PEOPLE AND POLITICS

Emenike, The Best Governor Abia May Yet Have

Ndubuisi Ojinmad

I was rather disappointed by Muhammed Haruna’s commentary concerning Chief Ikechi Emenike’s candidacy for Abia Government House. I am not preview to the type of relationship that exists between Emenike and Haruna, but it does not speak of quality friendship to publicly describe the pillar of a friend’s case (particularly when he is still neck deep in it) as a conjecture, as Haruna did. According to the Oxford, Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, conjecture is “an opinion or idea that is not based on definite knowledge and is formed by guessing.”

For the benefit of the reader let us present Section 182 1(i) verbatim to see whether it fits the definition of a conjecture. This section states that “No person shall be qualified for election to the Office of Governor of a state if – he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a judicial commission of enquiry or an Administrative Panel of Enquiry or a tribunal set up under the tribunals of Enquiry Act, a Tribunals of Enquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government which indictment has been accepted by the Federal or State Government.” Nothing can be more definite. The above is the law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which the appropriate Courts are expected to uphold. Chief T. A. Orji, who was declared by INEC to have been duly elected, and has since been sworn in as Governor, “was indicted for embezzlement and fraud by an Administrative Panel of Inquiry set up by the Federal Government and which indictment has been accepted by the Federal Government in the Government White Paper on the Report of the Administrative Panel of Enquiry on Alleged Corrupt Practices by some Public Officers and other persons dated February, 2007 and printed by the Government Printer, Lagos”. Similarly, Onyema Ugochukwu who was awarded the Second position by INEC was indicted by “an Administrative Panel of Enquiry set up by the Abia State Government, which indictment has been accepted by the State Government White Paper in the report of Administrative Panel of Enquiry and has been gazetted and printed by Government Printer, Umuahia”.

Those are solid facts on the ground and Section 147(2) of the 2006 Electoral Act provides that if the “Tribunal or the Court determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of valid votes cast at the election, the election tribunal or the court, as the case may be shall declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the election and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and this Act”.

A matrix of all the above legal positions gave hope to most Abians that Emenike would have the opportunity to serve them after the legal process, since INEC viciously placed him third in a race he was set to win.

I am not a Lawyer neither am I a politician but I am a retired Professor of Microbiology who is appalled at the low quality of governance in Nigeria in general and the South East in particular. Even this problem of incompetent governance has permeated electioneering and campaigns in Nigeria, where candidates no longer deem it fit to meet the people and canvass support. In the history of Abia State, no candidate for any elective position has campaigned as much as Emenike. He visited virtually every critical stakeholder in the State, including my humble self. He addressed virtually all the interest groups in the state – from youths to women to pensioners, academics, to the clergy to motorcyclists, to motor transport unions, to traditional rulers, and to even members of other parties. I attended two of such gatherings in Umuahia at Kolping Society hall. In fact, when he addressed academics (serving and retired) in Abia at the Umuahia Recreation Club, I was honoured with Chairmanship of the event. Like you alluded to in your write-up Emenike was the choice of Abia people of all ages and social strata. He was the candidate with a clearly documented and practicable programme. There is no segment of the Abia society he did not address. Come to Abia State, even now, and ask the ordinary youth, woman or man, you will be answered that Emenike is still the candidate Abia people are yearning for.

I have no direct interest in his governance given that I am a retired University Professor with just two children both of whom, by the grace of God, are doing well in the United States. I have passed the age of appointment, so I am not looking forward to any appointment from an Emenike government or any other person’s government for that matter. But I still wish to live in a decent environment where the government is seen to be serving the people.

Even at this later day in my life, I also wish to be part of a democratic Society where anybody who aspires to govern should have the capacity and humility to campaign and seek for the mandate of the people. One of America’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, captured it more vividly when he said that “no man is fit to rule another without his consent”. Clearly Emenike was the only one of all the governorship candidates who truly demonstrated his faith that only the vote of Abia people can make him Governor. Of course INEC has done their utmost to deny him the fruit of his extensive campaign. But God has caught up with all of them in their current ‘indictment web’. And they cannot escape it.

This is why I was really shocked when you wrote that, “a few lawyer friends of mine I had spoken with had other views”. You should have stated those other views they have for the benefit of your readers. Again, I am not a lawyer but I can assure you that I am literate enough, like most Nigerians, to read and understand Section 182 1(i) quoted above to equivocally conclude that those so-called other views of your lawyer friends are not cogent. In fact, to me, such views represent the real conjecture because they are not based on our Constitution. Section 182 (i) is very clear, unambiguous, and is presented, in ordinary, everyday language.

