Connect with us

For The Record

Postponing Elections Means Tenure Elongation – Onaiyekan

Published

on

Onaiyekan

Onaiyekan

John Cardinal Onaiyekan is
the Catholic Archbishop of Abuja Diocese. In this exclusive interview, the former President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) bared his mind on a variety of burning national issues, including his thoughts on the build-up to this year’s general elections.
The countdown to this year’s general elections has commenced in earnest with the major political parties intensifying their electioneering campaigns. What are your thoughts on the build-up to the elections?
One would have said that by now we should have gotten our acts together and be able to conduct democratic elections as a routine process in our political history, just as it is in most developed and civilized nations.
But I am afraid that, unfortunately, even as we approach the next general elections, there is general air of fear and anxiety in the atmosphere; expressed by the fact that many people are moving their families to where they consider safe havens. Many Nigerians are sending their families back home to their villages, especially southerners living in the far north. They are relocating back home. This is internal movement and I have been told that other Nigerians at the top level are also sending their families abroad until the elections are over.
Some of them are even top level people within the political environment and I think we cannot deny that this is happening. The only thing we can also affirm is that the vast majority of Nigerians are not running away; they have nowhere to run to. This means most of us will all be here in our respective places of domicile and this is a question that concerns all of us, whether this election would be free, fair and non-violent. That does not only depend on the politicians or government alone, but also on all of us.
What I have been preaching all along is for our people, the ordinary Nigerians to reject violence, refuse to be intimidated, stand their ground and perform their civic duty and not to allow anyone to disorganize their mind. Even then, I also still believe that it is the responsibility of government to conduct elections.
But the way our government has always been, the institutions of government that should ensure impartial, independent electioneering have often found it difficult to remain totally neutral in relation to the contending parties. I think we need to admit that it is difficult because by the very nature of things, by the way the INEC is constituted and by extension the kind of control from the government, which makes the ruling party have control over national security agencies, namely the police, army SSS.
Because of that the tendency has always been for the government in power to enjoy undue advantage over the others. As you know, Nigerians can rightly refer to the weight of incumbency; the idea being that it is difficult to dislodge the government in power, almost as if it is only a stupid government in power that allows it to be defeated.
The question is, is this changing? Mr. President has repeatedly vowed and avowed that he will do everything in his power to ensure a free, fair and non-violent election. He also facilitated the famous meeting of all the political parties; particularly the leading presidential candidates on ground, at which meeting they signed an accord to ensure the election is free, fair and nonviolent.
For me that is good news although I am aware there are people who are skeptical. I remember speaking here in my hall with a very prominent opposition politician who said it is a mere ritual that they perform during every election. I can’t remember it happening in previous elections and even if it did, it did not get the attention that this one attracted.
Therefore, the message it sent at that level so far is very encouraging that we may indeed have a free and fair election devoid of violence. But that cannot happen only because you signed a piece of paper and I think the government who is largely responsible must take actions that speak louder than words such that the opposition is given a sense of confidence that yes what we signed will be properly implemented.
I really believe that the government in power has to do that and Mr. President, having given his word of honour solemnly, he should do his best. This means he may have people around him who don’t believe in the pact or who are already planning strategies. He should find a way of eliminating them from the system and allow the process to go.
There is no doubt that there is a link between the quality of the election and the possibility of post-election violence. Generally, as you have seen post-election violence is often an expression of disappointment or even anger at election results that are perceived to be not in line with the reality of the votes cast.
It means that INEC must go out of its way to be clearly non- partisan and independent; it should be independent as its name says and seen to be independent. The security agents should be for the security of all of us; to protect all political parties without bias.
Talking about the peace pact, are you satisfied with the conduct of the two major parties in their presidential electioneering campaigns so far, in terms of the language and messages they are passing across?
We still have to come back to the point I earlier made that President Jonathan and General Buhari embraced each other warmly with big smiles and that photograph has gone viral. I would like to believe that those smiles were sincere; but they should also realize that there may be others on both sides who may not share the same sentiments.
This is where each of them must demonstrate true leadership to be able to bring in their members to the extent that such smiles, embrace and spirit that we saw on that photograph would be reflected in the conduct of the campaigns. It is not surprising that some persons, here or there, with misguided enthusiasm, may see things and carry out certain acts that are anything but civil.
But what we do expect is that when that happens they would be called to order. It boils down to not using foul language and addressing issues. I wouldn’t say we should avoid addressing personalities because personalities are important; we have to address both.
Personalities in the sense that, this guy has the qualities to rule or lacks the qualities to do so. But even when you are discussing personalities during campaigns it should not be insults. It is allowed for politicians to assess the past performance of their opponents as a way to indicate how much they fit power or not and this can be done without insults.
It is up to the electorate who are listening to them to weigh the weight of the argument one way or the other and to decide who to vote for.
What is your personal take on the performance of the current PDP led administration in terms of security, fighting corruption and managing the economy?
Let me say that before the build up to the elections we have been talking, it is not to be unexpected that whatever problem that is on ground we put the responsibility on the government in power; they are the ones who have asked to be our rulers, therefore, if we go into serious issues like that of corruption we must be the ones to say much has been left undone.
Even the government itself admits, though they may give excuses like, for example, saying that every nation is saddled with corruption. They might even say we have set up EFCC, ICPC and so on, but the question is there are too many people who are getting away with corrupt behaviour and there is no point asking me to bring proof of accusation of corruption.
There are agencies that should be able to track how people acquire wealth and how far such wealth can be justified on the basis of their income. It is the job of government agencies to do that, there are obviously a lot of people who have acquired wealth that it is not too difficult to explain how they came about such wealth.
