Group Politics Editor, Taiwo Adisa, X-rays the issues thrown up by Friday's ruling of the Supreme Court, which sacked the governors of Adamawa, Bayelsa, Kogi, Cross Rivers and Sokoto states over tenure elongation.THE Nigerian Supreme Court, on Friday, laid to rest the controversy over the tenure of governors of five states, who won rerun elections in 2008. A number of scenarios had been built up ahead of the decision of the Supreme Court. The apex court had, in a long awaited ruling, which eventually saw the light of day on Friday, cleared out five governors, including Ibrahim Idris of Kogi State; Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa), Aliyu Wamako (Sokoto) and Liyel Imoke (Cross River). Though each of the five states presented different scenarios, the most intriguing situations were, however, in Bayelsa and Kogi, where the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) appears to be at war with itself over who flies the flag of the party in the election that would produce a new governor.Kogi's case had gone overboard when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted the gubernatorial election on 3 December, 2011, while in Bayelsa, the incumbent governor, Timipre Sylva, has been excluded from the re-election process by the PDP in an election scheduled for February 4. The INEC had also fixed election for February in Adamawa, 10 March in Sokoto and 6 April in Cross Rivers states. Just as the contending factors in Bayelsa and Kogi states were setting their targets and expectations from the awaited ruling, the Supreme Court landed with a huge hammer. In a ruling delivered by Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, the apex court insisted that while the election of the five governors was duly annulled, their oaths of office and oaths of allegiance, which ensured that they performed some official duties, were not annulled. The court described the second coming of the governors after the rerun elections as second missionary journeys, adding that the 1999 Nigerian Constitution does not envisage a governor staying in office beyond eight years.The unanimous decision of the court, delivered in a full panel of seven justices led by the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, held that the tenure of the former governors commenced on 29 May, 2007 and should have terminated on 28 May, 2011.The ruling indicated thus: 'It is the case of the respondents that since their elections in 2007 were nullified, it meant that in law the said election never took place and as such the oaths of allegiance and of office they took in 29 May, 2007 became non-existent and that the oaths of allegiance and of office which are valid and relevant to the determination of the four-years tenure is that which they took at various dates in 2008.'I had earlier found and held that the provisions of Section 180 of the 1999 Constitution do not envisage a re-run election, let alone a re-run election won by the same person who took the earlier oaths of allegiance and of office.'I have also found and held that, from the totality of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, including Section 180(1) (2) & (3) and 182(1)(b), a person first elected as governor of a state shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years from the date he took the oaths of allegiance and of office, though he could be re-elected for another term of four years, giving him a maximum of two tenures of eight years.'From what I have been saying so far, it is clear that I am of the view that the provisions of Section 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended is not relevant to the determination of the issue under considerations as the intention of the framers of the constitution of assigning four years tenure to the governors is clear from the language used in Sections 180(1)(2)&(3) and 180(2) can be described as a classification of what is, by the deployment of the tools of constitutional interpretation ,obvious and attainable as demonstrated in this judgement. The 1999 Constitution has no room for self- succession for a cumulative tenure exceeding eight years.'Supreme Court is not bound by the decision of the lower court, but the lower court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court.'When the tribunal/courts so declare the election, the declaration does not affect the validity of the oaths the governor took so as to function in that office as required by the constitution, neither would it affect the bills he signed into law, contracts awarded, budgets etc.'It, therefore, means that the consequence of the annulled election is different from null and void proceeding or act which is usually described as being incurably bad and of no effect whatsoever.'I hold the considered view that to uphold the validity of the acts of the governors in office, prior to the nullification of their election and reject the period they spent in office during which time they performed those acts in the determination of the period of their tenure, is contrary to common sense and the clear intention of the framers of the constitution.'The fact that there was an election in 2007 as a result of which the governors took their oaths of allegiance and of office are facts which cannot be wished away, just as they performed while occupying the seat.'The said governors may not have been the de jure governors following the nullification of their election, which is not supported by the acceptance of their acts in that office as legal and binding on all and sundry, they were certainly governors de facto during the period they operated, ostensibly in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act and as such period they so operated has to be taken into consideration in determining the terminal date of their tenure following what I may call their second missionary journey, vide a re-run election, particularly as the constitution unequivocally grants tenure of four years to a person elected governor of a state calculated from the date he took the oaths of allegiance and of office which was the 29 May, 2007.'The Federal Government immediately directed the Speakers of the state Houses