Opinion

Are INEC Resident Commissioners Homeless Bats?

Published

2 years ago

July 27, 2022

admin

Share this story

By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D,

I watched and listened very carefully to my good friend, Chief Festus Okoye, INEC’s cerebral Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, on his recent Channels television interview. I completely disagree with his take and analysis of the place and space of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the organogram and scheme of things concerning the electoral process in Nigeria. His analysis, which literally dismissed the RECs with a wave of the hand in a most cavalier manner, if swallowed hook, line and sinker, has the dangerous effect of not only completely defanging RECs and rendering their electoral efforts at the grassroots state levels completely useless, but also of creating avoidable turmoil and schism within INEC itself, as one homogeneous and independent family unit. It can also have the unintended consequence of self-immolation which can self-destruct. It amounts,in my humble view, to saying that the RECs who are constitutionally created across the 36 states of Nigeria, simultaneously and indeed under the same sections with INEC Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners that Okoye harped on, are no more than mere appendages to INEC headquarters, and therefore toothless bulldogs and amoebic bats that neither belong to the animal kingdom, nor to the birds kingdom.

If RECs’ monitoring and conduct of elections at state level levels can be whimsically and capriciously discarded because, according to Okoye, they are mere delegates of the national body of INEC that comprises only of the Chairman and 12 members, then one must ask why the Constitution created them at all in the first place? Can the human anatomical body be whole simply by having a head and stomach alone, without the brain, limbs, eyes, ears, tongue and nose? I think not. How come, if we were to follow Okoye’s argument to its logical conclusion, that a mere witlow suffered by a person on his tiny thumb ,keeps the person’s entire body in pains, agony, pangs and sleeplessness throughout the night?

SOME LEGAL ANLYSIS

Section 153 (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the establishment of certain federal bodies, including INEC.
By virtue of section 153 (2) thereof, the “composition” and powers of the bodies established in section 153 (1) above ( which includes INEC ) , are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution.

Now, Paragraph 14 (1) of the said 3rd Schedule clearly provides that:

“INEC shall comprise the following members –
(a) Chairman, who shall be the Chief Electoral Commissioner;

(b) Twelve other members to be known as National Electoral Commissioners …”.

However, the same paragraph 14 , but under subsection (2), immediately provides for the establishment of the office of the Resident Electoral Commissioner ( REC ) in each state of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. There are 36 states of Nigeria by virtue of section 2(3) of the Constitution. Without these states, there is no sovereign entity by the name ” Nigeria”.

WHO THEN IS A MEMBER OF INEC?

The answer as regards membership of INEC can be found in section 153 (2) of the Constitution. It provides that the composition and powers of the Commission are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule.

“Composition”, by definition according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, simply means, “the manner in which something is composed”. “composed of” is itself defined at page 286 of the Black’s Law Dictionary,Centennial edition, as,”formed of; consisting of”.

Even the New Webster’s Dictionary of English Language (International Edition), at page 200, also defines “composition” as meaning “content with respect to constituent elements”. To be sure, the word “constituent”, according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, means “essential part; component, element”; or “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”.

It is therefore crystal clear and beyond disputation ( except for those who may want to engage in bannal intellectual mastutbation ) that the word “composition” as deployed in section 153 (2) of the Constitution regarding the membership of INEC simply means nothing beyond the aggregation of those bodies established under section 153(1). Only this meaning logically accords with the clear words and phrases used in all the definitions above stated.

Let us see them once more:
“essential part; component elements’’; or, “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”; or “formed of; “consisting of”; or “content with respect to constituent elements”.

The next question that agitates the mind is, what then is “member”, and how do we demonstrate that the meaning of “composition” as used in section 153 (2) simply means membership of INEC?
“Member”, says page 740 of Webster’s Ninth collegiate Dictionary, simply means “one of the individuals composing a group”; or “ a constituent part of the whole”. Also, “member”, according to the
Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial edition, on the other hand, means “one of the persons constituting a family, partnership, association, corporation, guild, court, legislation or the like”.