Take the area of security; the Latin people have a proverb which says “you don’t argue with a fact before you.” For example, that you came to my house today at 5.15pm is a fact that we cannot argue over. In the same way it is obvious that there is insecurity in the land, what is even obvious is that there has been a trend of growing insecurity in respect of Boko Haram.
I don’t know whether there is less insecurity in other areas, like kidnapping and armed robbery, or is it that Boko Haram has completely taken our attention. But I am told that kidnapping has not even been arrested, it is still going on. In fact, somebody phoned me last night that her brother was kidnapped in Gboko of all places, which means whatever efforts the government is making to ensure that all of us are safe, those efforts have not achieved adequate success.
The first responsibility of every government is to ensure the security of lives and property of citizens. In a situation like elections, you cannot say since this government has not done XYZ then I am going to the other person or you say this government has not done XYZ, but we have no confidence in this new person. The opposition does not have to prove how much they have done because they have not been in power.
This is why in developed democracies, incumbency is always a liability in elections and generally the opposition is at an advantage because they can always put the blame of everything on the ruling party and claim that if you put them there you will see wonders. This is why in Europe and America you see this ding-dong going on and I think there is something good about that. If you go try your best and people would say let us try some other persons and the next people would come and do their best and by the end of the day the whole society is much better.
Therein lies the strength of democracy; you can always change your mind and you can always bring people back. Why I am going through this is that at this point there is no reason asking me whether Jonathan has performed well enough because that is going to be the major question for the election and I don’t want to pre-empt that.
You earlier expressed concern about reports about people moving away from the north and vice versa. Are you particularly afraid?
I am living in Abuja and if I am not particularly afraid, it is not because there is no reason to worry. It is simply that my own emotional make up, especially with regards to the Nigeria project, is such that I am very optimistic.
You are here in my house; did you see any policeman or soldier? But there are people who cannot do without them because they are always afraid. I go around freely without carrying a platoon of soldiers to protect me and there are people who are telling me that I am being very naïve.
Some people have noted that my jeep is clearly inscribed with Cardinal Archbishop of Abuja and they say look, you are advertising yourself for attack. I have been advertising myself for the past many years and no attack has come. Instead I have made myself liable to be recognized and treated very well.
What roles should religious leaders play in times like this? Are they living up to such roles in Nigeria, given our current situation?
In Nigeria today who is a religious leader? So many people claim to be religious leaders and there are many religious leaders who are politicians and who carry on mixing their religion and politics.
It is something you cannot really avoid and that makes your question difficult. I can only talk for myself.
Fortunately, I belong to a church which has rules that we who are clergy abide by. Those of us who have chosen to be clergy cannot be part of any partisan organization. I can’t be a card carrying, advertising member of one party.
That doesn’t mean that I do not have an obligation to vote, but I cannot go up to the pulpit and say vote for X or vote for Y; that is what my church says. But you know there are other churches which don’t have such rules where reverends are themselves strong members of political parties and right now we have it in our hands.
Talking about your church (I believe you are referring to the Catholic Church), one of your reverends, Emmanuel Mbaka, recently came under criticisms for his sermon against President Jonathan’s government and you were one of those that criticized him. Why?
I am happy with this opportunity to balance the report that emanated from an interview I had with one of your colleagues.
Assessing the performance of the government is what we do regularly and the reverend father in question was well in order to point out, especially the gap between declarations and real achievements. It is part of our duty to denounce deception and lies and to that extent I have no problem because I have been doing that myself.
But when it reached a stage where he says you have to vote for X and not for Y he has crossed the boundary; he should have left those who were listening to him to make up their minds on that because they have every right to freedom of choice and not to be pressurized with spiritual power to go one way rather than the other.
Of course, it is not every Reverend Father that is like the one you are talking about because in every group there are always those who are on their own.
So has he been punished or sanctioned for violating the rules of the Catholic Church?
I was reported to have said if he were a priest in my diocese I would sanction him, but I would not deny that. But the question is what do I mean by sanction?
Sanction may not necessarily mean punishment; it may not be more than calling him for a discussion to point out to him that what he has done is not in order. That is already a sanction. Has he been punished? I don’t know because that is up to his bishop.
Given the concerns you earlier raised over the forthcoming election, do you foresee a situation whereby there would be another post-election violence?
The only thing I foresee is that our next president would either be Jonathan or Buhari; that is all. We are hoping that the conduct of the election would be so transparent that there will be no much room for quarrel when the result is announced.
I think even the mechanism for our election, despite the inadequacies here and there, has been done in such a way that we can really transparently follow the movement of our votes.
From what I understand, the votes are all counted at the polling booths, which are not secret locations. They are open and at each of them there are the agents of the political parties. Even those of us that are ordinary people have the right to stand around and ensure that things are done well.
There should be no difficulty in counting votes. There should be no difficulty in collating votes in these days of advanced technology. Our Catholic Church was involved in election monitoring and we gave all our boys and girls cell phones, and from each polling booths, they were sending us the results as they were being announced.
Somewhere along the line, we went into trouble because the result that was announced from the collating centers did not tally with what we independently collated. We have specific cases where our collations were used in election petitions and we succeeded in getting the elections overturned because it was clear that someone out there decided not to do the right thing.
And this is what we have been saying, namely that if everybody involved with the electoral process is aware that this is a matter that is very important for Nigeria; that we cannot afford to leave ourselves in a situation of anger, frustration; that our votes have been badly handled, then they would do the right thing-transparently.
And if it is clear that I didn’t win the election, there is no need to resort to violence. What is not good is to play monkey games, ballot box stuffing/snatching and at the end come up with a result. At the end of the day, you expect those who are declared losers to accept such results? They can’t accept it because it is not feasible.
