The intervention of President Bola Tinubu in the crisis between Governor Sim Fubara of Rivers State and FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike has generated ripples with some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), including a human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, expressing concern that the truce brokered by the president might have breached the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
In an eight-point peace agreement brokered between Governor Simi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike in Abuja on Monday, the parties had reportedly agreed, among other things, to withdraw all the pending court cases immediately and also drop the impeachment notice on Fubara while the leadership of Martin Amaewhule (a Wike loyalist) and the remuneration for assembly members and staff to be reinstated.
By implication, the return of Amaewhule as speaker of the state house of assembly means the incumbent speaker, Ehie O. Edison, who is loyal to Fubara and had the backing of the court, will step aside.
It was Edison, who declared vacant the seats of 27 lawmakers that defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
At the meeting with President Tinubu, the contending parties also agreed that the names of all commissioners in the Rivers State Executive Council who resigned their appointments because of the political crisis be resubmitted to the House of Assembly for approval.
But despite its state chairman being a signatory to the agreement, the national leadership of the PDP yesterday rejected the truce and insisted that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conduct fresh polls for the 27 state assembly seats already declared vacant after the defection of the lawmakers from the party to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Falana said President Tinubu had no constitutional role in the Rivers State crisis and so his intervention was advisory.
“I agree with former Governor Tunde Fashola SAN, who has said that President Tinubu has no constitutional role to resolve the political crisis in Ondo and Rivers States. Therefore, the intervention of the president in both cases is purely advisory,” he said.
Falana said the presidential reinstatement of the 27 cross carpeting lawmakers is alien to the constitution in every material particular.
“In the case of Abegunde v Labour Party (2015) LPELR 24588 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a legislator who abandoned the political party that sponsored him and decamped to another political party has automatically lost a seat in the parliament.
“However, the cross carpeting legislator can only retain his seat if he can prove that the political party that sponsored him is divided into two or more factions,” he said.
“It is also necessary to point out that until a by-election is conducted by INEC to fill the 27 vacant seats, the remaining members of the House are competent to conduct legislative business except the impeachment of the governor , which can only be carried out by the two thirds of the entire members of the House of Assembly,” he added.
Similarly, Dayo Akinlaja (SAN) said the agreement was not proper for democracy in the country because it attempts to replace constitutionality with political compromise.
“I think the matter is beyond political settlement. Once the speaker has made the pronouncement that the seats of the lawmakers were vacant, I think it is not amenable to political compromise,” he said.
An associate professor of Public Law from the Rivers State University, Richard Wokocha, said what might make the crisis linger was the legal implication of the actions that had been taken before the truce was brokered.
He said if the national leadership of the PDP was not involved in the truce, the issue they had commenced (request for conduct of fresh polls) is a constitutional issue that cannot just be waved away.
“Between the parties that have agreed, they cannot proceed (with legal process) but third parties who have acquired interest or who have been affected by acts and actions that took place during the crisis will reserve the constitutional rights to continue with their struggles,” he said in an interview with Channels TV.
He also said the agreement between the parties does not supersede existing legal situations, adding that “That of re-presenting the budget may raise a legal issue because they may have started implementing the budget and that is a legal issue. Recognising the members who have taken actions, which in the constitution amounts to resignation from the house, will also raise constitutional issues.”
But a renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, said the whole issue was more political than legal.
“It is within the realm and competence of a third party to mediate political disputes. As for the court cases, nothing prevents parties to an ongoing dispute to report an out-of-court settlement for the court to endorse at its next resumed sitting,” he said.
Credit: Dailytrust
Leave a Reply