Pursuant to the pro-visions of Section 188 (7) (b) of
the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999, which states thus:
“ A Panel appointed under this section, shall, within
three months of its appointment, report its findings to
the House of Assembly”
We hereby present to you the FIRST PART of our
proceedings and findings regarding the above:
At our first sitting on Tuesday, the 06th of December,
2005 the provisions of Rule 2 (a) of the Bayelsa
State House of Assembly Impeachment Procedure Rules
were invoked to enable The Panel sit in camera.
The said rule states as follows:
“The panel shall have and may exercise any of the
following powers, that is to say:
a. Direct where and when the panel may sit and conduct
its inquiry and shall have the power in its absolute
discretion, to admit or exclude the public or any
member of the public or press from the venue of any
sitting of the panel.”
An examination of the allegations levelled against Chief
D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, Executive Governor of Bayelsa
State would reveal that there are a total of ten Items.
These can be conveniently categorised as:
(i) Those allegations, the facts supporting which are so
self-evident, that they do not require any proof;
(ii) Those allegations, proof of which must require
varying degrees of fact-finding.
An allegation under category (i) above, dispenses with
the necessity for proof because, it goes without saying.
In that category, the facts are said to be “axiomatic”.
The adjective “axiomatic” derives from the word ‘axiom’.
Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language 1989 defines “axiom” as:
i. a self evident truth
ii. a universally accepted principle or rule
iii. a proposition which is assumed without proof for
the sake of studying consequences that flow from it.
What is required is an evaluation of the facts and their
juxtaposition with the requirements of the law.
On the other hand, an allegation under category (ii)
above, intrinsically requires exhaustive fact-finding
that is bound to take a lot of time, resources and
effort. Visits shall have to be arranged to the
Corporate Affairs Commission in Abuja, Land Registries
in Abuja and other parts of the Country. Witnesses will
have to be summoned from all over the world; physical
inspection of assets allegedly purchased with diverted
State funds, will be imperative. In that event, the time
required could well exceed the three months stipulated
by the Constitution.
In the present circumstance, where, owing to
non-availability of funds due to the freezing of bank
accounts of the Bayelsa State Judiciary, the Panel has
had to independently arrange its own funds for its hotel
accommodation and day-to-day operations, a practical,
down-to-earth approach is inevitable. Common sense
therefore dictates that we commence with those
allegations in category (i), before addressing
allegations in category (ii).
ALLEGATIONS IN CATEGORY (i) i.e. Allegations for which
proof is unnecessary:
JUMPING BAIL
Contained in Additional ground to the notice of
impeachment of his Excellency, Chief D.S.P.
Alamieyeseigha, JP, the Executive Governor of Bayelsa
State of Nigeria, pursuant to section 188 (2) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, dated
18th November, 2005. (note that the additional ground
itself is dated 22nd November, 2005).
“His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, while
standing trial for money laundering offences in a court
in London the United Kingdom, smuggled himself out of
London and illegally returned to Yenagoa, Bayelsa State
of Nigeria on the 21st day of November, 2005, contrary
to the conditions of Bail granted him by the court in
London which had restricted him to London, and thereby
bringing the exalted office of the governor of Bayelsa
State to disrepute, odium and ridicule.”
It must be observed that despite the clear and
unequivocal words of the above allegation, His
Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha failed and or
neglected to offer any facts or averment in rebuttal
thereof in his Statement Made in Reply to The Purported
Notice of Impeachment. The practical effect of this is
that the said allegation remains untraversed, and
therefore stands admitted. In simple terms, the
allegation of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly is to
the effect that the Governor jumped bail. In his
defence, the Governor was silent on the issue. It is
trite law and logic that facts admitted need not be
proved; and averment unchallenged, is gospel truth.
Consequences of the Failure to Abide by the Conditions
of the Bail Scotland Yard could issue a warrant of
arrest against Chief Alamieyeseigha and further
embarrass the people of Bayelsa.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has become a fugitive liable to be
arrested whenever he returns to the United Kingdom, or
any where else in the civilised world.
By his ignominious con
duct Bayelsans and indeed all Nigerians have been
scandalised, embarrassed and depicted as people whose
word cannot be relied upon.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and
besmirched the reputation of Nigerians living in or
visiting The United Kingdom.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and
free movement of the present-day Governor of Bayelsa
State or his successor in office.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has severely hindered the
capacity of the Governor of Bayelsa State to transact
international business whether now or in the future, as
he can no longer travel overseas.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has dealt a severe blow to the
Ijaw Nation of which Bayelsa is part, who traditionally
take great pride in the meaning of their name – Ijaw
---- truth, which name has now been bastardised owing to
the profligacy of Chief Alamieyeseigha.
It is instructive to note that in the Oath of Allegiance
he swore to in accordance with the provisions of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria Cap C23 to at his swearing ceremony
in May 2003 he swore to “preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
This is further reaffirmed by his swearing to the Oath
of Office of Governor pursuant to the same Seventh
Schedule, as follows: “will strive to preserve the
Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State
Policy contained in the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria…. and that I will not allow my
personal interest to influence my official conduct or
my official decisions.”