Sometimes the contestants may agree with the bad process, but their followers may not agree and they have every right to protest because at the end of the day it is their votes that are being rubbished.
Should religion be a factor in deciding on choices during elections in Nigeria?
A whole lot of things go into your choice of whom to vote for and what to vote for. Everybody has his or her own convictions and interests. There are people whom the most important factor in election is what religion the contestant belongs to. I have heard people telling me I will never vote for a Muslim and they are entitled to that position and there are those who say they won’t vote for a Christian.
But if you ask me I would say you are wrong if you say you are a Christian and won’t vote for a Muslim. Supposing you have a rogue as a Christian candidate and a very good Muslim as a candidate, can you still say the same thing? Someone would say yes, but they have every right to their choices. But if you ask me I will say that our job as religious leaders should be to constantly tell people to vote according to their conscience and the person who would do a better job.
Of course, who would do a better job depends on how you see it. There is also the other question of ethnic identity. Some people would say no matter what, I will cast my vote for the man from my area.
But if you continue voting like that you are likely not to be getting the right candidates, because it is not likely that the person from your tribe is the best. Are you interested in the good candidate; the best person who will do the best job? That is the irony that makes elections difficult in Nigeria.
One of the presidential candidates recently went into a church, thereby drawing comments from many people. What is your take on that?
The fact that a Muslim candidate went to a church, there is nothing against that. In my own church I have received many Muslims for various reasons: weddings, funerals, thanksgiving services where you come with your friends including Muslims. So, that a Muslim visited the church there is no problem about that.
The problem will only arise over what role he is given to play, otherwise there might be no difference between him and a Christian politician. If a Christian politician begins to campaign in the church, he is certainly wrong because the church is not a campaign podium.
For the same reason, if a Muslim comes to Church to start campaigning it is wrong. You may say that his very presence there is interpreted to be campaign, but I am afraid that interpretation is uncalled for. Don’t forget that whoever will be our president would be the president of all Nigerians and he is going to be either Christian or Muslim.
If my president is a Muslim I will be more comfortable if he is the kind of Muslim who has no difficulty coming to my church. But if I have a Muslim president who is so fanatical to the extent of not being able to stand the Christian faith and cannot enter the church, then there would be problems. Christians, also, go to the mosque when they are invited; you don’t pray with them, you just go there as a sign of solidarity.
I can imagine that this politician you are talking about was brought to the church by his friend who happens to be a member of that church.
With barely three weeks before the elections there are fears in the North-East where insurgency persists with many of the people there now living elsewhere as IDPs. This has made others to call for the suspension of elections in those states. What is your take?
Let me tell you frankly, I really do not know what to say. This is a serious problem! It is like whichever way you go you are wrong. Some people have canvassed the idea that we postpone the election until there is calm in the North-East, but as you know postponing election means prolonging tenure, so it is untouchable because a new government is expected to take over on May 29, with a new president.
To that extent, there is no way of postponing election. Even though Mr. President told them in Maiduguri the other day that all the IDPs will soon return to their homes, I think you would need a miracle for that to happen that soon.
From the time he made that statement, I have not seen any action on ground to give even the IDPs the confidence that they would soon go back to their homes for the election. Now, that it is obvious that first of all, you cannot set up polling booths or polling stations in those areas because when you say a place is under Boko Haram insurgency it doesn’t necessarily mean their soldiers are stationed all over the place. No.
They can launch attacks from anywhere, so the place is not safe and which means you cannot conduct election in that whole zone. That is not the only problem. They said arrangements would be made for IDPs who are in camps within their own states to vote and I think and hope they would go further on that arrangement for the simple reason that the vast majority of IDPs are not in camps.
We have heard that not more than 10 per cent of them are in camps and to say that because you are not registered in camps you cannot vote is tantamount to deliberately disenfranchising the IDPs. I believe INEC should still put its thinking hat on, go back to the drawing board and open the space as much as possible to permit as many as possible for IDPs to vote.
Are you confident that INEC would deliver in these elections, especially with the problems associated with PVC distribution?
Was it last week or so that a governor , at a rally, was encouraging the people to please go and collect their PVCs. INEC said there were millions of PVCs that were waiting to be collected, but I am seeing the problem from the other hand.
I am not putting the blame on these people who have not collected their PVCs, but I am putting the blame on INEC who has made it rather difficult for them to be collected.
There should be a way of making the PVCs easily accessible and it is up to INEC and I put the blame on them. If you have a situation whereby you have hundreds of thousands of PVCs uncollected, it means that those uncollected PVCs can be put to sinister use on the day of election. The sooner we get done with our national ID cards the better, because most countries that is what they use for elections and in those countries every citizen has an ID card.
What do you make of the controversy generated over the certificate of the APC presidential candidate?
To me, this is an uncivilized attitude towards the election. As you know this whole story of certificate is being blown up as part of electioneering campaign. If you ask me I would say what has secondary school certificate got to do with whether either of the two candidates can rule the nation, especially when you are talking about somebody who has ruled the nation before and had reached the level of a General in the Army?
Are we saying that he has not got the level of education of a secondary school? Those who say so are simply looking for reasons to score political points. It is just like the story about the condition of his health which is very sad. I am 71 years of age and all of us at this age have something in us; one form of terminal disease or the other, which is normal at that age.
The Bible says the sum of our years is 70 and when I marked my 70th birthday, I went to my doctor and told him that I have reached the sum of my years and I am expecting death anytime so he should please help me find out which disease can kill me so that I can prepare. This is normal that anybody at 70 and above has something, but the election law does not say you must bring out all your medical records; everybody keep their medical records.
We have even seen sick presidents who have performed very well; we have even seen blind presidents who have performed very well in their countries, so let us be very serious. I am very sorry that these issues are being raised. Those who are raising these issues are the ones dragging the level of political discourse to the mud and they are getting on our nerves.
Culled from the Sahara Reporter.

