DAWODU.COMDedicated to Nigeria's socio-political issues
2009 US DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY INFORMATION
October 3, 2007 - December 2, 2007
LUNARPAGES.COM and IPOWERWEB.COM - Despicable WebHosts - Read My Story
|
Alamieyeseigha's Return: Constitutional Implications
Akpo Mudiaga Odje
November 27, 2005
There is no subject matter today
as intriguing as the arrest, arraignment and subsequent escape of His
Excellency, Dr. D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha from the Court of England last
week. In fact, not a few Nigerians were jolted, if not outraged, at his
return to the battered Niger Delta region of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. This discourse attempts to examine the legal implications of
the return of the embattled Governor vis-ˆ-vis the provisions of the
1999 Constitution.
For the avoidance of doubt, this article is not concerned
with the propriety or otherwise of the Governor's escape, but strictu
sensu, on the legal effect or implication of his return to Nigeria
vis-ˆ-vis Section 308 of our Constitution.
Provisions of Section 308 of the
Constitution.
Section 308 so far as material
provides that:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this
section -
(a) no civil or criminal
proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom
this section applies during his period of office;
(b) a person to whom this section
applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in
pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and
(c) no process of any court
requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section
applies, shall be applied for or issued:
(3) This section applies to a
person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or
Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to "period of office"
is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office
is required to perform the functions of the office."
Implications of his return and the
Constitution.
Having set out the lucid
provisions of Section 308 above, it is equally important to examine the
locus classicus case on this Section. Like the philosopher Gray once
observed in Jurisprudence that:
"The words of a statute are dead
until given life by judicial interpretation."
Thus, in Gani Fawehinmi Vs. I.G.P.
2002 7 NWLR (pt.767) 606, the sagacious Uwaifo, JSC observed at
page 683 paras. A-B that:
"Section 308(1)(b) of the 1999
Constitution says that "a person to whom this section applies shall not
be arrested or imprisoned during (his period of office) either in
pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise." The bone of
contention is what the word "otherwise" refers to. The word can mean no
more than "any lawful process or command" which has the same effect as a
"process of any court." It must be ejusdem generis an enforceable
process, command or order meant to be obeyed."
This appears to be the effect on
Alamieyeseigha's return to Bayelsa State. From the lucid judicial
observation above, the man is immune from arrest, detention or any Court
proceedings whether civil or criminal, relating to his purported escape
and return to Nigeria. This is the clear effect of Section 308 of the
Constitution which Katsina-Alu, JSC in the Fawehinmi's case (supra) at
page 697 paras. D-E adumbrated that:
"I think the language of
section 308 is clear and unambiguous. It must be given its plain
meaning. .............................."
Notwithstanding the above, the
indefatigable Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN., once again expanded the scope
of our constitutional law in that case, when the Supreme Court held that
even though a Governor has immunity from arrest, he nevertheless can be
investigated whilst in office. Thus, Uwaifo, JSC again at page 682 paras.
B-H, accentuated this view thus:
"That a person protected under
section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, going by its provisions, can be
investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my
view, beyond dispute. To hold otherwise is to create a monstrous
situation whose manifestation may not be fully appreciated until
illustrated. I shall give three possible instances. Suppose it is
alleged that a Governor, in the course of driving his personal car,
recklessly ran over a man, killing him; he sends the car to a workshop
for the repairs of the dented or damaged part or parts. Or that he used
a pistol to shoot a man dead and threw the gun into a nearby bush. Or
that he stole public money and kept it in a particular bank or used it
to acquire property. Now, if the police became aware, could it be
suggested in an open and democratic society like ours that they would be
precluded by section 308 from investigating to know the identity of the
man killed, the cause of death from autopsy report, the owner of the car
taken to the workshop and if there is any evidence from the inspection
of the car that it hit an object recently, more particularly a human
being; or to take steps to recover the gun and test for ballistic
evidence; and generally to take statements from eye-witnesses of either
incident of killing. Or to find out (if possible) about the money lodged
in the bank or for acquiring property, and to get particulars of the
account and the source of the money; or of the property acquired? The
police clearly have a duty under section 4 of the Police Act to do all
they can to investigate and preserve whatever evidence is available. The
evidence or some aspect of it may be the type which might be lost
forever if not preserved while it is available, and in the particular
instances given it can be seen that the offences are very serious ones
which the society would be unlikely to overlook if it had its way. The
evidence may be useful for impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly
may have need of it. It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said
incumbent Governor after he has left office. But to do nothing under
pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the
society. I therefore answer issue 1 in the affirmative."
