|
Governor Andy Ubah's Removal: The Imperative of Reversal By Emeka Oraetoka The time tested maxim that “injustices anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” as espoused by Martin Luther King, is probably relevant in Andy Ubah’s case today; for the simple reason that the resultant Supreme Court judgment that ousted him was delivered without jurisdiction to start with. Andy is now living with the arising injustice, but the threat which its poses to justice is dangerously hovering over the judiciary as an important institution in Nigeria. It is no more news that on the 14th of June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that Governor Andy Ubah should vacate office to allow Peter Obi to complete his tenure of four [4] years in office.
Since the removal of Andy Ubah as the
Governor of Anambra State, reactions for and against the action have
continued to trail the polity on the outcome of the judgment. The
reaction for the removal seem to suggest that Ubah’s ouster was
necessary because of his closeness to the former President of Nigeria,
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. The most potent point from the camp of pro-Ubah’s
removal is that the Supreme Court justices that sat on the matter of
Governor Obi’s tenure are honourable men who could not compromise their
integrity for anything. Besides, there is the argument that Peter Obi
went to Supreme Court for proper interpretation of section 180 (2) of
the 1999 constitution as it affected him, and that the judgment given to
him was in order; in apparent reaction to the view held by rational
Nigerians that Peter Obi’s case ends at the court of Appeal in
accordance with Constitutional provisions on the issue of tenure of
office of executive Governor of a state. Some are of the view that the
removal of Governor Andy Ubah would end the culture of impunity in
Nigeria political system. To them, a situation whereby someone would
just rig himself into office has ended with the reinstatement of Peter
Obi. This view of Professor Nwabueze on the judgment said it all: "The
judgment of the Supreme Court has not only settled for us the perplexing
issue concerning the meaning of the abstrusely worded provision of
section 180 (2) of the Constitution, it has also redressed the
singularly brazen subversion of the process of democratic election that
occurred in Anambra State on 14 April, 2007. Here, judgmental Nwabueze assumed
jurisdiction of tribunal and other relevant courts, the only bodies
saddled with the responsibilities of determining election matters, which
in any case, was not the reason behind Andy Ubah's travails. Informed
Nigerians faulted this line of thinking, and viewed it as an argument
propelled by simple emotion and sentiment. To start with, the right
person to blame on the issue of impunity is Dr. Ngige, who held the
office by default as it were. This, further call to question, the reason
behind the vexed judgment in the first instance.
Those against the removal of Andy Ubah
upon the Supreme Court judgment are particularly not happy with the Apex
Court’s pronouncement to the effect that INEC should not have conducted
Governorship election in the State, based on the fact that Peter obi’s
tenure had not expired. The foremost person to object the Supreme Court
ruling on Peter Obi’s case was probably Chief Gani Fawehimi (SAN). Just
as the constitutional dust raised by Fawehimi on the judgment was about
to settle, Justice Samson Uwaifo, took the issue beyond petty politics
by comprehensively throwing his weight behind Gani’s view on the issue.
Justice Samson Uwaifo, apart from insisting that the Supreme Court has
no jurisdiction on Obi’s case, debunked the view of Supreme Court on the
issue of vacancy in Awka Government house. He presented a clear
distinction between office and officer de-facto. Uwaifo buttressed his
argument by citing relevant cases to put the issue in proper
perspective. First, he cited this case: Norton Vs. shelby county (118 US
425 [1886], where Mr. Justice Field, delivered the opinion of the United
State Supreme Court, he said in para. 441: “The doctrine which gives
validity to acts of officers de-fecto, whatever defects there may be in
the legality of their appointment or election is founded upon
considerations of policy and necessity, for the protection of the public
and individuals whose interest may be affected thereby”.
Mr. Justice Field went further in Paras.
444-445 to quote the opinion of Mr. Justice manning, of the Supreme
Court of Michigan, in Carleton Vs. People 10 March 259 thus: “Where
there is no office there can be no officer de facto, for the reason that
there can be none de-jure. The county office existed by virtue of the
Constitution the moment the new county was organized. No act of
legislation was necessary for that purpose. And all that is required
when there is an office to make an officer de-facto, is that the
individual claiming the office is in possession of it, performing its
duties and claiming to be such officer under colour of an election or
appointment be valid, for that would make him an officer de-jure. The
official acts of such persons are recognized as valid on grounds of
public policy, and for the protection of those having official business
to transact”. From the authorities cited on the issue of office and
tenure of office of an officer, it could be seen that the office of the
executive Governor of Anambra State is Constitutionally derived,
therefore, whoever occupies it either by default or legally, the
official acts of such persons are recognized as valid on grounds
mentioned above.