Continue Reading

For The Record

BROADCAST BY HIS EXCELLENCY, SIR SIMINALAVI FUBARA, GSSRS ON TUESDAY, 18TH JUNE, 2024

Published

on

My fellow Rivers people
1. I come before you today with immense gratitude and heartfelt appreciation for your unwavering support to me and my administration.
2. I urge us all to reflect on the shared sacrifice we have all made to have a peaceful and prosperous Rivers State and indeed Nigeria. It is my wish that we continue to live in peace and harmony as one.
3. Together, we have achieved milestones in different sectors of our economy which includes infrastructure, health, education, workers welfare, improved service delivery, agriculture and social welfare that resonates deeply within our communities.
4. Your dogged and committed support has been the bedrock of our progress, and for that, I extend my sincerest thanks.
5. I also wish to acknowledge and commend the dedicated services of the outgoing elected Local Government Chairmen, Vice Chairmen and Councilors who were elected and sworn in three years ago, and whose tenure expired yesterday the 17th of June, 2024, as provided for by the Law.
5. On behalf of the Government and the people of Rives State, I thank you all for your sacrifices and commend your commitment to public service and our dear Rivers State.
7. I congratulate you all for the successful completion of your tenure and wish you well in your future endeavors.
8. As we move forward in making sure that the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is upheld, and that law and order is maintained as we continue to strive to provide leadership and direction for our people, I hereby direct Heads of Local Government Administration (HLGAs) to continue to provide leadership in their respective Local Government Areas.
9. Heads of Local Government Administration (HLGAs) are hereby directed to immediately take charge of the Councils with renewed vigor and readiness to serve and await further directives as we navigate towards even greater accomplishments together.
10. I assure you, my good people of Rivers State that we shall continue to defend you, provide infrastructural development, sound healthcare delivery, quality education and undiluted welfare service packages for all our people and workers.
11. Once again, I thank you my dear good people of Rivers State, for your steadfast support and dedication to our shared vision of unity, progress and prosperity.
12. Together, we will continue to build a brighter and better future for all.
13. Happy Salah Holiday.
14. God bless Rivers State.
God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
I’ll LEAD WAY TO PROTECT RIVERS PEOPLE, FUBARA ASSURES
(3rd lead)
•Says RSG’ll Resist Supporters’ Arrest
•Warns Against LG Secretariats’ Invasion
Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, has assured that he will fearlessly lead the way to ensure that peace continued to prevail in the State while also protecting all patriotic supporters for their stand on the path of truth.
Governor Fubara made the vow while addressing newsmen, shortly after rising from a State Security Council meeting with heads of the security agencies at Government House in Port Harcourt on Tuesday.
The Governor emphasised that no grand plan to arrest such patriotic supporters on trumped-up charges will be tolerated.
Governor Fubara stated that there is no extension of tenure of elected local government chairmen, adding that the law is unambiguous on it, clarifying that the court has also affirmed the position of the law.
The Governor said: “Let me also say this: I’m also aware that there is a grand plan to come and arrest some of our supporters. This time around, you have to pass through me to arrest them because I don’t think there is anything that any of those people following us has done. Rather, thy are standing on the side of truth.
“If it will cost us our lives to stand on the part of truth, we will do that. And I will be the one that will lead the course,” he added.
Governor Fubara further said: “Let me assure everyone, more especially, the great and peace- loving people of Rivers State: the law is the law. The law has said that there is no extension of tenure.
“The court said so, and whoever that is assuring anybody anywhere of whatever, I advise them to desist from it because peace is what we need in this State.
“I assure everyone of you that whatever it takes to make sure that we maintain peace and order, we are not going back on that,” he emphasised.
Governor Fubara explained that the Security Council Meeting was called because of the recent threat to the peace of the State by the outgone chairmen of the Local Government Councils.
The Governor said: “You are all aware that the tenure of the council chairmen ended yesterday, 17th June, 2024, and today, we have ordered the Heads of Local Government Administration to be in charge while they await further directives.
“It’s really unfortunate that we started hearing some disturbing news from some LGAs of invasion of council secretariats, and it is really unfortunate. So, we have called the Security Council Meeting so that the needful will be done.
“We are also aware that our enemy is also planning a lot of things. But we will not fall into that plot. We will not also allow him or them to destroy the peace that we are enjoying in the State,” he added.
He thanked the media and the peace-loving people of the State for their support, and urged everyone to continue to remain law-abiding for the unity and progress of the State.
Continue Reading

