The Supreme Court judgment has continued to generate ripples in the affected five states. In this report, Lanre Adewole writes on the aftermaths of the judgment and the unfolding political intrigues in Kogi State.The Supreme Court judgment, which recently sacked five state governors, has thrown up unprecedented constitutional conundrum for the polity operators, especially political parties and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This subject matter seemed to be pointing to a recourse to the judiciary for more definite pronouncements on the issue of succession involving candidate nominations, primary elections, conduct of gubernatorial elections and interpretation of relevant provisions of the operational 1999 Constitution as amended. The problem presently is that the constitution obviously did not envisage the controversy of tenure elongation; hence, the absence of definite pronouncements in a situation like this.While the challenges appear more political in certain states such as Adamawa, Cross River and Sokoto and Bayelsa, posing near-straightforward legal issues on party candidacy, Kogi State presents a more complex scenario that only the judiciary can resolve. The peculiarity of the Kogi situation has to do with the emergence of two governors as successor-in-office to the ousted former Governor Ibrahim Idris, with parties in the succession crisis flexing muscles on the correct interpretation of the constitution in relation to the said judgement. While the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the ruling party in all the affected states, is still trying to find a political solution to the challenges threw up by the judicial pronouncements in Kogi State, what looks more certain is another round of litigation over whether the election of Captain Idris Wada can stand in the face of the judgement and if he is the lawful candidate of the party for the said election.The odds seem stacked against the controversial governor, with analysts pointing out that his controversial swearing-in fell short of constitutional requirement, starting from the lacuna in Idris summoning the President of the Customary Court of Appeal, Honourable Shaibu Atadoga, to swear him in, considering that Idris had become a private citizen immediately after the judgement and lacked such summoning power over the judicial officer.The summon, according to industry watchers, could also land the judicial officer in an uncomfortable situation, if a complaint is made to the National Judicial Council (NJC), alleging that he acted outside the purview of his constitutional powers.It was further argued that Wada could not be governor because Section 191 (2) of the constitution says 'where any vacancy occurs in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this section during a period when the office of the deputy governor of the state is also vacant, the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the state shall hold the office of governor of the state for a period of not more than three months, during which there shall be an election of a new governor who shall hold office for the unexpired term of office of the last holder of the office'.Since Idris and Philips Salawu had a joint ticket, their tenure expired together on 28 May, 2011 by the judgement of the Supreme Court. So, it was constitutional for the Speaker, Honourable Abdullahi Bello, to be sworn-in as acting governor and he has a constitutional duty to conduct a fresh election. Another issue being raised in this regard is that the constitution has no provision for governors-in-waiting, which is why Senator Andy Uba was not sworn-in again after the expiration of Anambra State governor, Peter Obi's first term. Despite that Uba had won an election and was initially sworn-in, the Supreme Court held that Obi's tenure had not ended and he had to step aside. Analysts contend that though no court invalidated Uba's election, he was not brought back to office on the basis of the said election when Obi's tenure was constitutionally over, because his election was deemed by the Supreme Court to have taken place when it should not. Therefore, in the eye of the law, there was no gubernatorial election in Anambra won by Uba and he was not a governor-elect.The amended 1999 Constitution became operational on 11 March, 2011, with its Section 178 (2) saying that the gubernatorial election should be conducted not earlier than 150 days and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office, it is being argued that Wada's election, which was conducted on 4 December, 2011, would not conform with this provision, considering that Idris's tenure had ended 28 May, 2011, making his election to come about seven months after Idris's tenure.It was revealed to the Nigerian Tribune by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) that given the intendment of the constitution and the precedence created by the apex court in the Anambra's case, Wada's election is gone with the apex court pronouncement.Another school of thought however argued that the judiciary might end up holding the gubernatorial election in the state as sacrosanct in order to cover its delay for about a year before resolving the tenure issue, pointing to the fact that it was not the making of either the INEC or Wada that the election was conducted out of time and constitutionally.A senior lawyer was of the opinion that if the judiciary had expedite action on the tenure issue, it would have been resolved before 28 May, 2011, and the election would have been conducted in consonance with the constitution. This was in view of the fact that the prevailing judicial situation then was the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which held that the former governor's tenure had not ended, while the appeal at the Supreme Court which was actually filed by the candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) for Adamawa gubernatorial election, General Buba Marwa, could not operate simplicita as stay of execution of the judgement of the Court of Appeal.The argument however may not avail in the face of the position taken by the apex court in the Anambra State's case, leading to the throwing-out of Uba even as a sitting governor. His case appeared to have a stronger position to fight the tenure issue, compared to Wada who was just a governor-elect, considering the almost unanimous agreement that his oath-of-office was patently unconstitutional.Many believe that the controversial oath would be the first of the many illegalities surrounding Wada's emergence as governor that would be discarded by the court of law. He may be losing on all sides, even if the judiciary is minded to hold the 4 December, 2011 gubernatorial election as sacrosanct, considering that it would be difficult for him to prove that he was the lawful candidate of his party, despite PDP's grandstanding that nothing could tamper with its candidates in the five states which included Wada for Kogi, Seriake Dickson for Bayelsa, Murtala Nyako for Adamawa, Aliyu Wammako for Sokoto and Liyel Imoke for Cross River.The argument of the party that the judiciary cannot interfere in its nomination process is faulty, given the many instances such had happened with the most remarkable being the Rivers State's case. Here, Governor Rotimi Amaechi was being crowned as the state governor by the Supreme Court without standing for an election, simply because he was held to be the lawful candidate of the PDP in the state.It has become the most quoted precedence of the apex court, with several nomination issues being resolvedsame way and many analysts are staking their arguments that the issue of lawful candidates in Kogi and Bayelsa states would go the same way, leading to the sacked governor, Timipre Sylva, benefiting and Wada losing out again.The Supreme Court, in resolving many nomination controversies, had insisted that the proviso of the Electoral Act which stipulates 'cogent and verifiable reason' must be seen to have been applied in candidate substitution and the reason given by PDP in substituting the name of Alhaji Jubrin Echocho, the winner of the 9 January, 2011 primary election with Wada's, was that the tenure of Idris had not ended, but the judgement of the apex court appears to have rendered the excuse untenable.Standing on this platform, analysts are of the opinion that since the Supreme Court judgment had reversed the entire process to status quo before 29 May, 2011, the gubernatorial ticket held by Echocho meets the required constitutional process, coming almost five months before the end of Idris tenure on 28 May, 2011, thereby making him the lawful candidate of the party and by extension, the governor-elect if the court hold the election as subsisting, unlike the primary election that produced Wada which came four months after the expiration of the tenure of the former governor.According to a senior advocate, Wada was never part of the pre-28 May, 2011 that the apex court reversed everyone to, 'so there is even no point factoring him into anything before the date the justices of the Supreme Court held that Idris tenure expired'.Polity watchers are also not discarding the possibility of the judiciary directing that the entire process of replacing the former governors should start all over again, a situation that may put almost all of them in varying degrees of political jeopardy. Starting from Nyako who could be blocked by the acting governor who is considered a Marwa boy, it extends to Wammako, who is believed not to be wanted by the presidency in the first place but was eventually prevailed upon by the Sokoto elders.There is Sylva who has become an institutionalised opposition to President Goodluck Jonathan in Bayelsa, including Imoke who made unsuccessful attempts to impeach the Speaker in order to forestall his perceived enemy from being in a situation to determine his political fortune. The feared moment is now around for Imoke with the Speaker now as acting governor.On this matter, there is a strong indication that the days of intrigues, fierce judicial battles and perhaps literal political confrontations are surely ahead.
Click here to read full news..
