The attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), has faulted the view of the minister of labour and employment, Mr. Festus Keyamo (SAN), on the Supreme Court judgement that upheld the election of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State.
In a majority judgement, the apex court dismissed the election of Mr. Eyitayo Jegede of the PDP on the ground that he failed to join the Caretaker Committee chairman of the APC in his petition at the tribunal.
In defending minority decision of the court, Keyamo warned his party to do the right thing by removing Gov. Buni as the chairman to avoid flood gate of litigations against the party.
But the AGF on his part said Keyamo’s view was not the position of the law.
He said, ”Therefore, it is shocking that the interpretation of Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution, in light of the above-quoted decision of the Supreme Court, could be stretched in some quarters to state that chairmanship of an ad-hoc committee duly constituted by the National Executive Committee of a registered political party (by a registered member of the Party) could constitute paid employment or an executive position as envisaged under Section 183 of the Constitution.
”It remains to be seen how a governor functioning in an ad-hoc capacity as mandated/delegated by his political party can be construed as ‘’holding any executive office or paid employment’’ as envisaged by the drafters of our Constitution.
”To further show the meritless nature of the position under review, assuming without conceding that the argument is right, then, it will equally be contrary to the spirit and intent of Section 183 of the Constitution for any sitting Governor to be Chairman of say the Governors’ Forum, Chairman of the Progressive Governors Forum, or any other similar body. This, in my humble view can definitely not be the intention of the drafters of the 1999 Constitution.
”Available information on the instant proceedings is to the effect that at the Tribunal hearings, the Principal Witness of the Party- Mr. Dare Oketade Esq, who is the Director Legal Services of the APC was thoroughly Cross- Examined by Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN of Counsel to the PDP, and Mr. Oketade duly informed the Court affirmatively that H.E, Gov Mai Mala Buni was not drawing salary from the Party; was never occupying the Office of the National Chairman of the Party, and that he only functions in an ad-hoc or caretaker capacity.
”The appointment of Gov. Mala Buni in the circumstances is not irregular and the possibility of any member of the Party to be so appointed is in compliance with the APC Constitution which empowers the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Party to appoint any Member into any Committee, give such Committee any name and empower it as the NEC may deem fit.
”The foregoing said, needless to state that the determination of the propriety or otherwise of H.E., Mai Mala Buni to function as Chairman of the Party’s CECPC in his capacity as a Member of the Party and Executive Governor of Yobe State, or whether such dual-responsibility amounts to occupying an executive position or paid employment as envisaged under Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is a matter which will have to be specifically submitted to the Court, for proper adjudication before a firm position of the Law can be arrived at in respect thereof.
”However, it remains to be seen how the Court will hold that an ad-hoc caretaker committee chairman exercising the powers of, and subject to the supervision and control of NEC and the Convention of his Party, is occupying an executive position.
”It is trite that Case Law (or judicial precedent) operates under the principle of stare decisis to the effect that the Court must follow and apply the Law as set out in the decisions of higher Courts in previous cases. The principle is not inviolable as it is only applicable to the specific stare decisis and not any orbiter dictum in the case. Importantly, a case is also only a judicial precedent for a subsequent case where the facts and circumstances are similar, to avoid a situation where the Court will perpetuate injustice.”
Leave a Reply