” The Nation gathered that Al-Makura became the political darling of the people for his humility, especially as demonstrated during the proceedings of the panel.

The fact that the governor set aside his immunity, the first governor to do so in the country, by appearing in person before the panel smacks of exemplary leadership, accountability, and transparency. This endeared him to the masses during the period, The Nation further gathered.

However, the failed attempt to remove the governor has thrown up fresh challenges for parties involved in the political quagmire the state had found itself. Al-Makura, who described the botched attempt to remove him as a victory for democracy, extended an olive branch to the legislators, asking them to join hands with him to move the state forward.

But the reactions of the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state to the development showed that the battle may not be over yet. Even though in the heat of the crisis, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Olisa Metuh, had asked Al-Makura to leave the party alone and stop accusing it of being the mastermind of the impeachment, the state branch of the PDP was neck deep in the move to oust Governr Al-Makura from office.

Chairman of the House of Assembly Committee on Information and Security, Baba Ibaku, rejected the decision of the panel. He said as far as they are concerned, the panel’s sitting amounted to an illegality.

He explained that the legal representatives sent to the panel had the mandate of the House to appear in protest and to draw their attention to the illegality of their sitting. Ibaku said the House would resume sitting to deliberate on the next line of action, insisting that it was not over yet.

According to Ibaku, members of the Assembly could seat anywhere they deem necessary to take actions on the political future of the state. He told journalists in Lafia that the 20 lawmakers (PDP) pushing for the impeachment of the governor are determined to see it to its logical conclusion.

Besides, The Nation gathered that the PDP was planning to stage rallies in Lafia, and some parts of the state to denounce the panel’s ruling and garner support for its leadership in its self-assigned task.

But the Special Adviser to Governor Al-Makura on Media and Public Communications, Abdulhamid Kwarra, told The Nation that the move to impeach the governor was politically motivated. He said the Peoples Democratic Party is bent on stealing the mandate freely given to Governor Al-Makura through the back door. He added that all the noise made by the PDP lawmakers are calculated attempts geared towards the 2015 election.

Kwarra alluded to the fact that had the impeachment option succeeded, the state Deputy Governor, Mr Dameshi Barau Luka, who is a PDP member, would have been sworn in as governor of the state. He expressed disappointment in the actions and utterances of the deputy governor, alleging that he had betrayed not just the governor, but the people of Nasarawa State. The Nation learnt that the deputy governor cross-carpeted to the PDP in March this year.

However, The Nation gathered that some PDP stakeholders and bigwigs in Nasarawa are also conscious of the implications of impeaching Governor Tanko Al-Makura as it would jeopardize their political interests in the build-up to the 2015 election. Sources told The Nation that Solomon Ewuga, a former Minister, and Labaran Maku, the current Minister of Information are both eyeing the governorship seat in the state in 2015.

And should Al-Makura fall to impeachment, the deputy governor will take over and consolidate his hold on power. Former governor, Akwe Doma, is also said to be eyeing the gubernatorial seat, notwithstanding his age.

However, some sources further hinted that some of the lawmakers, who are pushing for Al-Makura’s impeachment risk losing their seats in 2015, especially for their failures to heed the call of President Goodluck Jonathan, the national leader of the party, who enjoined them to go back to Nasarawa and sort out their problems with the governor in the interest of the people.

“What this has shown is lack of respect for the President. It also shows that there are extraneous interests and lack of discipline at the state level of the party,” the source added.

However, in the build-up to the 2015 election, the leadership of the All Progressive Congress (APC) in the state is already counting its gains, following the failed attempt to impeach the governor. The State Chairman of the APC, Phillips Tatari Shekwo, told The Nation in an interview that, the failure of the opposition (PDP) to impeach Governor Al-Makura and the landmark achievements of the governor since he assumed office were morale booster for the 2015 race.

He said the party would not only consolidate on its achievements by providing the dividends of democracy to the people, but by adding values to governance through the charismatic leadership of Governor Tanko Al-Makura.

Similarly, Abdulhamid Kwarra said Nasarawa State has re-written the story of impeachment in the country for good. He maintained that the outcome of the impeachment move against the governor at a time election was around the corner had put paid to the strategy of the opposition party and increased the chances of the ruling party in all the local government councils of the state.

