Legal practitioners in the Niger Delta have faulted the resolution of the peace parley brokered by President Bola Tinubu over the raging political conflict in Rivers State directing the incumbent governor, Sim Fubara to immediately withdraw all lawsuits instituted in the courts regarding the crisis.
The resolution also mandated Fubara to re-present the 2024 appropriation bill he had earlier presented to the four-member state House of Assembly to the full House. The eight-point resolution, further stated that: “The leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly as led by the Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule shall be recognised alongside the 27 members who resigned from the PDP.
But some lawyers who spoke with Saturday Vanguard have dismissed the outcome of the meeting as gross abuse of power and a slap on the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
They described the president’s role in the matter as an attempt to undermine the nation’s democracy.
President presiding over desecration of Nigeria’s constitution — Nwoko SAN
A former Akwa Ibom Attorney General, and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Uwemedimo Nwoko, said: “Why I feel very sad is that as educated as the President is, he does not feel any sense of repulsion, he does not feel any sense of shame going to preside over the desecration of the constitution of Nigeria.
“It is very sad that the president would preside over the desecration of the constitution that he had taken oath to protect. It Is scandalous, it is very embarrassing, it is shameful, despicable and condemnable. It is wanton abuse of the Constitution.
“In law, parties cannot sit down to agree on unconstitutionality, parties cannot negotiate illegality. They cannot enter into agreement to violate the law or the constitution. For instance, the purported return of the 27 lawmakers to the House is illegality, it is unconstitutionality, it cannot stand.
“The agreement that the governor should go and re-present the appropriation bill to the House of Assembly, when the Bill has already been passed by the House, and assented to by the governor is an illegality, it is a joke of the highest level.
“In fact, the president should disown that meeting and say that he didn’t preside over the desecration of the constitution because it is an impeachable offence against him. The 27 lawmakers that defected, by virtue of the clear provision of the constitution they had vacated their position automatically. The constitution says there’s no proviso for returning, there is no exception to the matter.
“So, having lost their seats by virtue of their defection to another political party, they have gone forever. They cannot come back unless they re-contest election. Those people are out and they are out of the Rivers State House of Assembly. They cannot return.
“The constitution is like the Rock of Gibraltar, it cannot be moved, it cannot be shaken. What the Constitution provides stands permanently. So, the purported agreement, or settlement, whatever they call it has no meaning as far as the status of the 27 state lawmakers are concerned.”
The agreement cannot override the constitution —Omare
Also speaking, Eric Omare, said: “A mere agreement between parties irrespective of the facilitator or facilitators cannot override the law especially where the issue involved is the constitution of the country. The agreement is a mere political approach without legal backing.
In addition, the key party here is the PDP under whose platform they were elected and from the available records the PDP national leadership has vowed to pursue legal redress. So, in the final analysis the President Tinubu-led settlement cannot override the position of the law.”
Abuse of the constitution — Eno
Ted Eno, said: “The Constitution of Nigeria is explicit on legislators who cross carpet from the political party on whose platform they were elected into office to another while still occupying the position they were elected to serve.
“The constitution is however silent in the case of governors who defect from one party to another, that was the reason Senator Ben Ayade, former governor of Cross River State and Dave Umahi of Ebonyi could serve out their tenure. But for legislators, it requires them to vacate their seats.
“If the legislators and those who worked out the agreement have any respect for the Constitution of Nigeria, those Rivers House of Assembly members have lost their seats. Unfortunately, we are in a country where there is no respect for the law, otherwise those Assembly members are going against the Constitution. Their continued stay in office is unconstitutional and illegal. This is more so with the ruling of a High Court of competent jurisdiction which has declared their seats vacant.”
Absurdity taken too far — Clarkson
Amaebi Clarkson, said: “The matter is subjudice, so the so-called resolution is of no moment. It’s sad that such absurdity can be foisted on an elected governor in a democratic dispensation and they think it can stick. Obviously, Governor Fubara was arm twisted to sign such suicidal instrument, so he has the leverage to jettison it and pursue the legal process with vigour.
“He has everything to gain by taking refuge in the legal process because the resolution is a noose on his neck. The PDP should equally contest the validity of the carpet crossing of the 27 lawmakers to the apex court so that the matter would be given a final seal.”
Tinubu’s truce has no force of law — Ogunbiyi
Ogunbiyi Olajuwon, said: “According to Section 109 (1)g, a House Member will lose his seat if he defects to another political party before the expiration of the term. “This position has been taken cognizance of even by the Supreme Court and the lower courts in a number of decided cases.
“Notwithstanding the above mentioned position and decided cases, there is also an exception provided for under that section 109 (1)g. The second paragraph of that subsection also provides room for defection when there is a division in a political party or in case of mergers of political parties.
“The import of the second paragraph of that subsection is in the same spirit with Section 40 of the same Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999.
