By Abdu Rafiu
Predictably, legal works have begun over whether Justice Inyang Ekwo was right or wrong in his judgment ordering Dave Umahi to vacate office as Governor of Ebonyi State on grounds of defection from the PDP to APC. His deputy, Barr Eric Kelechi Igwe, is to go with him. Umahi has reacted angrily to the judgment describing it as jungle justice, fearing that it may have been purchased. He said nobody can remove him from office. Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide is on the same page with him. In a statement issued to the media, Okechukwu Isiguzoro, secretary-general of the organization, indeed, dismissed the ruling as a miscarriage of justice and “a black market judgment.” He believes that the ruling was aimed at creating havoc and chaos in Ebonyi State and an attempt to take over the reins of power in the state through the back door.
“We are alarmed at how misery and desperation could navigate some politicians to offer themselves as willing tools to enemies of Ndigbo, just to destabilize Ebonyi State and set the state on fire. This court judgment will not see the light of day.”
However, on the streets of Abakaliki, the judgment is seen differently. According to reports they see it as victory for democracy. The truth will always come from simple and uncomplicated people. One of the residents whose name I am keeping away believes that the judgment would deepen democracy and curtail the excesses of politicians, especially, “the elected representatives who jumped from one party to another. The judgment is a true reflection of the Constitution and Electoral Act. The governor unlawfully defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)) that sponsored him in 2015 and 2019 elections.”
Is there anyone who believes that honour should underpin the conduct of political office holders who is not embarrassed at the spate of defections by leaders who are looked upon for examples in decency? The judge said the total number of votes, 393, 042, that Umahi garnered during the March 9, 2019 governorship election belonged to PDP and same could not be legally transferred to APC. He went on: Having defected to the APC, both Umahi and his deputy, not only jettisoned the PDP, but also the votes that belonged to it.
On occasions like this, trust them, the lawyers are in their elements. Are there precedents? They wade through Law Reports to find authorities. And they have started. In the process they bring in all manner of legal engineering and technicalities until a matter becomes complicated. When I am faced with a case of this nature which touches on justice and public morality, I ask myself as I have done on a few occasions on this page, what would be the position of Justice Candide Ademola Johnson, Justice Andrew Obaseki, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Justice John Conrad Idowu Taylor? Justices Kayode Eso and Chukwudifu Oputa who in homage and fondness was called Socrates, were renowned for their rigour. The pronouncements of Candide Johnson were often laced with a great deal of wisdom. This is why I am intrigued by Justice Inyang Ekwo. So, a great jurist is here lurking in the shadows. It would appear as it was with Candide Johnson that his disarming guiding principle is ‘in simplicity lies greatness.’
What does the Constitution, the grundnorm, say on whether Umahi and his deputy should vacate their offices or not? The constitution is not as specific in what happens to a governor when he deflects the party that gave him the platform to stand election as it is on what happens to parliamentarians who similarly leave their party for another. I believe what the document says is enough to determine what should happen to a governor should he deflect from his party. Section 177, Part 2 on Qualification for election as Governor says:
“A person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State IF (emphasis mine):
a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
b) he has attained the age of thirty-five years;
c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party;
d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.”
What is germane to this discussion is (c). It states that a person can only contest for the office of governor only if he is a member of a political party and more importantly if he is sponsored by that political party. My take is that Umahi and Kelechi Igwe were not independent candidates. They climbed to power on the platform of PDP; they were in fact sponsored by the PDP. There must have been others who were equally qualified which the party must have noted but in its wisdom decided to field Umahi and his deputy. As we have just witnessed in the Osun primaries, the candidate must be endorsed by a majority votes of members of the party. In other words members of the party were solidly behind Umahi and his deputy to trust him with their mandate. If he deflects from the party, he has abandoned the platform. Nothing has happened to the mandate the generality of the voters gave to the party to govern them. This is saying therefore that the mandate should go back to the owners, the PDP. It is Umahi, therefore, who has disqualified himself from continuing in office. APC was not given the trust and mandate by the people of Ebonyi State. The judge is, therefore, right in ordering that Dave Umahi and his deputy should vacate office. For him to remain in office on the platform of APC amounts to a stolen mandate and a betrayal of trust. What is there as remedy for the voters of Ebonyi State whose votes put them in power. Do we think it is right and proper to leave the party in the cold to bite their lips in regret and say it is one of those things? Deep within our hearts, we all know what is right and proper. Intellectual sophistry cannot befog fairness and propriety. The judgment is profound. I salute the courage and forthrightness of Justice Ekwo.
Umahi has appealed the judgment. He argues in the paper he has filed that:
“The Respondents’ cause of action at the court below was defection of the Appellants from the PDP on which platform they were voted into office;
“There is no provision of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that provides for the removal of the 3rd and 4th Appellants as sitting Governor and Deputy Governor respectively of Ebonyi State for reason of defection;”
“The provisions of section 308 are specific. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to sub-section (2) of this section, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against 3rd and 4th Appellants during their mandate in office as Governor and deputy Governor respectively.”
