As the governorship election in Bayelsa State draws near, LEMMY UGHEGBE in Abuja examines the political and legal intrigues in the unfolding drama that has characterised bid by Governor Timipre Sylva for a second term.IT WAS William Shakespeare who said: 'Pilots (good ones) gain their reputation from storms and tempest.'This expression seems to apply aptly with Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva, who is unarguably fighting the biggest battle of his (political) life. And there is yet no doubt that the fight is against the biggest opponent- President Goodluck Jonathan. Yet, one cannot but wonder what the nexus is between Sylva and Jonathan in the former's struggle for a second term.Clearly, both are from Bayelsa. But whereas Sylva is a governor, seeking a second term, Jonathan is President of Nigeria, confined by his campaign promises to a single term that ends on May 29, 2015.If the political stakes or interests are so different between them, one may therefore wonder why many have linked the political travails of Sylva to Jonathan.While a school of thought feels the President have been unfairly fingered in a matter he has no special interest in, another feels Jonathan's body language and innuendo on the debacle have all, but suggested that he is the unseen hands manipulating the political machinery of the party to deny Sylva a second term in office.The frenzied jostle for Jonathan's endorsement by candidates seeking the governorship ticket, which Seriake Dickson got, and caused him to win the primary conducted by the PDP in its usual disregard to the subsisting suit filed by Sylva, challenging the legitimacy of the planned primary, did much to fuel the second school of thought.In going to court, Sylva had argued that he won the primary conducted by the same PDP in January for the governorship polls and his name was accordingly forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as its candidate for the election, which was initially scheduled for April, but which did not hold eventually owing to the judicial pronouncement that the tenure of five governors (including himself) still subsisted.But PDP, with its deep sense of humour, was bemused by Sylva's suit and labeled it a Joke.The governor's counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), in a pre-emptive move, therefore, filed an exparte application, seeking to restrain PDP from taking steps to conduct a fresh primary until the determination of the substantive suit.It must be stated that Fagbemi's application was in line with the legal principle- es abundanti cautia- that is, 'out of abundant caution.'That is so because ordinarily, it is a notorious fact that an injunction is not required to stop any party who is in court from taking any step that would destroy the res (subject matter of a suit), as enunciated in the doctrine of lis pendis.Interestingly, the court exercise what Justice Gabriel Kolawole described as 'judicial hesitation' in ruling on the application argued by Fagbemi.Rather, it stated what in legal parlance is called a notorious fact, which ordinarily coming from a court of record and competent jurisdiction, should have doused PDP's bemusement. But that did not happen.Ruling on the said application, Justice Kolawole held thus: 'The new Electoral Act, as Amended, is a clear departure from the 1983 Act, by which on the authority of the Supreme Court's decision in Onuoha V. Okafor, the political parties were 'god unto themselves,' in terms of the choice of candidates.'This court had intervened in quite a number of political parties' cases when candidates were being manipulated by the leadership of the parties.'It is in this regard that I really do not see the Plaintiff being exposed in the long run to such injury, loss or damage that may, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Kotoye V. CBN, supra be described as 'irreparable or irretrievable,''Whatever be the case, I have no doubt that this court has the judicial powers to make appropriate orders, as the justice of the case will require.'Let me state, for the avoidance of doubt, that in relation to prayers 1-3 of the Motion Exparte, the Plaintiff has made out a strong case, which ordinarily should enable this court to grant the said prayers.'But in the light of the analysis I have done, as regards the statutory powers the court has pursuant to Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the 2nd Defendant (PDP) does not, in the long run, have the final say, because the court can always make appropriate orders, as the justice of the case will require to redress any wrong that may be occasioned by my judicial hesitation in granting the said prayers 1-3 on the Motion Exparte.'The Judge's admonition to reverse any act of infraction in the face of his 'judicial hesitation' did nothing to dissuade PDP.And of course, it went ahead to conduct the primary and returned Dickson as winner and its standard bearer for the governorship election next year, thus affecting the subject matter of the substantive suit in the process.James Chuka, a lawyer, said: 'When we desecrate the court by filtering away its power under the guise that the Electoral Act, then we are sending wrong signals.'PDP has acted improperly and immorally by conducting the primary, while being aware of the pendency of the suit filed by Sylva, but they have not breached any court order.'For Babatunde Abdulkareem: 'What the PDP did amounts to a usurpation of the court's authority by interpreting for itself Section 87 of the Electoral Act and proceeding to conduct a primary that go to the subject matter of the suit filed by Sylva.Whichever way the argument goes, nobody can better take an action to protect itself than the court. And if the words of Justice Kolawole are anything to go by, then indeed, 'where there is a wrong, there is a remedy.'Close watchers do not find anything bemusing about the decision of an interested party- PDP- ruling that the action of Sylva is not justiceable and as such decided to take laws into its hands.Not a few have said the action of PDP to overrule the trial court amounts to usurpation of judicial powers of the court and since the matter is before the Court of Appeal, which has adjourned its verdict sine die (indefinitely), it enjoined to take every necessary step in protecting the sanctity and authority of the court.Observers are watching the unfolding drama closely and how the judiciary, especially the Court of Appeal, would rise to the challenge of ensuring that the rule of law triumphs over the rule of man.Until then, the battle continues for Sylva and it is not over until it is over.
Click here to read full news..