The judgment by the tribunal in Umuahia shocked many to their marrow. Their position that an indictment which has been accepted by the government and gazetted is a mere accusation is unfortunate and must not stand. Like you, I have also consulted my own lawyer friends and their opinion gives me great hope. Indeed they pointed my attention to several decisions concerning indictment by Superior Courts in Nigeria, a few of which I wish to share with you and your esteemed readers. In an important judgment by the Supreme Court in Akuneziri vs Okenwa (2000), it was decided by the Supreme Court “that where the words of a document or any enactment are clear and not ambiguous, they should be given effect to. Where there is no conflict in one part of an enactment and another and the provisions of the part which is relied on are plain and unambiguous, those provisions should be applied without the need to call in aid other parts of the enactment”. The reader should compare this clear Supreme Court position with what Section 182 1(i) reproduced above says. And in another ruling by the same Supreme Court (now on indictment), in Umana vs Attah, the Court in interpreting Section 182 1 (i) held that ‘The interpretation to be given to this Section is unambiguous and straight forward. The indictment that would bar the Governor from contesting the election is if he has been found guilty by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or any Administrative Panel of Inquiry. In such a case, the Judicial Commission or Administrative Panel after completing its assignment would then forward its recommendations to government and if government accepts the recommendations made to it, that is the time it can be said that the person has been indicted and this tallies with definitions (3) in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The form of the indictment is the issuance of a white paper”.

Emphasizing the potency of indictment as a disabling factor, the Supreme Court, further in Okotie Eboh vs Manager (2004), also established that “Bearing the above principle of interpretation in mind and being of the view that a law which seeks to disqualify a person from contesting an election on ground of indictment for embezzlement or fraud imposes a disability and ought to be interpreted strictly, it is therefore my view that the expression or other ‘Tribunal by the Federal or state government, appearing in the Section must be restricted to the tribunals of inquiry or bodies mentioned in the Section which were set up to investigate a person of allegations of embezzlement or fraud and whose report of indictment of such a person in that regard has been accepted by the government.” This judgment is also by the highest Court of law in Nigeria.

Drawing strength from the above, the Court of Appeal in Daggash Vs Bulama (2004) set out what has become the ground rules for the treatment of indictment by election petition tribunals when it declared that “From the combined provisions of Sections 66 (i) (h) and 285 (i) of the Constitution, it is very clear that there is no provision requiring an investigation by the Tribunal into how the panel of Inquiry referred to under Section 66 (i) (h) of the Constitution carried out its decision or recommendation or review or its procedure or decision. The election tribunal was not sitting as a State or Federal High Court either in its original or appellate jurisdiction or in a Supervisory capacity over the panel of inquiry. All the constitution requires is proof that a Panel of Inquiry set up by the Government of Borno State or any other government indicted the petitioner/1^st respondent for fraud or embezzlement and that the indictment was accepted by the Government and that Exhibit A duly certified, signed, dated and stamped by the Secretary to the Government of Borno State is sufficient evidence for the purpose of Section 66 (i) (h) of the Constitution. An Inquiry by the tribunal into the procedure adopted by the panel of inquiry or an attempt by the tribunal to review the legality or otherwise of the decisions of the panel of Inquiry is to my mind completely outside the power of jurisdiction of elections petition tribunal”.

My lawyer friends have also told me that these provisions on indictment are the only primary enactments in our laws that prevent fraudsters and other criminals from having access to government, and by extension the public treasury.

What, in my opinion, should be pointed out is that if the present legal and judicial officers succeed in destroying this important legislation, it would be a national tragedy of monumental proportion and a huge setback to our march towards an enduring, transparent and corruption-free democracy. Obviously once other criminals waiting in the wings come to the realization that there is nothing disabling them from contesting high public offices, that maybe the final death sentence for our collective quest for economic development. And anybody who knows, even from a distance, the slow pace of our justice system will agree that smuggling in the strange idea that an indicted person must also be convicted in the court of law before being disabled from public office is against the intention of the law makers who enshrined that provision. This is the law as it exists today. The role of the judges is to interpret and give effect to it. If the judges don’t like it, they should through the Chief Justice of Nigeria approach the National Legislature to amend the Constitution to suit their expectation. Until the Constitution is amended to require conviction in a law court to accompany gazetted indictment, our courts should give effect to our laws as they exist. There are other provisions under that Section 182 (1) that requires conviction before disability. This Section is not one of them. Judicial legislation will be harmful to our system. It amounts to breaking the law to deliver justice. That would be regrettable. Going by the laws on ground today, Emenike has the highest valid votes according to INEC’s score. The judiciary should not subvert that.