of Assembly affected by the ruling to immediately take over the reins of office. That order immediately came against some form of resistance in Kogi State, where former Governor Ibrahim Idris was said to have influenced the swearing- in of Captain Idris Wada, the man who emerged governor-elect on account of the 3 December, 2011 election. The oath taking by Wada was, however, done by the President of the Customary Court of Appeal in the state, following the reluctance of the Chief Judge of the state to immediately carry out the swearing-in.But the ruling of Friday came as a jolt to a number of political watchers who believed that the issue of tenure of office of governors had been settled through the ruling on the Governor Peter Obi versus Andy Uba case in Anambra state in 2007. Many had believed that the court, having ruled that the tenure of a governor begins the date he was sworn in, would also subsist in the case of the five governors.The Supreme Court had, on 14 June, 2007, removed Dr. Andy Uba after a 16-day sojourn at the Anambra Government House. The court had ruled that he should immediately vacate office as governor because INEC had conducted election into the seat that was not vacant.Justice Iorgyer Katsina-Alu, who delivered the lead judgment in that case, held that Section 180 (2) (a), on which Obi anchored his case, provided that the governor shall vacate office at the expiration of a period of four years, commencing from when he took the oath of office and oath of allegiance. The former Chief Justice of Nigeria also agreed to the arguments canvassed by Peter Obi indicating that his four-year tenure would expire on 27 March, 2010 and not 28 May, 2007.The court berated INEC for conducting election into the Anambra gubernatorial seat, even when the seat was not vacant, adding emphatically that there was no vacancy for the office of governor of Anambra State as at 29 May, 2007.Though opinions were divided on the state of the tenure elongation suit, a section of Nigerians actually believed that the apex court could uphold the claim that a governor's tenure starts on the day he takes the oath of office and oath of allegiance. By that, the tenure of the five governors should have started reading from 2008. Incidentally, the INEC view that the tenure of the governors had lapsed in 2011 was not a popular one. A majority of commentators had believed that the apex court would grant tenure elongation to the governors, since, in practical sense, they have all enjoyed elongated tenure.On the strength of that belief, political stakeholders in Kogi had dumped the primary election conducted in January 2011 and conducted a fresh primary, which produced Captain Idris Wada, who stood in and won the gubernatorial election of December 2011. The same belief informed the conduct of fresh PDP primary in Bayelsa, which produced Honourable Henry Dickson, who was awaiting the election of 11 February.One big question the apex court's decision has thrown up is who the rightful governor of Kogi would be. Will it be right for INEC to dump the election of December 2011' Will it be proper if INEC adopts Wada, who has already won the election conducted by the electoral body on 3 December, 2011 as the governor' Or will it be proper for INEC to substitute the name of Wada with that of Jubril Isah, who was the candidate of the PDP as at May 2011, when the election should have held'Now that the Federal Government had ordered the Speaker of the state Assemblies, including that of Kogi, to take charge, what options are open to the political actors and INEC'Right now, although the state has one single authority, it is on record that two governors are existing in the state. Wada had taken the oath of office before a customary court president, while the Speaker had also taken the oath of office as acting governor, the same day. The forces that produced two governors in the state can only feel satisfied when the apex court pronounces on the way to go. It is certain that whichever way INEC goes in the Kogi issue, the Supreme Court still has a lot of interpretation to do. If Jubril Isah is recognised as the right candidate, the Wada camp certainly will seek to protect its mandate. It is also certain that only the apex court can take away the mandate already given to Captain Wada, if it decides to either order a fresh election process or recognise Isah as governor.The situation in Bayelsa is also equally complex. Governor Sylva had been stopped from contesting the primaries of his party, which could have afforded him a re-election ticket. The governor had turned around to hold on to the ticket he won in January 2011. He has since approached the courts to declare him the candidate of the party. If INEC recognises Dickson as the true candidate of the PDP in Bayelsa, it should expect legal battle from the Sylva camp, which would seek to enforce the January 2011 primary. The situation in Bayelsa is sure to task the leaders of the PDP to the limits of their wits as well.If Jubril Isah is recognised as governor in Kogi, on account of his emerging the candidate of the party in January 2011, the same scenario would have to be replicated in Bayelsa, where Sylva had won in January. But the PDP had blocked Sylva from contesting the 19 November, 2011 primaries on account of adverse security reports against him. A leeway could, however, come for the party if the apex court ordered fresh beginning in all the states.As for Adamawa, Sokoto and Cross Rivers states, the scenario is quite different, but equally tricky. The question that would arise if the former governors win the election is when their second term in office would actually end. Since they were supposed to have commenced the second term in May 2011, will the apex court conclude that the period from May 2011 to January 2012, during which they remained in office, should be deducted from their second term, or will it be taken that the second term has just started afresh'It is expected that the apex court will resolve all the outstanding issues in favour of the Nigerian people and the nation's constitution, which their Lordships have sworn to protect.
Click here to read full news..