For The Record

An Open Letter To President Bola Ahmed Tinubu On The Imperative Of Revisiting The Eight-Point Resolution Brokered As Truce For The Rivers Political Crisis

Published

on

Your Excellency, as belated as it may come, please, do accept my congratulations on your victory in the last Presidential election, and the seamless swearing-in ceremony that ushered you in as the sixth democratically elected President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Of course, your victory did not come as a surprise to many, given your antecedents as a democrat, astute administrator and, a go-getter. Whereas your track record as a political activist, especially in the wake of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election is self-evident; your exceptional performance as Governor of Lagos State is a clincher any day.
It is my prayer therefore, that the good Lord, who has brought you this far, guide and direct your ways to steer the ship of state aright.
That being said, Your Excellency, please permit me to commence this correspondence with an allegory drawn from our recent past. A few years ago, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was elected Nigeria’s President on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). You were equally elected Governor of Lagos State on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). This electoral upshot inevitably placed you in opposition to the government at the centre.
The dust raised in the wake of the elections was yet to settle before you disagreed with then President Obasanjo. The bone of contention transcended personal vendetta, or so it seemed. Again, it happened at a time when our democracy could rightly be described as nascent. You had approached the court to seek judicial interpretation on some grey areas of our constitution, as provided for, in the concurrent list.
Much as Obasanjo would have loved to have things go his own his way, he was apparently restrained by the grundnorm. And he recognized it was within your right to seek judicial interpretation as to whether he wasn’t exercising his powers as president ultra vires. That was the rule of law at play; a classic specimen of what we fondly refer to as the beauty of democracy in our political parlance.Above all, it underscored the centrality of the constitution in resolving state matter.
Nigerians gave you thumbs up for engaging Obasanjo and the federal government all the way up to the Supreme Court. Moreover, happening at a time when the fear of President Obasanjo and the unwritten federal might were considered the beginning of political wisdom in our polity. Of course, the constitution came handy as a leveler between your good self and former President Obasanjo.
In light of the above, Nigerians naturally expect a clear departure from what the Obasanjo era and the immediate past regime offered them as constitutional democracy. Whereas it is still early in the day to rate your performance in this regard, one cannot but acknowledge that you have so far shown that you have some listening ear. Your intervention in what could have degenerated into a total breakdown of law and order in Rivers State late last year comes as a reference point. For me, stepping in to halt the ship of state from completederailment is an eloquent attestation to the fact that you place the security of lives and property, peace and harmony, and national cohesion over and above partisan interest.
You could equally have looked the other way and allow the crisis fester, since Rivers State is a PDP state. But you hearkened to the voice of reason, and that of well-meaning Nigerians, particularly, Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, the leader of the Ijaw nation, and, the Ijaw National Congress (INC) to halt the drift. Notwithstanding your tight schedule, you took out time to summon the governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Joseph Fubara, his predecessor, now FCT minister, Barr. Ezebunwo Nyesom Wike and Hon. Martins Amaewhule who were the principal actors in the crisis to the Villa, and have them subscribed to a peace deal.
Although I had my reservations over the eight-point resolution ab initio, I refrained myself from joining the bandwagon in pointing out some of the obvious limitations in the document at the time. My position was informed by the following reasons. First, I didn’t see it as the wisest thing to do at a time when the crisis was raging like a wildfire. For me, nothing could have been more paramount than bringing the situation under control, which the armistice effectively accomplished. Second, I trusted your judgment, and honestly believed that you brokered the deal in good faith. I was therefore willing to give the truce the deserved benefit of the doubt by putting it to test. Finally, and most importantly, the governor who was in the eye of the storm was unwavering in restating his commitment to the terms of the truce.