“Besides the achievements of my Governor, His Excellency Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, this failed impeachment move have garnered more support and sympathy for the ruling party, and believe me, the party will record a landslide victory in the 2015 elections in the state”, Kwarra asserted.

August 10, 2014
FIFA query Maigari’s impeachment

World football governing body FIFA have demanded for a full explanation regarding the purported dismissal of Aminu Maigari as president of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

Maigari was allegedly sacked by his executive committee on July 24.

But in a letter dated August 4, 2014, to NFF general secretary Musa Amadu and signed by deputy secretary general Markus Kattner, FIFA demanded a more detailed explanation leading to Maigari’s sack.

They asked for the agenda of the executive committee meeting that sacked Maigari, the conditions for the amendment of the agenda and whether the president was given the chance to defend himself.

FIFA also stated that the dismissal of any executive committee member was the prerogative of the NFF general assembly and not the executive committee.

The world football ruling body also expressed surprise that despite the lifting of the suspension of the country, the situation in Nigeria has become “so inextricable”.

Elections to the executive committee are due to be conducted on August 26.

And on the heels of the letter from FIFA, the NFF executive committee on Thursday suspended two other members, Chris Green and Yusuf Ahmed, for what they described as “anti-board activities”.

August 8, 2014
Impeachment: Why chief judges must be cautious

Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako was impeached a few weeks ago. His Nasarawa State counterpart, Umaru Al-Makura, is on the firing line. Media aide to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Ahuraka Yusuf Isah, in this article, examines the power of Chief Judges in the process.

A country can still do well with bad laws but it cannot do well with bad judges. This is because if the judges are upright, they can mitigate the injustice, inhumanness created by people who made bad laws. But when judges are corrupt, even with good laws, development, justice cannot thrive’’ (Justice Akinola Aguda 1923-2004)

The impeachment of the former governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako, may become a lead to the floodgate of impeachments of state governors and, perhaps, the President and Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces of Nigeria.

At the beginning, we heard through the rumour mills that some state governors, including those of Adamawa, Nassarawa, Rivers, and now Edo, Oyo and others yet to be named, would be impeached.

The rumour of President Goodluck Jonathan’s impeachment also struck the airwaves, but fizzled out; perhaps because of the manner the move was crushed before it was hatched. But the case of Nyako is no longer rumour, he has been impeached, while Governor Al-Makura of Nassarawa State is currently facing the impeachment heat.

Elections by their nature, serve as the means by which democracy is practised or fired into action. They confer legitimacy on some people to act as leaders or captain of their ship, sailing it through the tide of time.

In contrast, impeachment or the removal of an official elected by the people is an exercise carried out by just a few, though representing the people. It is either a mark of sunset to crisis or convocation to crisis.

Though the banished Duke in Shakespeare’s ‘’As you like it’’ opted to say that “there is the good side in every bad situation”, impeachment, in most cases amounts to sowing a whirl-wind or dragon teeth that hatches into bad omen in the society.

That informed why General Yakubu Gowon and Alhaji Shehu Shagari, at the prompting of General Ibrahim Babangida, moved in quickly to counsel former Speaker Ghali Na’aba and the former Senate President Pius Ayim not to pronounce the impeachment of former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2002.

The concern of this writer is the fate of the Judiciary in this comic dance of absurd in our nation’s democratic practice. Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) had sounded a note of warning to judges in his book, ‘’Legal system, corruption and governance in Nigeria,’’ saying General Babangida held the judiciary responsible for the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

In his annulment proclamation, General Babangida argued that ‘’the Judiciary has been the bastion of the hopes and liberties of our citizens. Therefore, when it became clear that the courts were intimidated and subjected to the manipulation of the political process, resulting in contradictory decisions and orders by courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the entire political system was in clear danger. Accordingly, it is in the supreme interest of the laws and order, political stability and peace that the presidential election be annulled’’.

In the same vein, General Sanni Abacha blamed the Judiciary for sacking Chief Ernest Shonekan’s Interim National Government, following Justice Dolapo Akinsanya of Lagos High Court judgment, declaring the government illegal and an aberration.

The roles of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the Chief Judge of a state in the impeachment of either the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or a state governor are well provided for in the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The constitution asked occupants of these positions to constitute panels to investigate allegations of ‘‘gross misconduct’’ properly levelled against the President or the governor by either the National Assembly or the state Assembly as the case may be.

Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution as (amended) for instance vested the powers on the state Chief Judge to appoint seven-man panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct of the Executive Governor of a State. While carrying out this function, the chief judges are also to be guided by other sub-sections of Section 188.

The mere failure by some Chief Judges of states in the past, especially, since the advent of the current democratic dispensation in 1999 has left many a dent on the Judiciary as an institution.

The National Judicial Council (NJC) which is charged by the same 1999 Constitution to appoint and discipline judges have always taken it up, with utmost seriousness, with any Chief Judge that side-step this provisions of the constitution, which are crystal clear or unambiguous.

NJC had, at its emergency meeting held at Abuja on December 20, 2006 and pursuant to the powers vested on it by Paragraph 21(d) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, suspended, with immediate effect, the Chief Judges of Anambra, Plateau and Ekiti states for the partisan roles played in the impeachment of their respective states.

Those suspended were Justices Chika Okoli (Anambra), Ya’u Dakwang (Plateau), and both the Chief Judge of Ekiti state, Justice Kayode Bamisile and the former acting Chief Judge of the state, Justice Jide Aladejana.

Chuka Okoli, former chief judge of Anambra State, will not forget in a hurry the powers of NJC. He was placed on suspension by the council for what is considered to be his inglorious act in the controversial impeachment of Peter Obi as governor of the state.

Justice Bamisile was also sanctioned for similar misconduct. He was accused of allegedly compromising himself by appointing on the investigation panel persons believed to be cronies of suspended Governor Ayodele Fayose, to probe the alleged misconduct of the governor. But Jide Aladejana, who stepped into Bamisile’s shoes without due process, goes with his boss in line with the council’s recommendation. Lazarus Dakyen, the chief judge of Plateau State, also lost his job because of his reluctance to be guided by law in his participation in the processes leading to the removal of Governor Joshua Dariye. Before them were Okechukwu Opene and D. A. Adeniji, who were indicted for taking bribe on the matter of the senatorial election in Anambra State. While Opene allegedly took N12 million, Adeniji was said to have collected N15 million. Though Akin Olujimi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and then federal attorney-general, advised President Olusegun Obasanjo against their dismissal, the President upheld the decision of the NJC. Olujimi based his advice on the procedure adopted by the council in determining the case.

They are not the only judicial officers who fell victims to the political crisis in Anambra State. Stanley Nnaji, then a judge of Enugu State High Court, was suspended in March 2004 for wrongly assuming jurisdiction on a matter outside his state.

The judge had ordered Tafa Balogun, then Inspector-General of Police, to remove Chris Ngige, who was then the governor of Anambra State. Nnoruka Udechukwu, the state’s Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, petitioned the NJC, complaining that the ruling was in bad faith and against the code of conduct of judicial officers.

Nnaji was probably encouraged by the reluctance of the Federal Government to implement a similar decision of the council on Wilson Egbo-Egbo, another high court judge, for granting an injunction directing Ngige to stop parading himself as the governor.

But shortly after Nnaji committed his own misconduct, Obasanjo approved Egbo-Egbo’s retirement. The latter is one of the nine judges so far retired for endorsing unnecessary ex-parte applications. They are not the only casualties of political cases.

Five others were implicated in the 2003 Election Petition Tribunal in Akwa Ibom State. They adjudicated on the petition against the re-election of Governor Victor Attah by Ime Umanah, candidate of the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), at the election.

By the time the NJC concluded its job, Matilda Adamu, a judge of the High Court of Plateau State, Christopher P.N. Senlong of the Federal High Court, Lagos, and James Isede, a Chief Magistrate in the Edo State Judiciary, had earned themselves dismissal from the judiciary. D. T. Ahura of the High Court of Plateau State and A. M. Elelegwu of the Customary Court of Appeal, Delta State, were recommended for suspension.

The Federal Government, after approving the verdict of the council on the higher officers in February 2004, sent their case files to the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for trial.

August 5, 2014
Impeachment: Al-Makura waives immunity, to appear before panel Monday

•Lawmakers jittery of stunning revelations at panel’s sitting

Determined to prove his innocence, the Governor of Nasarawa State, Alhaji Tanko Al-Makura, has offered to waive off his immunity to appear before the seven-man investigative panel on alleged mismanagement of state funds.