Thus, exactly the same words are employed in all the dictionaries cited above to define the two words, “compose” and “member”. What this translates to is that the words, “composition” and “membership”,are not mutually exclusive, but can be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.

By simple analytical deduction, when section 153 (2) of the Constitution speaks of the composition of INEC being as defined in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution, what the section is simply saying is that the membership of INEC shall be as contained in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule.By extension, and when stated slightly differently, the persons mentioned in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule relating to INEC are also all members of the INEC, notwithstanding that the word “member”, has not been specifically used therein. Membership and composition are therefore synonyms that can be used interchangeably here.

For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 14 (1) of part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution used the word “member” with respect to Chairman and 12 National Commissioners. However, subsection 2 of the same paragraph 14 went ahead to frontallly make provisions for the establishment of the position of REC in each state of the Federation and the FCT. How then can it be reasonably argued that the same schedule 14 which recognizes not only the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners , but also the same RECs of 36 states and the FCT, can decide to accord recognition to, and ascribe duties to the former alone, whilst excluding the latter?
It simply does not add up, both in realms of law, logic, morality and constitutionalism.

My humble take therefore, is that the Chairman of INEC, the 12 National Commissioner and the 37 RECs are all members of the same INEC family; no more, no less.None is a child of bastardy. None suffers from any form of dubious or questionable pedigree. This is more so as their existence draws life from the same oxygen freely donated by the same paragraph 14, with one falling under subsection(1) and the other under subsection (2), within same part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which clearly provides for the “composition” of INEC.

To deny this is to deny that six is the same thing as half a dozen and that Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark.It will thus amount to the greatest illogicality and delusional fallacy of all times to argue that RECs whilst being constitutionally recognized to “compose” or form the “composition” of the INEC, are at the same time denied of being “members” of the same INEC. It will amount to giving power and recognition with the left hand, and at the same time simultaneously snatching same back with the right hand. Such will not make any common, thematic, logical, legal, grammatical or constitutional or sense.

In further support of this my humble argument is section 8 of the old Electoral Act of 2010, as amended, which provides for the staff of INEC without including the office of the REC. Yet, RECs carried out their duties effectively under the Act until the 2022 Act . The question will then be this: what are RECs under the Electoral Act if they are not constitutionally recognised as members of INEC and also not recognized as staff of INEC? Are they bats; haemophrodites, that do not belong to any class? Why then should they be recognized at all in the first case in the Constitution ? Why not simply allow the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners be all-in-all, the beginning and the end ,of INEC? RECs,it is submitted, are not mere disposable committee of persons which INEC can simply appoint and arbitrarily dispense with under section 7 of the 2010 Electoral Act. Why does the Constitution which provides for the offices of the President and state Governors also provide for the positions of Ministers and Commissioners if the latter were not important or necessary to our polity?

It will be recalled that Okoye had rightly, on 9th July, 2022, reassured Nigerians that “in line with its constitutional and legal obligations, the Commission deployed monitors to the various constituencies and received reports of such exercise…the Commission stands by the monitoring received from our state offices”. Why will INEC now ignore these reports which emanated from the very RECs who are physically on ground? Is it no longer the owner of a house that knows where the yam and knife are kept? Is it a total stranger ( the visiting INEC Commissioners and officials) who will know the terrain better and what took place before, during and after the primarily? Can you have an Army General without foot soldiers? I think not. Or,do you?

What is INEC’s reply, for example, to the glaring anomaly in Kano state, where the REC, Professor Riskwua, told the whole world that the only governorship primary INEC office monitored in Kano had produced Mohammed Sani Abacha, but with the APC leadership and INEC headquarters arbitrarily changing it to one Ambassador Wali? Yet, this was an election monitored in the full glare of the whole world amidst television cameras and the print and social media.

Why will INEC be accepting from political parties, names of persons who did not undergo statutory primaries monitored by its state officials any officials and headed by the RECs, and instead, accept compromised results that lack electoral integrity from political parties, on primaries that were never conducted, and where conducted, were never monitored by its state RECs and officials?