However, three months after the deal was struck, I dare say, Your Excellency; that it has failed in attaining the ultimate goal of reconciling the warring factions.Instead, it had become the template for the palpable tension the state has since been grappling with. This outcome is by no means surprising to any discerning mind. And the reasons are not far-fetched. First, as I mentioned earlier, it would appear that in a bid to halt to the looming anarchy, the constitution which is the grundnorm was not properly consulted in forging the eight-point resolution. Also, a reexamination of the document reveals a certain degree of political fiat in its construct.
That the eight-point resolution has since triggered a plethora of litigations is only natural. That it has induced a near state of anomie clearly points to the inherent flaws in the document. That it has thrown up desperadoesand warmongers like Chief Tony Okocha and Engr. Samuel Nwanosike who now disparage, distract and outrightly abuse a sitting governor with reckless abandon is equally expected. As for Wike, the man believes the governor is his lackey, therefore, tongue-lashing, and outrightly threatening to give the governor sleepless nights are privileges he believes are within his right. But most worrisome, is the fact that Wike doesn’t make empty threats. In other words, backtracking on getting the governor out of office, either by hook or crook isn’t just an option.
The truth is, some of the articles in the eight-point resolution stealthily stripped the governor of the powers and aura of his office;thus exposing him to the ridicule we see today. For instance, article three directed the governor to reinstate former members of the state executive council,who had earlier resigned their appointments from the state cabinet. Truth be told, such directive to a sitting governor, in the very least, leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Perhaps, it would have been a different kettle of fish had the governor whimsically sacked the commissioners because he suspected their allegiance lay with the FCT minister. But here, these supposed honourable men and women resigned their appointments on their own volition, citing “personal grounds”.
One would have expected Your Excellency toresolve the issue a little differently given your groundedness in public and private administration; knowing that trust and mutual respect took flight the moment those commissioners handed in their resignation letters. In other words, people with obvious reservations against each other cannot truly work as a team.
The constitution expressly confers the powers to appoint commissioners on the governor of a state. It follows therefore that commissioners owe their loyalty to the governor who appoints them. While in the saddle, Wike was unequivocal in demanding a hundred percent loyalty from his commissioners. And that was what he got during his eight-year reign. Granted that the commissioners in question were all nominated by the FCT minister as we now know; the question is, was it also within his right to direct their resignation at will, and then re-direct their reinstatement because the plot to remove the governor failed?
If you ask me, requesting Wike, the nominator, to nominate fresh persons in their stead would have created more semblance of statecraft, seriousness in governance and, more importantly, saved the governor’s face. It also would have gone a long way to demonstrate that some things are beyond trifles. Put differently, the notion that a crisis of that magnitude could be resolved absent collateral damage rest on a faulty premise.
Again, article six of the eight-point resolution apparently puts the governor in a catch 22 situation. Directing the governor to re-present the state Appropriation Bill that has already been passed and signed into law to Hon. Martins Amaewhule and his co-travelers, in my humble opinion, was another sore point in the document. I doubt it was a fitting consideration for a failed impeachment that shouldn’t have happened in the first place; not after the courts have already made pronouncements on the issues.
Your Excellency, I honestly believe you didn’t intend the current stalemate between the executive and the legislative arms of government in Rivers State. Nevertheless, that is the reality on ground, as the governor, on one hand, governs the state with an infiltrated state civil service; and Martins Amaehule with his ‘Assembly’ members, working at cross-purposes with the governor, dish out all the anti-executive bills they can imagine. A case in point is the latest piece of legislation coming from the ‘Assembly’. Again, one wonders,what Assembly worth its salt, wouldseekto elongate the tenure of the current local government chairmen and councilors; knowing they were elected and sworn into office for a three-year term that expires in June? The question is, do we now enact our laws retroactively?
Now, to the crux of the matter, Wike is a man with a history of political violence. His politics thrives in an atmosphere of strife and rancour. It cannot be over emphasized that he presently seeks to overheat the Rivers polity, and possibly make the state ungovernable. He is hell bent on accomplishing the intendment of a failed impeachment. His penchant for violence explains why Rivers State under his reign wore the appalling badge of a conquered territory. The state hasn’t exploded yet, given its current tenuous peace of the graveyard,is because, Gov. Siminalaye Fubara has refused to swallow Wike’s bait. In fact, his refusal to join issues with the man he calls master, and probably heat up the polity explains why restive Wike wants 2027 switch place with 2024 in the Nigeria political calendar.