“The Constitution is the groundnorm and therefore, will not envisage a situation where someone will join a political party and won’t be able to exit such association. Being a member of a political party is not tantamount to slavery or servitude where once you are branded ,you are branded for life.
“Therefore, it is instructive for people to understand that each case of defection could be quite different from the other. The defectors have a right to approach the court to stop their removal and so does the other side. To say they have no rights to seek redress in court is to deny them their fundamental rights. You cannot fight illegality with illegality and win. The defectors need to prove to the court that their defection is in consonance with the exceptions provided for in the Constitution.
After all, to every general rule there is always an exception. The court will have the final say on the matter, not the whims and caprices of certain individuals.
“The intervention of the President on this matter is at best a mediation and has no force of law. None of the warring parties has any obligations under the law to obey that decision. Although, it will be great if they do so as gentlemen in order to put an end to their squabbling so that Rivers State citizens could enjoy good governance. The continuous acrimony can only favour those who are benefitting from the chaos.”
President disregarding constitution — Kayode Ajulo, SAN
It’s worrying that the President, despite being a democrat and having a highly skilled lawyer as a chief legal advisor, appears to be disregarding the constitution. I’m curious to know who is advising him to overlook the clear and unambiguous provisions regarding party-switching by a member of a House or National Assembly and the consequent declaration of their seats vacant by the Speaker of the legislative house. A democrat must be guided by the rule of law and not rule of his fancies.
Nothing unconstitutional in Tinubu’s intervention — Kunle Adegoke, SAN
There is nothing unconstitutional about the intervention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the crisis of Rivers State. The development in Rivers calls for sober reflection by anybody who is a patriotic Nigerian. It is a step that elders in Rivers could have taken to resolve the impasse between the governor and the former governor.
And in a situation where the crisis could not be resolved like that, there is nothing unconstitutional for any other individual to seek to resolve the crisis. Those who are condemning the President, are they saying he should allow the entire state to go on fire before he would intervene? I believe that there are instances where people just go legalistic on matters that do not require any legalese. The crisis in the state is one that must be resolved and the intervention by the President is absolutely in order. I do not see any provision of the constitution that was contravened.
I make bold to say that I do not see what is unreasonable in the step taken by the President. It is the duty of the president to do what he has done in such a situation. He did not issue a proclamation and neither did he pretend to be making a law to be binding on the state in this instance. What the president cannot do is to make law for the House of Assembly or usurp the powers of the state government.
In a situation where the current state governor and the former governor are locked in a battle which is destructive on the interest of the state, what is required of the president is to call the parties to order. Some of us called on him to take that step and we are glad that he did. He shouldn’t just keep quiet. It would have been the situation under the former President Muhammadu Buhari that he would keep quiet and pretend that he was not aware anything was happening anywhere.
Even if he was interviewed regarding his thoughts about the crisis in such a place, he would say: I’m not aware. And everybody was condemning him for his lukewarm and lackadaisical attitude. Now, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu did not allow that. I believe what he has done is right and I do not see any violation of the constitution in it.
Tinubu has no constitutional roles to play there — Israel Olorundare, SAN
I adopt the views expressed by Babatunde Fashola, SAN and Femi Falana, SAN on this issue to the effect that President Tinubu has no constitutional roles to play there. This scenario had played out in Enugu state during the time of Nnamani when some people defected supporting Jim Nwobodo.
The truth is that it is a constitutional crisis that is playing out. If they had allowed themselves to go by it, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court would have decided it one way or the other. They have gone to court. Let them thrash it out in court if they are still not satisfied by the agreement they reached with each other even though according to what Briggs was saying, Fubara was intimidated.
I was just wondering that why didn’t he ask for time for him to consult with his lawyer before signing papers? Desperation to become governor led him to be in that situation. Now when the problem brewed again, why didn’t he say ‘I have supporters who have been backing me, let them come along with me to this meeting’ or that ‘I will consult with them before I sign papers’. Was he hypnotized? He had already got Wike, the moment those people said they decamped and the other four people now elected Speaker, they are constitutionally recognized.
They are already running and the court has already given a support that those other ones should not convoke the assembly in any other place. The governor should have been running with those four people who approved his budget and he would have submitted another set of commissioners to them and they would have approved while that case is going on, which would have travelled to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already made a pronouncement that once you decamp from your party and there is no crisis in your party, that is the end.
My opinion is that what Fashola and Falana have said that Tinubu has no role is the true position of the law. That agreement, as far as I am concerned, is just for them to have a graveyard peace. This is because those people will eventually strike him again. They will strike back or they will not allow him to perform. It will be like the Second Republic when Balarabe Musa was impeached and they put Abba Rimi there. Rimi had to be dancing to the dictates of the NPN-dominated assembly while he was on the platform of PRP. So, it is not new. Tinubu has no role to play there.
Vanguard