But it was learnt yesterday that members of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly have become jittery following likely stunning revelations about their financial demands.

Some of the disclosures might include certain documents already before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Investigation by our correspondent revealed that in spite of the setting up of a nine-man legal team to defend the 16 allegations against him, Governor Al-Makura has waived off his right to immunity in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to testify before the panel.

Barring last minute change of mind, the governor may testify before the panel on Monday.

A highly-placed source said: “The panel will begin the public sitting on Monday; all parties have been notified, including the House of Assembly.

“We learnt the Assembly might boycott the open session because it has rejected two out of the seven members of the panel.

“But the most surprising is the decision of the governor to appear before the committee to respond to issues and place all facts before the committee on the allegations against him.

“The governor is determined to set a record to account for his stewardship and to prove to the people of the state that he did not steal their money.

“This is a governor who declared over N20billion assets and cash to the Code of Conduct Bureau when he assumed office. The records are there, anyone can apply for his Assets Declaration Form.

“For two or three months when he took over, the state could not afford to pay workers’ salaries and he used his personal money to offset some bills of the state.

“The governor has been saying that in what way could he have sacrificed for the state. The people of the state will hear a lot.

“As I talk to you, the governor does not begrudge the lawmakers. He is ready to meet with them in order to move the state forward.”

Contacted yesterday, Governor Al-Makura simply said: “I think I will make first appearance on Monday, and then my counsel can thereafter take over.

“I hope my counsel will allow me to have the first shot before they go ahead with the legal representation.”

He refused to talk further insisting that he has tremendous respect for the House of Assembly and constitutional guidelines on the ongoing impeachment proceedings against him.

Section 308 of the constitution says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section –

(a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;

(b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either on pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

(c) no process of any court requiring of compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued;

“Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section apples, no account shall be taken of his period of office.

“The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.

“This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to “period of office – is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.”

Meanwhile, members of the Nasarawa House of Assembly were said to be jittery about the likely stunning revelations on their financial demands and expenditures which might be presented to the panel by the government and stakeholders.

Another source added: “Everyone is excited about the decision of the panel to subject the sitting to public hearing. All the facts and documents will be laid on the table for the people of the state to judge.

“At least people will have the knowledge of what comes to the state monthly; how it is disbursed and the projects already carried out by the government.

“The breakdown of funds, including extra-budgetary cash, spent on the lawmakers will also be known to the public.”

August 2, 2014
Congress majority rejects Maigari’s impeachment

A majority of the general assembly of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) has rejected the impeachment of Aminu Maigari as president of the federation.

A total of 26 state FA chairmen, who make up more than 50% of the 44-member congress and comply with requirements of Article 24 of NFF statutes, at a pre-general assembly resolved in a seven-page document made available to reporters that Maigari remains president of the NFF and he should immediately return to office.

“That the undersigned having constituted more than 50%+1 of the members of the general assembly (as required by the NFF statutes for taking valid decisions at the congress) and in view of the mathematical impossibility of the remaining members to ratify the alleged dismissal pursuant to the NFF statutes, the President should immediately return to his desk and continue as President of the NFF until after the elective congress of Tuesday, 26th August, 2014,” read part of the resolutions.

The FA chiefs said Maigari’s purported dismissal did not follow laid down procedures.

They also declared that allegations of financial misappropriation, misapplication and maladministration against Maigari are unproven as the audited accounts of the NFF for the past three years were never queried in the last three annual assemblies.

An extraordinary congress slated for Abuja on Thursday, which was to endorse Maigari’s impeachment, was on Wednesday shelved by the NFF executive committee due to what an official statement said were “unforeseen circumstances”.

However, it is believed that the extraordinary congress was put off because those against Maigari “did not have the numbers” at the congress.

The Abuja hotel where a majority of the congress put up ahead of the extraordinary assembly was Thursday sealed off by Nigeria security operatives as guests were barred from receiving any visitors.

And as at press time, Maigari has been invited by the director of the State Security Service.

Nigeria was recently suspended by FIFA after the country’s sports minister appointed a caretaker administrator for the NFF.

Elections to the executive committee of the NFF are to be conducted on August 26.

August 1, 2014