Already, his vicious supporters are on the prowl, momentarily rehearsing vandalism and arson of public and private properties, with no qualms, even in broad day light. Sadly, the license to take laws into their hands springs from standing on Wike’s mandate. This much is evident in a video that has gone viral on the cyberspace. One would have dismissedthe ongoing rampageas the man’s political trademark, except that wily Wike claims to be standing on your mandate, even though he has been most cautious in defecting to his supposedly ‘cancerous’ APC.
Your Excellency, is it not curious that Wike and his supporters are the only band daily chanting “On your mandate we shall stand, Jagaban”, one year after you had contested and won the February 25, 2023 presidential election?
Of utmost concern is the disturbing silence of the Police, the DSS and other security agencies in the face of Wike’s supporters running amok. Rather, than live up to their constitutional billing, they seem to unwittingly nudge the people to resort to self-help. And while they continue in their ostrichism, the fire is being steadily stoked by the man who thinks Rivers State is his sole enterprise, and to balm his bruised ego could unleash the unimaginable.
It is however reassuring that Your Excellency is no stranger to Rivers politics and its combustive nature. As Dr. Peter Odili’s contemporary as governors, you were well abreast of what transpired in the state from 1999-2007. You were also a major player in the Amaechi-Wike debacle while the former was the occupant of Brick House. In fact, you were purported to have saved Amaechi’s skin from the Jonathans, when, in cahoots with Wike, they unleashed the federal might.
You saw Rivers State went upin flame from 2013-2019, all for Wike to succeed his Ikwerre brother as governor in a multi-ethnic state. You were also witnessto how thepolitically induced inferno incredibly extinguished itself as soon as Wike’s vaulting ambition was achieved. But while the carnage last, Rivers people lost their lives in their hundreds.
As governor, and for eight years, Wike ruled like a demigod, and the state, his footstool. He literally vetoed the constitution on Citizens’ Rights, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Procurement, and Social Justice. In fact, one of the lion-hearted among us aptly tagged the Wike-era as the years of the Rivers of Blood.
Your Excellency, there is no better way to say Rivers State is presently sitting on a keg of gunpowder, while drifting daily towards the precipice. And if something is not done urgently to avert a repetition of its recent ugly past, tomorrow may be too late.
I have personally bemoaned the lot of the Rivers man since the dawn of the fourth republic in my book: The Rivers Season of Insanity. I would spare you the details therein. However, it may interest Your Excellency to know that as a Rivers man; I have tremendous respect for you, just as I envy what you have made of Lagos State. I’m therefore genuinely bothered that Rivers State may just be the odd state out as you are set to replicate the Lagos wonder across the federation. Rivers State can only andtruly share in the Renewed Hope, if Wike is restrained from plunging it into another round of bloodletting.
Much as it is the truth, I hate to reiterate, that in all her abundance, Rivers State can only boast of the loudest and most vaulting chief executives ever, since 1999. The allure to graduate from Brick House to Aso Villa has become an elixir, which those we elect to govern have not been able to extricate themselves from. And to make a bad situation worse, it remains the only state in Nigeria that flaunts an obnoxious injunction that insulates her past and serving governors from the ethics of good governance, such as transparency, accountability and probity.
I have no doubt in my mind that you already saw through Wike and his antics. And it is only a matter of time before you reined him in. My concern however, is that it shouldn’t happen only after he must have thrust the state into another round of massacre. Need I say, that going by his claim, what Wike delivered in last year’s election were Rivers votes, not his votes.
Ask the Jonathans if their alliance with Wike was worth the trouble, given the benefit of hindsight, and your guess will be as good as mine.
In a nutshell,Your Excellency, Rivers State has had more than her fair share of bloodletting since 1999. It is against this backdrop that I most fervently pray that the blood of Dr. Marshall Harry, Chief A. K Dikkibo, Hon. Monday Ndor, Hon. Charles Nsiegbe, Amb. Ignatius Ajuru, Hon. Monday Eleanya, Barr. Ken Aswuete and several other victims of assassination be allowed to water the peace initiative and advocacy of the incumbent governor.
Finally, Your Excellency, in view of the above, it is my humble submission that the eight-point resolution be revisited with the hope that it guarantees sustainable peace and harmony in the Rivers polity.
“The time is always right to do what is right.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you for time and consideration.
Yours Respectfully,

