IN THE MATTER OF IMPEACHMENT OF MR. AL-MAKURA. The Legal Implications Of The Actions Of The Panel; My View, My Point: Mr. CJP Ogugbara. The only and major legal authority or framework for the removal of a Governor or his Deputy from office is simply laid down in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended thus; Section 188. (1) The Governor or Deputy Governor of a state may Removal of Governor be removed from office in accordance with the provisions or Deputy Governor of this section. from office. (2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly. (a) is presented to the speaker of the House of Assembly of the State; and (b) stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified, the speaker of the House of Assembly shall, within seven days of the receipt of the notice, cause a copy of the notice to be served on the holder of the office and on each member of the House of Assembly, and shall also cause any statement made in reply to the allegation by the holder of the office, to be served on each member of the House of Assembly. (3) Within fourteen days of the presentation of the notice to the speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice-, the House of Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated. (4) A motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of the House of Assembly. (5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief judge of the State shall at the request of the speaker of the House of Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provided in this section. (6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person or be represented before the panel by a legal practitioner of his own choice. (7) A Panel appointed under this section shall - (a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly; and (b) within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly. (8) Where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter. (9) Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the house of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed form office as from the date of the adoption of the report. (10) No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court. (11) In this section - gross misconduct means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct. For the purpose of clarity, it means that the roles of the Legislators start from Subsection 1 to 4 of the above section, and resume again from subsection 9 to 10 indicating that there is a gap. This gap is examined and explained thus; By subsection 5, there is a duty on the Judiciary to wit; “within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief judge of the State shall at the request of the speaker of the House of Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provided in this section” It becomes imperative that the following conditions necessary in the discharge of the duty in subsection 5 and same must be genuinely complied with; Therefore, the Chief Judge of Nassarawa State must within 7 days after the request by the Speaker has been made to him to constitute a panel to investigate all the allegations leveled against the Governor Mr. Al-Makura; hence they are; (a) the panel must be made up of seven persons only; (b) the persons so appointed must be people of unquestionable integrity; not members of a public service; (c) not members of the legislative house; and (d) not members of a political party. Also very sacrosanct is the provisions of Subsection 6 which states that “the holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person or be represented before the panel by a legal practitioner of his own choice” The bullet is found in Subsection 7 of the above section which provides as follows: “a Panel appointed under this section shall: (a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly; and (b) within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly. Paragraph (b) which requires report of findings to be reported will be discussed below along with Subsection 8 and 9. Now for paragraph (a) it is a requirement of the constitution that the powers of the Panel and exercise of its functions must be in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure laid down by the Legislative House. Furthermore, by Subsection 8, the law is that “where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter” while Subsection 9 states that where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the house of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed form office as from the date of the adoption of the report. Finally subsection 10 says that No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court. I wish to state that the anomaly of this panel began yesterday the 4th of August, 2014 when the sitting was adjourned as a result of the absence of the Members of the Legislative House to today the 5th of August, 2014. The provision of subsection 6 is clear and does not need the presence of the Legislators or their Legal representatives in attendance at the sitting or defense of the said allegation. Once the Governor who has been accused is present at the sitting of the Panel and the Panel is competent as to quorum, then what is required for the business of the Panel has been achieved. Secondly, The ultimate question now becomes, was the important provision of our fundamental Law adhered with regards to the prescribed rules and procedures of the Legislative House? I was not in the State to witness the proceeding, but the Law is law, hence it must be obeyed. The team of Legal Representatives of the Legislative House raised this as an objection in a quasi judicial Panel such as this, the law on Objection is clear and simple see Mohammed Vs Olawunmi (1993) 4 NWLR Pt 288 Pg 384; Oloriode Vs Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390, SANNI Vs Okene L.G Traditional Council (2008) 5-6 Pt II Pg 131 at 139 Paragraph 20 Per Tobi JSC held a preliminary objection is raised where a party fails to comply with the enabling law and or the rules of court. The learned Law Lord went on in Pages 139 and 140 Paragraphs 30-10 to reiterate that it is the foremost thing to be decided upon before any further move can be made in the proceedings. Since from all indication, the team of Legal Representatives of the Legislative House raised this as an objection before that Panel which is in its nature, a quasi judicial Panel and it was not addressed neither was it properly adhered then the failure and nullity of their action is making serious progress. Drawing from paragraph (b) which specifies that the Panel shall within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly. The time frame being within three months has no much problem as the time can be few hours after the appointment provided the findings have been made. There is no problem as to time. But there is a serious problem with the second limb of that provision as to the reporting to the House of Assembly, and it shall form partly the bedrock of the nullity of the whole exercise. The Panel by this singular provision is only accountable to the Legislators, and the fulfillment of that will give rise to subsequent actions stated in Subsection 8, 9, 10 and 11 where applicable. This the panel failed to do but rather the Panel took to the TV stations and media to dismiss a whooping 16 count allegations bothering on misconduct. With all due respect this is a deliberate disregard to the provisions of the constitution by the Panel. Be that as it may, the primary work of subsection 10 is to provide shield for the Panel and or possibly the Governor against any litigation. This ideology is much more dead on arrival, it is a blatant deceit especially when the law you seek protection from is also the one you have flaunted. The law is trite and has always been made clear in plethora of authorities that equity deems as done that which ought to be done, and he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Having disregarded the Constitution, then the probe then is; can a constitutional dissident benefit from the protections offered by other provisions of the same constitution, the answer is NO. This subsection as it appears, may sound harsh and very conclusive, but the equitable gates are there and widely opened for the aggrieved party to proceed to court to right the wrongs on ground. Hence Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended, provides thus; (1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation. (2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State. (6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section: (a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law; (b) shall extend, to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person; There is a similar and applicable provision in section 272 (1) of the 1999 of Constitution as amended to wit; Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offense committed by any person. It is noteworthy to state that the Constitution of our great country is supreme, thus by Section 1 (1) this Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The provision has also been given judicial credence thus “the Constitution is supreme and what it has stipulated remains sacrosanct, immutable and nothing to do about it but to strictly comply.” I rely on UGBA V SUSWAN Suit No: SC.191-191A/2012 (CONSOLIDATED) Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C delivered on Friday, the 9th day of May, 2014, Inakoju v Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 423; A. G. Ondo State v A. G. Federation (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt.772) 222 at 308. In view of the facts and law stated thereof, I am of the humble and subjective view that the Panel as constituted by the Chief Justice of Nassarawa State and having concluded their assignment to wit; investigating the misconduct allegation leveled against the Governor Mr. Al-Makura and the attendant exoneration of the Governor as well as dismissal of the counts, engaged in an adventure which to me with all due respect tantamount to successful failure if tested in a competent Court of Jurisdiction. Mr. CJP Ogugbara is my name
Posted on: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:54:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015