These worrisome scenarios are already playing out in many states across Nigeria, including Oyo, Sokoto, Ogun, Kano, Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom and Abia, amongst others.

How come,for example, that of the 26 candidates of the ruling APC that emerged from valid primaries duly conducted and monitored by INEC Akwa Ibom state INEC office headed by the REC, Mr Mike Igini, only two names were extracted and accepted from the entire report by INEC headquarters?

Whatever happens to section 29(1) of the Electoral Act which gives INEC teeth that only ” candidates that emerged from valid primary ” shall be submitted to INEC by political parties for publication? Why will INEC be shying away from, and abdicating the the statutory powers and duties generously imposed by section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, to compulsorily monitor party primaries; and section 84(13) thereof, to reject names of persons submitted by political parties that fail to comply with the provisions of the Act as regards such primaries? I cannot understand. Or, can you?

    CONCLUSION

I will conclude this my little contribution as follows. It is crystal clear, per adventure, that the appointment, duration and termination of offices of RECs, including those of INEC Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners, ( all of whom form part of Federal bodies established under section 153 (1) of the Constitution ), are respectively provided for in sections 154 and 155(1) and (2) of the Constitution. This provision applies with equal force to the Chairman, National Commissioners and all RECs. No difference could have been contemplated when no other section of the Constitution provides separately for RECs. Even disqualification criteria for membership of INEC is the same under section 156 for both RECs, the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners. The same scenario plays out in the mode of removal of members of INEC and other federal bodies from office, under section 157(1). This is by the “President acting on an address supported by 2/3 majority of the Senate praying that he so be removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct”. My humble submission here is that since the Constitution has not made any other provision regarding the mode of removal of RECs, it goes without saying that section 157 (1) also applies to them with equal force, since their office is also a constitutional creation.

Indeed section 6 of the 2022 Electoral Act also replicated Section 157 (1) of the Constitution specifically for RECs.

I further humbly submit that it is simply no argument that paragraph 14 (1) of the 3rd Schedule used the word “membership” to refer to only the Chairman and the other 12 National Commissioners only, since section 153 (2) of the same Constitution has already used the all encompassing word of “composition”, to cover all. As luminously held in the case of OGBEBOR V. DANJUMA & ORS (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 843) 403 @ 425, a schedule to an Act cannot override,be superior to, or detract from, the substantive provisions of the Statute itself. That will amount to the tail wagging the dog.

It is thus submitted that whichever way it is viewed, the RECs of the 36 states and the FCT, are all constitutional members of INEC and saddled with specific duties which the INEC headquarters cannot usurp at will. They are the Commission ‘s eyes on the ground and know where the roof leaks.The Constitution says so. No person or Act of the National Assembly can derogate or subtract from this truism, by virtue of section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

Opinion

Mambilla: The crusade for Justice in Nigeria

Published

8 hours ago

May 28, 2024

admin

Share this story

By Mr. Elaye Youdeowei

The Agunloye Mambilla trial is of public interest because it gives an insight to the inner workings of government and a reflection of poor governance. It is laden with melodrama and manoeuvres of which the public needs much information and deeper understanding.