This is similarly stated by Dr. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) in his reaction to the Abuja judgment. What I find missing in his accustomed scholarly contributions to public issues this time, which is the kernel of the issue, is whether the framers of the constitution envisaged that dishonor would be brought to the lofty office of a governor such that the occupant of the office would betray the trust of his party members who sponsored him and the voters who elected him to be the embodiment of their aspirations, and run away to another party. Technicality is one thing; the truth is another. In what way does technicality extinguish the truth is a question society will learn to grapple with in the New Times. This country will get to nowhere if activities of our senior public functionaries are not undergirded by edifying principles, honour, propriety and morality, and impunity is the order of the day. The case of Obasanjo and Atiku being cited is different. As the Supreme Court said, they ascended the throne on a joint ticket which cannot be torn.
Umahi and Kelechi Igwe filed eight points of appeal. It will be interesting to see how the case goes in the higher courts.
Ukranian –Russian War
So, war broke out in the end! Three weeks ago when Russia sent shock waves to the world by massing 100, 000 troops armed to the teeth and heavy war equipment at the border close to the Ukraine capital, Kyiv, Vladimir Putin told the world that the troops were there on military drills, and he had ordered them to return to their barracks. Those who were familiar with war and diplomatic language were skeptical; they did not believe Mr. Putin, the Russian President. As if to prove the skeptics right, minutes after assuring the alarmed world that there was nothing to the puzzling gathering of his troops, 7, 000 additional troops joined those he was purportedly withdrawing to their barracks. Two weeks ago, the hawkish war monger invaded Ukraine. Reason: He had gathered intelligence reports that Ukraine was eyeing the possibility of joining NATO. Any such membership threatened the security and sovereignty of Russia. The implication of Ukraine membership of NATO is multi-dimensional, but the most obvious is the Western allies, particularly the United States lining the Ukranian borders with the United States soldiers. Given the suspicious and combustible relationship between the United States and Russia, the latter finds it unacceptable that America should station its troops at its doorstep.
The next thing Russia considers inevitable is to flex its muscle to teach Ukraine a lesson. But the act has gone beyond muscle flexing to a shooting war, firing of missiles and shelling. There has been unconscionable destruction of property and cherished historical artifacts and sites. The latest figure of people who have fled the besieged country as of Tuesday was put at 2 million. There have been heavy casualties. The destruction of property and edifices is mind-boggling. It is ruthless; it is unsparing. There is tit for tat. America and the allies have slammed crushing sanctions on Russia. It has stopped importation of oil and gas from there. Russia has blocked its own exports as well. MacDonald, the giant food firm, is shutting down its food chains across Russia; and so are financial institutions. In his State of the Nation address, Joe Biden, the US President, said: “let me be clear, our forces are not engaged and will not engage in conflicts with Russian forces. Putin is now isolated from the world more than ever.” He said that Russian Rubble had already lost nearly a third of its value since sanctions were first levied. As he spoke, according to an online report, a 40-mile convoy of hundreds of Russian tanks and other vehicles were advancing slowly on Kyiv, the capital city of three million people in what “the West feared was a bid by Putin to topple the government of in Ukraine” and install a friendly regime there.
The sight of people stampeding to cross borders to neighbouring countries such as Poland draws tears. There is unspeakable suffering characteristic of wars — children, women, the elderly, the weak. Even for the strong, there is the fear of the unknown. What with an online report showing the picture of the departure of a man bidding his family goodbye! The man broke down weeping uncontrollably when he kissed his child and wife goodbye. The caption to the picture read: “This is a moment a weeping Dad bade goodbye to his child and wife as they leave for a safer place while he stays back because Ukranians between the ages of 18 to 60 are not allowed to leave the country.” There is insensitivity and unfeeling on the part of the protagonists.
And come to think of it: There is even racial discrimination over who should be allowed to cross borders to safety. Predictably, of course, the world became polarized with commentators who are for Russia and against America or for America and against Russia. There are hardly any soothening words of love and healing. It is all belligerency. The world is not asking how we are seen from Above in all these. Is this the way our world is to be run? Chaos and confusion pervades the world in the quest for regional influence, control of nations and peoples, territorial expansionism, defining and redefining freedom and unfreedom. Those who have armed themselves with lethal weapons are not too far, controlled by national or international forces as the case may be. Posture of impunity is not any more manifested without qualms than during war period such as the world is witnessing.
Some of the commentators remind the world of when the United States itself would not brook any threats from her neighbours and talk about invasion America had ordered against other countries such as Vietnam and effecting regime changes in those lands. One begins to wonder if one wrong justifies another wrong. Does that make the invasion of Ukraine justifiable?
In the enlightenment of higher knowledge spreading on earth today, thoughts are not free, nor are speeches and actions. Thoughts flowing freely and speeches made without carefulness over the Ukranian –Russian war have serious implications for nations as they do for individuals. It will surprise a great many when they find later how they have linked themselves to the war and to its intensification and invariably to its consequences. There is excitement; there is glee while there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. All are seeds that will bear fruits for harvesting when they are ripe in the loom of life. As this column has hinted several times, this world is governed by incorruptible Laws of Nature and ignorance of their nature and outworking is not an excuse; it does not prevent the consequences to individuals as well as to nations.
The Guardian