Little wonder, therefore, that the
erudite Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Sunday Ehindero, (who actively
argued for the Respondents/Cross Appellants in that case), speaking on
the Alamieyeseigha's saga as relayed in the Vanguard Newspaper of
24/11/2005 at page 14 observed that:
"The hallmark of the present
police force is that we act and perform our functions within the
confines of the law. We are not empowered by our constitution to arrest
a serving governor because it gives him immunity. But that does not
prevent him (governor) from being investigated or his office," he said
at an interactive session with DIGs, AIGs and Commissioners of Police
from across the country."
In retrospect, the amiable Hon.
Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Bayo Ojo, SAN., made a similar
submission in his affidavit whilst opposing possible return of
Alamieyeseigha's passport by the English Court, saying that the Federal
Government cannot guarantee the return of the Governor if his traveling
documents were given to him because he has immunity under Section 308 of
the Constitution from being compelled or arrested to show up at his
trial.
In his words, the erudite
Attorney-General of the Federation averred as reflected in the Vanguard
Newspaper of 10/11/2005 at page 14 thus:
"I would like to state that in
view of the fact that the Governor would be entitled to immunity under
section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution when he goes back to Nigeria,
he may not be willing to return to the United Kingdom to stand trial. I
believe this to be the case because there is nothing that anybody can do
to force him to return to the United Kingdom once he sets foot on
Nigerian soil."
Impeachment proceedings as a legal
option.
Section 188 of the 1999
Constitution which regulates impeachment proceedings provides thus:
"(1) The Governor or Deputy
Governor of a State may be removed from office in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
(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;
(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 from 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 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."
This is indeed a legal cum
political weapon in the hands of the State legislature. It is meant to
check the excesses of the Governor. However, the due process as set out
above must be duly adhered to, notwithstanding the ouster clause
contained in Section 188(10). This view is augmented by the apposite
remarks of the proficient Pats-Acholonu, JCA (as he then was), in
Abaribe Vs. Abia State House of Assembly 2002 14 NWLR (pt.788)
466 at 486 paras. E-F that:
"......the Court at the same time
may not close its eyes to serious injustice relating to the manner the
impeachment procedure is being carried."
So, it would appear from this
authority that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 188(10) of the
Constitution, if there is serious injustice in the procedure of
impeachment on a Governor, the Court may step in.
Resignation from office.
He may resign from office in
accordance with Section 191 of the 1999 Constitution. This is however
most unlikely in view of the circumstances surrounding his return.
Apart from these constitutional
options, it will be legally impossible to remove the barricade of
protection granted to His Excellency, Dr. D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha,
Governor of Bayelsa State, under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
Conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, therefore,
until Section 308 is amended or deleted, it remains the law of the land.
And as it stands, the Bayelsa State Governor cannot be arrested pursuant
to any directive, order or decision of a Court, authority or institution
whether municipal or international.
*Akpo Mudiaga Odje, Esq., LL.M
(London) BL., is a constitutional lawyer based in Warri, Delta State.
|
© 1999 - 2006 Segun Toyin Dawodu. All rights reserved. All unauthorized copying or adaptation of any content of this site will be liable to legal recourse. Contact: webmaster@dawodu.com Segun Toyin Dawodu, P. O. BOX 710080, HERNDON, VA 20171-0080, USA. This page was last updated on 10/27/07. |