The Federal Government of Nigeria devised a criminalisation strategy to free itself from liabilities at the arbitration panel in France where it pleaded that “all the claims on the Mambilla project by Messrs Sunrise were illegal and fraudulently procured”, including the Sunrise’s Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract of 2003, its procurement contract of 2012 and all Agreements signed with FGN in 2012 and 2020 because Ministers and government officials were corrupt and did not obey the sitting Nigerian Presidents. FGN then proceeded to criminalise all actions of officials on the Mambilla project except those under the Buhari’s APC Government whose actions actually led to the arbitration in France.
FGN has striven hard to make a ‘P&ID’ out of the Mambilla, but this is not sticking because Sunrise showed early preparedness for work by partnering with leading hydroelectric-dam construction companies in China and secured adequate funds; and is still ready to commence work on the Mambilla project. Also, the then President Obasanjo and his Ministers had official transactions for four years with Sunrise’s partners after the BOT contract was awarded in 2003. Sunrise’s readiness to execute the Mambilla project is also evident from the involvement of Chinese President Xi who told President Buhari to “formally engage or disengage Sunrise to access the Chinese funds which Sunrise secured for the Mambilla project”. FGN also attempted to use the ‘P&ID treatment’ on the Mambilla case, but civil rights lawyers rose against the criminalisation processes and procedures.
In respect of the criminalisation strategy, the issues that Agunloye must combat are the criminal charges for “awarding a $6 billion BOT contract without cash backing, disobeying oral directives of the President, forging his own letter and receiving a bribe of N3.6 million 16 years after.” He will also combat the emergent bias, prejudice, and prejudgment on the part of the trial judge and, in general, a lifetime struggle for justice and his civil rights.
The update at the courts so far is that Agunloye’s suit filed in June 2023 to stop EFCC from harassing him was not heard in time and was finally dismissed after EFCC had indeed harassed and arraigned him before the trial judge, Justice Onwuegbuzie, who later dismissed the amicus curiae intervention sought by Agunloye to enable “friends of the court” to appear before the court. Agunloye’s rights violation suit that the EFCC declared him wanted without judicial intervention and his libel suit against EFCC have been adjourned until 24 June 2024 and 16 October 2024 respectively. On 15 May 2024, Justice Onwuegbuzie dismissed the preliminary objection raised by Agunloye in a prejudiced, prejudged ruling and set 30 May 2024 for the commencement of the trial.

The thick bias of the trial judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, became exposed in the court on 15 May 2024 during which he appeared easily irritable and impatient. He scolded the defence lawyers for wasting his time with the motion on Amicus Curiae “to invite members of the public to my court” and then again on “the preliminary objection thing” and now “they are asking for time to enable the defendant to attend UCH (University College Hospital, Ibadan) for medical attention,” adding rather coldly: “He can attend UCH today and the court tomorrow.”

In his ruling of 15 May 2024, the Judge, revealed an uncanny bias by literally declaring Agunloye guilty of the allegations charged even before the commencement of the trial. This is akin to what Professor Glanville Williams, a world-renowned scholar of criminal law, described with “Let’s give him a fair hearing so that we may hang him” of an extreme bias of a judge that has made up his mind to convict an accused person. The prejudicial and pre-judgmental finding of guilt against Agunloye, when the trial has not begun or any evidence led, pointedly shows the unlikelihood of fair trial and manifest bias by Justice Onwuegbuzie.
After months of the Mambilla trial in Abuja, the following facts are staring at us in the face:

a. Chief Obasanjo’s grandstanding is all about covering up his infractions in the power sector during his eight-year tenure as President.

b. The defence of FGN in the Arbitration in France is “Deny, Criminalise, and Escape.”

c. The issues that led to the arbitration in France were under the Buhari’s APC Administration and Agunloye is not part of the international arbitration in any form.

d. Agunloye is being used as scapegoat-sacrifice in the hope that his conviction by a Nigerian court would absolve the FGN of its conduct under Buhari’s APC Administration.

e. EFCC, without a Fiat from the Attorney General and without compliance with its Establishment Act, arraigned Agunloye before a court angling for a conviction at all costs.

f. The bias of the trial judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, is palpable.

In all of these, Agunloye has consistently insisted that he did not commit any crime, and that Nigeria’s Presidents Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan, Buhari, and Tinubu know about his innocence and that FGN is prosecuting him to corroborate its pleas at the arbitration in France. This is why people are saying that FGN wants to convict Agunloye to free itself from liabilities in the Arbitration even though FGN knows that the issues that led to the international arbitration were caused under Buhari’s APC Government and not by Agunloye.

The Mambilla case is of public interest and a “political case” even though FGN calls it a “criminal case.” Eminent local and foreign civil rights icons and activists became frantic when the bias of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie was revealed in his own ruling prompting the establishment of a Worldwide Crusade against the re-enactment in Nigeria of what Glanville Williams denounced as “Let’s give him a fair hearing so that we may hang him”.