In view of the foregoing, the issue that has arisen for
consideration is whether the acts of the Governor do not
amount to a failure on his part to keep to the Oath he
swore to at his swearing-in ceremony in May 2003. To
resolve this issue, recourse has to be made to the
provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria. Section 13, which deals with the
Fundamental Obligations of the Government, provides that
it shall be the:
“duty and responsibility of all organs of government,
and of all authorities and persons, exercising
legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform
to, observe and apply the provisions of this Chapter
(that is, Chapter II dealing with the Fundamental
Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) of
this Constitution”
Under the Foreign Policy Objectives provided in Section
19 (d) Chief Alamieyeseigha is enjoined to have respect
for international law. It is settled in international
law that a foreign state can exercise criminal
jurisdiction over someone who is not her citizen if the
alleged crime was committed within her jurisdiction. By
jumping bail Chief Alamieyeseigha is in breach of his
oath to respect international law. He has by this,
committed an act that amounts to gross misconduct in
line with the definition of the term “gross misconduct”
as given in Section 188 of the Constitution which
defines ‘’gross misconduct’’ as 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.
An act is said to be misconduct if it falls below the
standard of behaviour expected of a person and in this
particular instance a Governor. The failure of Chief
Alamieyeseigha to abide by the conditions of bail
amounts to gross misconduct apart from being a grave
violation of the Constitution. This is anchored on the
fact such conduct falls below the standard of behaviour
expected of a Governor.
Also worthy of note is the fact that in the exercise of
the Court’s discretion to grant bail, provision was made
for sureties. These sureties are eminent persons within
the jurisdiction of the court who would vouch for the
character and integrity of the recipient of the Court’s
discretion to grant bail. In Chief Alamiyeseigha’s case,
three prominent and distinguished persons held him out
to be a man of honour, a man who would stand his trial,
a responsible and trustworthy person. They were willing
to place, and did place, their reputation and property
on the line to prove this point. However, by debasing
himself to the extent of jumping bail, he has held
himself out to be a man without integrity, without
morals and no sense of decency. This indeed constitutes
a misconduct which renders him unfit to govern a state.
His conduct is infradig, and most unbecoming of a
person adorning the exalted title of “His Excellency”.
By virtue of the aforesaid, this investigative panel is
of the considered opinion AND HEREBY GIVES THE VERDICT
that the above act of the Governor is tantamount to
“gross misconduct” and therefore renders him liable to
the provisions of Section 188 of The Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
ALLEGATION NO. 6 IN THE NOTICE OF IMPEACHMENT DATED 18TH
NOVEMBER, 2005 :
“Failing, refusing and/or neglecting to formally notify
the Government of Bayelsa State, particularly The
Bayelsa State House of Assembly of his arrest,
detention, and arraignment and trial in court in London
for the offence of money laundering but instead
deceptively wrote (sic) to the Bayelsa State House of
Assembly a letter, obviously backdated to the first day
of September, 2005 requesting to be away for 120 days
to enable him recuperate from a surgery he underwent in
Germany, thus deliberately and mischievously attempting
to keep away from the government and people of Bayelsa
State, the fact of his arrest, detention and trial in
London of money laundering charges, a fact that is now
house-hold knowledge all over the world.”
Upon exhaustive examination of the above allegation, the
following incontrovertible deductions were arrived at by
our Panel:
(i) That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha
failed, refused and or neglected to notify the Bayelsa
State House of Assembly of his arrest, detention, and
arraignment and trial in court in London for the offence
of money laundering in contravention of Section 190 of
the 1999 Constitution.
(ii) That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha
wilfully and deliberately engaged in suppression of
material facts when he failed, refused and or neglected
to notify the Bayelsa State House of Assembly of his
arrest, detention, and arraignment and trial in court
in London for the offence of money laundering.
(iii)
That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha sought
to deceive the Bayelsa State House of Assembly and the
entire people of Bayelsa, by virtue of the spurious
letter addressed to the Speaker, Bayelsa State House of
Assembly ostensibly dated 01st September, 2005, but in
actual fact made in reaction to an event which occurred
on 15th day of September, 2005, namely his arrest and
detention with the prospect of long stay in the United
Kingdom.
(iv) That the deceit referred to in (iii) above, is
borne out by the fact that close associates cum advisers
of the Governor were caused to issue a statement
immediately after news of his arrest and detention to
the effect that the governor was having “extended bed
rest” in London, following surgery in Germany.
(v) That flowing from the foregoing is the fact that His
Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, must have
written that letter AFTER, NOT BEFORE his arrest, but
wilfully and deliberately dated it to create the
impression that it was written before — a fact which by
itself, is indicative of a fraudulent propensity.
By virtue of (i) to (v) above, this investigative panel
is of the considered opinion that the above acts of the
Governor are incompatible with his dignified status as
“HIS EXCELLENCY”, tantamount to “gross misconduct”. The
Investigative Panel therefore HEREBY GIVES THE VERDICT
that the above act of the Governor renders him liable to
the provisions of Section 188 of The Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
Mr. Speaker sir, having thus submitted this FIRST PART
of our report, we shall now proceed with deliberations
on the other allegations.
Chairman
Barrister David Serena-Dokubo Spiff
Members
Lady (Mrs.) Mercy Alagoa
Barr. Collins Boleigha
Wing Commander Gladys Brisibe (Rtd)
Dr. (Mrs.) Bolere Ketebu-Nwokafor
Col. Rufus Apulu (Rtd)
Mr. Benson Agadaga
