BY VICTOR OZIEGBE ESQ
It is a fact that, Nigeria is a Federation and it is further axiomatic that, we operate a constitutional democracy. Flowing from the foregoing, it is incumbent on us to take a panoramic view of the legislative squabble that induced the President’s intervention in the Rivers State political imbroglio.
First and foremost, what is Federalism and Democracy? According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Federalism is the legal relationship and distribution of power between the national and regional governments within a federal system of government. (Brayan A. Garner, West, a Thomson Reuters business, Ninth Ed.2009, P.687)
While Democracy according to the Black’s Law dictionary is the Government by the people, either directly or through representatives elected by the people. (supra)
This brings to mind, the songlike definition of Late Abraham Lincoln, who was an American lawyer, politician, and a statesman who served as the 16th President of the United States of American who defined democracy as the government of the people, by the people and for the people’. The word democracy comes from the Greek words ‘demos’, meaning people, and ‘kratos’ meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as power of the people: a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
To illuminate this further, I humbly relish the position of our erudite justices in the suit of A-G. Abia State v. A-G., Federation {2022} 16 NWLR (pt.1856) wherein the court copiously held, thus:
Federalism is an arrangement whereby powers within a country are divided between a national countrywide government and a number of regionalized, that is, territorially localized governments, in such a way that each exists as a government, separately and independently from others, operating directly on persons and properties within its territorial areas, with a will of its own and its own apparatus for the conduct of its affairs, and with an authority on some matters exclusive of all others.
Having looked at the drivers of democracy and governance in Nigeria, with all sense of curiosity, deep search for knowledge and my interest for clarity, I humbly place on record to seek answers to the understated nagging questions.
1. In view of the resolutions in the Rivers State House of Assembly as regards the 27 defected members that defected from PDP to APC pursuant to section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. And the Speaker thereafter gave effect to their defection pursuant to section 109(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Now, the question begging for an answer in view of the resolution and agreement signed in Abuja. I hold bold to ask, are they (the 27 defected members) coming back to the House as PDP members or APC members?
While the above in my wisdom qualified as a puzzle in the form of political solution. However, can it be regarded as legal or constitutional? If yes, may I know where it is hidden in our Constitution?
With a sense of gravitas, the Constitution is the grundnorm of all laws or Statutes in Nigeria pursuant to section 1 of the Constitution, which provides, thus;
This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (underline for emphasis)
The operational words say it all. ‘Shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria’ (including Rivers State and its House of Assembly).
And section 1(3) provides, thus; If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
Now, I ask, can the Speaker receive the 27 defected members back whimsically to the House upon an agreement entered into by the Governor? With all modesty, the answer is an emphatic no. This is because parties to a dispute cannot waive the provisions of the Constitution in order to adopt and carried out their consensus therein as contained in an agreement that is inconsistent to the Constitution. This is against section 1 (3) of the Constitution and
I humbly support this sacred position with the case of Udeogu v. F.R.N {2022} 3NWLR (pt.1816) wherein the court held, thus;
Where the Constitution has enacted exhaustively in respect of any situation, conduct or subject, a body that claims to legislate in addition to what the Constitution had enacted must show that it has derived the legislative authority to do so from the Constitution.
The court further held in the case that;
an act done pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a non- existent law is itself a nullity. It has no binding effect.
Can we take the above ‘political solution’ as one of the dangers under constitutional democracy? Your answer may be as correct as mine, even if it is mutedly loud and emphatic.
This brings to mind the case of Friday vs. Gov. Ondo State {2022} 16 NWLR (pt.1857) wherein the court held, thus;
The principle behind the concept of separation of powers is that none of the three arms of government under the Constitution should encroach into the powers of the other. Each arm, the executive, legislative and judiciary is separate equal and coordinate department and no arm can constitutionally takeover the functions clearly assigned to the other. The powers and functions constitutionally entrusted upon by the other. The doctrine is to promote efficiency in governance by precluding the exercise of arbitrary power by all the arms and thus prevent friction. The doctrine of separation of powers is the bulwark or anchor on which the survival of Nigeria as a nation must depend’.
It is inimically interesting to know that, the Governor of Rivers State while addressing the people of Rivers State during the Christmas celebration, told the people that, ‘the peace pact is not as bad as portrayed by those who oppose it, and it is not a death sentence’. I, indeed agree with him to an extent. However, I humbly ask, can parties including the Governor of Rivers State upon an agreement waive the mandatory provisions of the Constitution? The answer is generously an emphatic no.
It is incomprehensibly sad to watch how politicians are elevating political solutions over constitutional provisions in the disguise for pseudo peace.
To support my position, I humbly refer my cherished readers to the case of Friday v. Gov. of Ondo State (supra) wherein the Court held that;
When a law provides a particular way or method of doing a thing, unless such a law is altered or amended by legitimate authority, whatever is done in contravention of it amounts to a nullity.
Constitutionally speaking and Jurisprudentially, I humbly hold that, the 27 defected members may come back to the House by approaching the court pursuant to section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution to invalidate the declaration of the Speaker of the House whereupon he declared their seats vacant or wait till the end of this Assembly’s tenure and recontest for seats in the Rivers State House of Assembly election. This, in my opinion is how we can develop our legal jurisprudence. Otherwise, the system is likely to be stunted.
It is not lost on me the situation that almost engulfed Edo State House of Assembly some time ago, when legislative businesses were conducted against the provisions of the Constitution. That was a missed opportunity to develop our legal jurisprudence, and now, this is another opportunity to enrich our legal jurisprudence for greater democratic progress.
I respectfully, disagree with those that are of the opinion that the essence of all effort is to achieve peace, which was the purpose of the resolution and the signing of the agreement at Abuja. For me, it is a red herring fallacy.s This is simply because our laws already proffered solutions for such eventuality (for defection). I gloriously shout to high heaven in support of the sacred nature of our Constitution.
By parity of immutability, the court trumpeted the sacrosanct nature of the provisions of the Constitution loudly in the case of A-G. Abia State v. A-G. Federation. {2022} 16 NWLR (pt.1856), wherein the court held, thus:
The very provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria must be followed without considering other extraneous concepts. The Federal concept in the Constitution must not be blown outside the parameters of the Constitution, calling in aid other forms of Federation in violent conflict with the letters of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 is wholly futile.
Within our jurisprudential underpinnings, the case of Ogbuoji vs. Umahi {2022} 8 NWLR (pt.1832) comes to mind without outlandish exaggeration, wherein the court held, thus;
The consequence of loss of seat for defection from the political party which. sponsored a legislative member is for bye election to be conducted and not for the vacated seat to be allocated to either political party.
We really don’t need to bend the kneel to kiss the ring. Where there are slight distortions in our democratic maturity, what we should do in such situation is to be committed to the provisions of the Constitution and thereafter effect amendments on the identified lacunas within the subsections of the concerned provisions of the Constitutions. This is the legislative responsibility of the National Assembly, rather than applying tainted political solutions. The danger of a continuous application of such therapy in constitutional dispute can result to dictatorial disposition if power is in the hand of an egoistic President. Thankfully, we have a president that is seeking peace and development, but through unorthodox channel. Notwithstanding the effort for peace, we cannot bury the truth in the presence of reality and ask the conscience to keep quiet.
May God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
BY VICTOR OZIEGBE ESQ.
No comments