Follow Us on Google
Ardent readers of this column would recall that two weeks ago we spoke to Governor Siminalayi Fubara without entering the corner of abuse. We told him pointedly to “rise and be a politician.” By that we didn’t urge him to fight to finish, rather we appealed for some form of pragmatism.
The tree that survives regular ferocious winds is the one that knows it must bend once in a while to allow the wind pass. Those that stand get broken. Big lessons nature offers there! Yielding ground as a tactic in our journey of adventure in life is often misconstrued in our clime to be weakness but it is not, especially when circumstances in play seem to be going beyond what we can effectively control. If you are strong, but whatever reason the odds weigh against you in a particular situation, good reason makes it inevitable that one walks the path of “disagreeing to agree.” Lawyers would rather say “agreeing without conceding.” That is a case where dialogue, compromise and consensus become potent variables or factors(which ever appeals to you.)
This discourse was planned to be a follow up to the appeal to Fubara. The objective or intention was and still is to use the anatomy of the impeachment saga in Rivers State to prove how the ruling class has made a mess of virtually every good intended legislation designed to produce good and effective governance for the country. This is the exercise at hand.
We begin with the question: what did the Deputy Governor of Rivers State Prof. Ngozi Odu do? What infractions did she commit for which the members of the State House of Assembly want her impeached and removed from office alongside the Governor? What is the underlying impetus? Where did they pick the legitimacy strength from? Is it the intendment of the law on impeachment that the Deputy Governor must be punished or pay a price once the boss is called to question? Those are very weighty matters to look into. In the first place the law in the wider dimension provides for a joint ticket. On the surface it is easy to say since it is a joint ticket they have to survive or die together. Nevertheless one doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand that both the Governor and the Deputy can’t die together except where it is manifestly very clear both conspired to do a terrible wrong.
I consulted two of my lawyer friends, who while educating me, were clear the offices are distinct once they are sworn in to office and each carries their cross as the case may be. From common sense deputies are truly “spare tyres” more so in our kind of unique constitutional provision where there are no clearly defined job designation for the office of Deputy.
The proper interpretation in regard to the instance in discussion should be each being liable for individual infringements, except in the very exceptional case evidence can be found that they acted together against the law. Examples so far would confirm the pattern. Vice President Atiku Abubakar one of the country’s sophisticated political players once faced impeachment process, challenged it in court and the apex court agreed that as Vice President he had some rights including running for election while holding office even if on a different platform from the one that brought him and his boss to power.
The point is he faced the impeachment attempt alone. The outcome would have had no consequence at all to the office of the President if the process had succeeded. Whether a Deputy should run for election for the same office occupied by him or her with reelection opportunities still available is something not expressly provided for in the law books but then it raises critical questions for which answers should be given or provided for.
Other News
This is where our attitude to interpretation of national laws come into play. Where there is no outright stipulations on a given issue we resort to giving interpretations that suit our immediate expectations and desires. We don’t care about the long term implications for the citizens and national development. We have made things worse by playing down on the question of morality in development. We keep saying it has no place today. The wrong perspective has caused us to make a shipwreck of our efforts at proper national development.
The reasons often adduced for impeachments are not only useless, diversionary and foolish, they are such that hamper democratic growth, bring opprobrium on our dignity and impede national development. What we hear and see acted out leaves everyone wondering if ours is a human society.
A president wakes up and hears a story he goes against his deputy using his tight grip on members of the National Assembly. Except something dramatic happens, the President would have his way. The same we have seen in the states where governors would instigate impeachment proceedings against their deputies for ordinary reasons such as nursing political ambition. The latest we saw was in Edo State under Governor Godwin Obaseki.
Framers of the Constitution had noble objectives for coming up with the provision. It is a weapon to extricate the local government area, state and country from anarchy and possible total collapse. It’s meant to be deployed in the circumstance of near absolute recklessness. Not a tool for settling political scores and vendetta or getting undue political advantage.
Elsewhere from what we get from history, the judiciary through progressive radicalism has done so much to help the proper growth of democratic growth. A chunk of public service rules in developed countries came from legal verdicts. Our judiciary have done quite a lot but have faltered in very critical moments. In the case of impeachment rather than make the process a bit more rigorous and bringing greater clarity to the process, it stripped the people who are the real sovereignty of their powers when it said “whatever the elected house members describe as gross misconduct, is what it is.
No one needs to be a lawyer to see the absurdity in this position. It just out of order. It lacks sound philosophical basis. Philosophy and great logic make judicial pronouncements tick. It gives them “life” and make generational assets. If we were very serious with what we do, no one would see reason to take a recourse to impeachment at the slightest misgiving.
This way we would have found the reason (s) to approach our interpretations from wider and progressive perspectives. By now, for instance, it would have also been very clear no one can jump from his political party to another still holding on to the office he or she won on a particular platform with different even if veiled ideology. Our parties may not be very different ideologically but the truth is people vote platforms and personalities for different reasons, expectations and desire to make a point. This is the Plain Truth.
