ENCORE
We conclude this week, the part 2 of this write up.
In DANGANA V USMAN (2013) 6 NWLR (pt 1349), 50, the Supreme Court had, however, held that qualification/disqualification to contest an election is both a pre-election and post-election matter”, over which both the High Court and the relevant Election Tribunals have jurisdiction. The more recent case of WAMBAI VS DONATUS is better law, that only an election petition tribunal should adjudicate over such matters. See CHUKWUEGBO VS. AGU & ORS (2015) LPELR 25578 (CA).
Dr. Ikpeazu was said to have presented a false tax certificate. This is not a factor to qualify or disqualify him. Ikpeazu, who at all material time, was a civil servant, and was neither the tax assessment officer nor a staff of the Tax Office, such as to have falsified his own P.A.Y.E. tax certificate. Haba!
Ogah, on the other hand, was never nominated by PDP, as a candidate in the election as required by sections 31 and 32 of the Electoral Act. The PDP Guidelines, which the court also relied upon was (from my perusal of the case), not even a document placed before it. How could it, therefore, have speculated on it? A court is not a knight errant in shining armour, on a voyage of discovery like Mungo Park, Clapperton, Vasco Dagama or Lander Brothers.
Note that Section 133(2) of the Electoral Act defines “tribunal” or “court” to mean “(a) In the case of Presidential election, the Court of Appeal and (b) In the case of any other elections under this Act the election tribunal established under the Constitution or by this Act.” This means that Ogah could only have challenged Ikpeazu’s alleged non qualification (if at all) at an election tribunal, not FHC. Further, section 31 (5) (6) Electoral Act allows a “person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false” to sue at the High Court or FHC on such and the court on discovering such falsity, shall issue “an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election”.
This means that the jurisdiction of the court is limited to suits brought before the holding of election, not after. The phrase used is: “the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election”; not “after contesting the election”. The canons of interpretation are trite that the ordinary and literal meaning of a statute shall be accorded it by a court, where the intention of the Legislature is explicit. See OJOKOLOBO V. ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377; UGWU V. ARARUME (2007) LPELR-3329(SC); NWANKWO & ORS. V. YAR’ADUA & ORS. (2010) LPELR-2109 (SC).
What is more, section 141 of the Electoral Act provides: “An Election tribunal or Court SHALL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election”.
In CPC V. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (pt 1279) 493 (SC), the Supreme Court emphasised that one cannot organise an election between a political party and a human being; that an election is contested and won by human beings who have flesh and blood, not by political parties whose only role is to sponsor a candidate.
In CPC V. OMBUGADU (2013) LPELR 21007 (SC), the apex Court also expressly overruled AMAECHI V INEC (2008 5 NWLR (pt 1080) 227, thus:
“The implication of section 141 is that while a candidate must be sponsored by a political party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him… parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidate they sponsor.”
So, under what law is the FHC imbued with power to remove a sitting Governor, or to do so on a mere allegation of presenting a forged tax certificate in a case prosecuted by mere affidavit evidence? How do you “convict” and punish a person who has not been put through the furnace of an adversarial trial, with an opportunity under section 36 of the Constitution, to cross examine his adversaries? What forensic expert evidence was advanced in a merely documentary case, without cross examination, viva voce? How do you prove a criminal case “beyond reasonable doubt” on mere affidavit evidence in a mere civil proceeding? How do you remove a sitting Governor overwhelmingly voted for by his people, by judicial fiat, and order his opponent who never sought for votes from Abians, sworn in, in an intra-party quarrel, when section 141 Electoral Act clearly outlaws AMAECHI’S CASE and warns that “under no circumstances” should a court “declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all stages of the said election?” Nigerians eagerly await the Court of Appeal’s decision, then the Supreme Court’s. Till then, let’s keep our fingers crossed.
2014 National Conference: Notajob for the “Boys”
Mr. Babachir Lawal, Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), in an interview two weeks ago raked up dust when he stated that the report of the National Conference organised by the Goodluck Jonathan administration was not a priority for the PMB administration.
He described the National Conference as “essentially diversionary” and constituted “job for the boys”, and echoed his master’s earlier position that PMB was too busy to study the report, as it was not his main priority at the moment.
Lamenting that “almost everybody in the committee got N7 Million”, he, however, conceded that the conference “probably produced a document that is good and commendable but this government is too busy with very more vital areas of governance and we are not intending to spend our time reading reports.” Not done, he shocked Nigerians as follows:
“The exercise of governance is not about reading reports. The reports are here, so many volumes that, for example, it would take me like seven days to go through and I wonder what happens to my work while I am reading it; while the economy needs attention, unemployment is there, insecurity is there, people are blowing up pipelines and so on.” Incredible! Seven days too much to read a report produced by 498 eminent Nigerians drawn from all strata of the society?
Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, the cerebral intellectual, who served as the Deputy Chairman of the Conference did not believe he heard well. Describing Babachir’s statement as “crude and rude”, the former Foreign Affairs Minister lectured him:
“At the conference, there were various judges of High Courts, a former Chief of Defence Staff, a former Chief of Air Staff, three former foreign ministers, a former Inspector General of Police, two former senate presidents, a former SGF, several former ministers, several SANs, several former governors, professors and presiding were a former Chief Justice of Nigeria and a former Minister of External Affairs… Among the delegates are the Emir of Ilorin, the Lamido of Adamawa, King Alfred Diete Spiff, the Gbong Gwom of Jos, Emir of Yauri, Emir of Dutse, Emir of Askira, the Amanyanabo of Nembe, judges of the High Courts. “Delegates included a former Chief of Defence Staff, a former Chief of Air Staff, three former foreign ministers, a former Inspector-General of Police, two former Senate Presidents, a former SGF, several former ministers, SANs, former governors, professor, etc.
“Presiding was a former Chief Justice of Nigeria and a former minister of external affairs.
“Most of the delegates there were people who had paid their dues, served this country in high and exalted positions, risked their lives in the civil war and other domestic insurrections and showed exceptional excellence in the performance of their duties, obviously more excellence than Engineer Lawal had demonstrated in his one year in office.”
Akinyemi also denied Lawal’s claims that the delegates collected N7 million each:
“Come on, Mr. SGF. Grow up. You have been in the office that funded the Conference and you have been there for over a year, and all you need to do is to send for the files to know that what members were paid is much less than N7 million per member. You do not have to depend on rumours or dem say…….
“Frankly, I will not plead for the report of the Conference to be considered by your government. Governments come and governments go. The problems will remain we will all be judged by whether we were part of the solution or part of the problems,” Akinyemi concluded.
Akinyemi didn’t need to worry. Soldiers come and go, but the barracks remain. My simple addition: PMB, let your government dust up the over 260 recommendations report and you will discover that the “open sesame” magical key you badly require to open up Nigeria’s success door is right with you, but buried in the dark recesses of your government’s drawers by some funny civil servants. God bless Nigeria.