Caleb Emmanuel Fubara

Fubara hails from Opobo Town

Continue Reading

For The Record

Can Rivers Assembly Remove Governor’s Powers To Appoint Executive Officers?

Published

on

Background
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at its 109th Legislative sitting, the House passed into Law, the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Bill repealed the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law, No. 3 of 2006 and further amended the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law of 1999. The Bill was sent to the Governor for his assent and after the statutory 30 days, the House re-passed the Bill into Law on 22nd March, 2024.
The Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission was established by the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law of 1999. Section 2 provides:
“The Commission shall comprise a Chairman and four other members who shall in the opinion of the Speaker be persons of unquestionable integrity.
“The Chairman and members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Rivers State House of Assembly acting on the advice and recommendation of the House Committee of Selection and shall in making the appointment be guided by the geographical spread and diversity of the people of Rivers State.”
The above section was repealed by the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law No 3, 2006. In Sections 2 and 3, the Amendment Law provides that:
S. 2 “Section 2 of the Principal Law is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection:
“(1) The Commission shall comprise a Chairman and 4 (four) other members.
S. 3 “Section 2(2) of the Principal Law is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection:
“(2) The Chairman and members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor subject to the confirmation by the House of Assembly and shall in making the appointment be guided by the geographical spread and diversity of the people of Rivers State.”
The import of the 2024 Amendment Bill passed into Law by the House is that the Governor will no longer have the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission and the power of appointment shall be vested in the House of Assembly.
Legal Issues
The first issue to consider is the Constitutional power of the Governor. Section 5(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that the executive powers of the State shall be vested in the Governor of that State.” Further, Section 176(2) provides that: “The Governor of a State shall be the Chief Executive of that State.”
This follows that the Governor is the Chief Executive Officer of the State Government and by the powers vested on him, is responsible for making appointments into various executive bodies, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and other statutes. All Commissions and other parastatals are executive bodies under the control of the Governor. The House of Assembly Service Commission is an executive body and as such, the Chairman and members can only be appointed by the Governor. The House of Assembly has no powers to make any appointment into an executive body as no statutory body is under the control of the legislature. The Rivers State House of Assembly should not mistake the presence of the building of the Service Commission in its premises as conferring powers on the House to appoint the Chairman and members of the Commission.
The second issue to consider is the Constitutional alteration of 2023. In that alteration, the Third Schedule was amended to include State Houses of Assembly Service Commissions, which invariably follows that a State House of Assembly Commission is one of State bodies established by section 197 of the 1999 Constitution. Let’s be reminded that Section 198 of the 1999 Constitution gives the Governor the power of appointment into various executive bodies, subject to confirmation by a resolution of the House of Assembly of a State. The job of the Rivers State House of Assembly ends with the confirmation of the appointees.
The alteration to the Third Schedule, paragraph 1A provides that the composition, tenure, structure, finance, functions, powers, and other proceedings of the Commission shall be as prescribed by a law of the House of Assembly of the State. Notice that the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission is not listed. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the House of Assembly Service Commission lies with the Governor, as is the case with the other bodies listed under Section 197 of the 1999 Constitution.
There is nothing in the Alteration that, by any stretch of imagination, can be inferred to confer the power of appointing the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission on the Rivers State House of Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that the law creating the Commission was enacted by the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Thirdly, is the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission and its staff under the control of the State Government? To answer this question, we will take our voyage to Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution. That section gives the definition of a Public Service of a State to mean: “the service of the state in any capacity in respect of the government of the state and includes service as: clerk or other staff of the House of Assembly; member of staff of the High Court, the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Customary Court of Appeal or other courts established for a state by the Constitution or by a law of a House of Assembly; member or staff of any Commission or authority established for the state by this Constitution or by a law of a House of Assembly; staff of any Local Government Council; staff of any statutory corporation established by a law of a House of Assembly; staff of any educational institution established or financed principally by a government of a State; and staff of any company or enterprise in which the government of a State or its agency holds controlling shares or interest.
The purport of this section is that the Assembly Service Commission is not an appendage of the legislature but under the control of the State Government. Even at the national level, the members of the National Assembly Service Commission are appointed by the President in collaboration with the National Assembly.
Fourthly, what is the position of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law vis-à-vis the National Assembly Service Commission Act? Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution provides: “If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be void.”
Further, in A.G Bendel v AG Federation & 22 Ors (1982) 3 NCLRI, the Supreme Court held per Fatayi Williams CJN (as he then was) “neither a State nor an individual can contract out of the provisions of the Constitution. The reason for this is that a contract to do a thing which cannot be done without a violation of the Law is void.”
The fifth issue is: “can a statute revive a repealed statute?” In the case of Idehen v University of Benin, Suit No FHC/B/CS/120/2001, delivered on 19th December, 2001, the court held that:
“Contrary to the contention of the University, the effect of a repealing statute is to erase the repealed statute from the statute book. When a statute is repealed, it ceases to exist and no longer forms part of the laws of the land. In other words, the effect of the repeal is to render the repealed statute dead and non-existent in law. Like a dead person, it cannot be revived.”
The court also held in Onagoruwa v IGP (1991) 75 N.W.L.R (pt. 193) 593 that in law, a non-existent statute is dead and cannot be saved or salvaged by the court.
In Madumere v Onuoha (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) Pg 422, the Court of Appeal held that:
“the effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it completely from the records of the Parliament as if it had never been passed. Such a law is to be regarded legally as a law that never existed…This means in effect that when a statute is repealed, it ceases to be an existing law under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
For the purpose of reviving your memory, the provision giving the Governor the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission under the repealed 2006 Law provides in its opening paragraph:
“3. Section 2(2) of the Principal Law is amended by repealing section 2 and substituting the following section…” (emphasis mine).
Further, Section 6(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act provides:
“(1) The repeal of an enactment shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect.”
Please note that Section 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “The Interpretation Act shall apply for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution.”
It follows from the above that the House cannot repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law No 3, 2006 to revive the already repealed provisions of the 1999 Law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Rivers State House of Assembly lacks the powers, legal or otherwise, to remove the power of appointment of the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission from the Governor and vest that power on themselves. The provision in the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law, 2024 seeking to vest that power on the House is in clear contravention of the 1999 Constitution, and therefore, a nullity in the eyes of the Law. See the case of MacFoy v UAC (1961) 3 All ER 1169 where the court held that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.
In that case, Lord Denning stated: “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes more convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”

Rt Hon Ehie is Chief of Staff, Government House, Port Harcourt.

By: Edison Ehie

Continue Reading

Trending