Since the period Dr. Ngige held the
office, the principle of: Policy and necessity, protection of public
and individuals interest were upheld as official acts; it follows
that Peter Obi merely completed the four (4) years tenure of the
executive Governor of Anambra State on May 29th, 2007 as
stipulated by virtue of the existence of the office of the executive
Governor of Anambra State.
From the foregoing, there could be serious
implication, if the Judgment is not revisited for the purpose of
correcting the recognized error in the first place. It is a well known
fact that Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction which the constitution
denies it in the first instance. In the event of non revision, concerned
Nigerian(s) could petition against those justices that sat on the case,
for entertaining a case they did not have jurisdiction over. Thankfully,
the no-nonsense National Judicial Commission [NJC], had before now done
justics to Justice Stanley Nnaji of Enugu State High Court; for
entertaining a case his Court had no jurisdiction over. Nigerians may
recall that in the heat of the so-called abduction Saga in Anambra
State, one honourable Nelson Achukwu had approached the Court in Enugu
over the resignation or otherwise of Dr. Nwabueze Ngige, the then
Anambra State Governor. After the order by justice Nnaji for the removal
of Dr. Ngige from office, there was petition against him for
entertaining a case his court has no jurisdiction. The NJC sustained the
petition, and justice Nnaji was therefore dismissed from service.
Justics Egbo-Egbo suffered the same fate in the hand of NJC on the same
Anambra State over the vexed issue of jurisdiction. Already, reports
have it that a group of lawyers from the six geo-political zones of the
country has perfected plan to petiton NJC over what they called, assult
on the spirit of the Constitution by the Supreme Court justices.
It will therefore, amount to sheer
illusion on the part of those justices that sat and gave judgment of
June 14, 2007, ordering Andy Ubah to vacate his seat as Governor of
Anambra State for Peter obi; to think that this line of action- petition
against them, will not be initiated by the supporters of
constitutionalism and rule of law over the matter. Should this line of
action be taken, one good factor that may work in their favour is the
fact that Justice Nnaji and Egbo-Egbo were shown the way out of the
judiciary over the same Anambra State issue [the office of the executive
Governor of the State]. Must this happen, the NJC may have no choice
than to ease those justices out of the judiciary as in the case of
justics Nnaji and Egbo-Egbo. Should they [NJC] however, look the other
way, on the case if eventually it comes to their table, the integrity of
the judiciary may remain dented, if not destroyed. Otherwise, the
impression would have been created that as far as Nigerian judiciary is
concerned, the application of justices in Anambra State, depends on the
political interests of the judges not the rule of law based on the
Constitution of Nigeria. This line of thinking, if allowed to sprout,
the integrity of Nigeria judiciary would have been dealt an enduring
blow.
Already, one Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, who
claimed to be representing himself and the Nigeria Advance Party (NAP),
has started the move for the reversal of June 14, 2007, Supreme Court
judgment on Governor Andy Ubah. From the report on Okonkwo’s petition on
the internet, early reversal of the judgment remains the best option in
view of the mind boggling allegations against the Governor of Anambra
State, Mr. Peter Obi and his counsel, Oyechi Ikpeazu (SAN). The process
leading to Supreme Court Judgment on the case is also said to be very
corrupt. It follows therefore, that the Apex Court was conned into
assuming jurisdiction over the case; or how can one explain, this
comment from this Ifeanyichukwo Okonkwo, according to
elendureports.com:--- “Obi had withdrawn the notice of appeal filed
on the 3rd of April, 2007, at the registry of the Federal
High Court which was the only one that could grant an appeal at the
court of Appeal and also sustain the appeal to the Supreme Court’.
Clearly the reversal of Judgment on
Governor Andy Ubah’s removal appears to be the only roadmap to
the sustenance of the integrity of the judiciary in Nigeria; otherwise,
the risk of doom looms large. The imperativeness of this
decision[reversal of judgment] on the part of Supreme Court cannot
therefore, be wished away, as doing so may lead to total darkness.
Emeka Oraetoka
Information Management Consultant,
Wrote In From Garki, FCT.
e-mail:oramekllis@lycos.com.
|