Mr. Elaye Youdeowe

UK Truth and Justice Group

Opinion

Nigeria, the compromised Society

Published

1 day ago

May 27, 2024

admin

Share this story

By Jibrin Samuel Okutepa
Nigeria society seems to be a place where everything now appears to be compromised in favour of bad and corrupt practices. Nigerians are in hell in their own land. Those who worked hard to see that the right things are done are discouraged by decisions that support the continuation and approval of wrongs as rights. Nothing appears to be done to promote the greatest good of all in the governance and in decisions in judicial adjudications.

Justice appears polluted in favour of evil men in power and positions. The institutions that are supposed to protect us have left us to the whims and caprices of those who cheat us out of our rights. The pillars of justice appeared to have collapsed. Many have lost hopes. The ability to manipulate is required to be in the systems that need no manipulations. The judgment delivered today, the 27th day of May 2024, by the Kogi State Election Petition Tribunal
In petion No: EPT/KG/GOV/03/2023, YAKUBU MURTALA & ANOR. VS. INEC & 2 ORS clearly turned the law on its head. The Tribunal closed eyes to evidence and struggled to do what it did. It was pure judicial summersault in support of wrong processes.

The foundation for the collapse of justice was laid by those who have the responsibility to lay solid foundations for sustainable justice in legal processes. Justice suffers in the hands of those who are to serve it in the most undiluted form.Those who are trained to enforce the laws are doing it incorrectly and inconsistently and not within the letters and the spirits of the law. They closed eyes to injustice. They lament behind but lack the courage to do what is right.

We live in compromised systems.
The evil doers dictate everything that goes on in every department of the systems we operate. No system operates independently of interference. Those who do not want to compromise are living in agony and are daily agonizing. That is why democracy in Nigeria appears to be heading to catastrophic destruction.

Sovereignty does not belong to the people. It belongs to a few tiny cabals in and out of powers. We live in a completely compromised democratic corrupt system in Nigeria.There is nothing like the rule of law in Nigeria.
Justice has developed eyes and acquired sight to follow evils and to support and sustain them in Nigeria.

Nothing good will be seen and work in Nigeria until Nigerians collectively agree to do what is right and just. A just and egalitarian society can not be attained when truth and justice are compromised on the primordial partisan interests in judicial adjudications. Where cases are decided to support the subversion of democratic processes, anarchy is eminent.

No society can grow and develop when people are allowed to profit from their own wrongs and wickedness perpetuated in sabotage of law that was promulgated for the promotion of a just and fair process.
Society of compromises is a society destined for destruction.

It is a society where people are held accountable and punished for evil they do that can produce and promote enduring democratic legacy for the happiness of the vast majority of the people. Nigeria appears to be far from such an egalitarian society given the intolerable spirit of compromises by those who should not tolerate evils and violations of our laws.

By Jibrin Samuel

The purpose of law is to ensure orders and good behaviour. Those who interpreted the law upside down to achieve a predetermined outcome are enemies of a just society. But let me say that despite all these compromises, we must ensure that light is not overwhelmed by this darkness hovering in our land.

Calm down. We will not run away from practice. We will show light in darkness. One day and not too long, our light will outshine the darkness in the firmament of legal practice in Nigeria. Be calm. Congratulations to my colleagues on the wonderful legal team who displayed unparalleled legal dexterity despite all odds.

Jibrin Samuel Okutepa

Opinion

Rivers political crisis: Fubara raves as Wike likely retreats (4)

Published

2 days ago

May 27, 2024

admin

Share this story

By Ehichioya Ezomon

Seeming to belie the header for this article that’s run three installments, a couple of weeks has witnessed the return of former Governor and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Chief Nyesom Wike – from his semblance of a sabbatical leave – to rejoin Governor Siminalayi Fubara in shadow-boxing, and stoking the metatarsising Rivers political crisis.
On Saturday, May 11, 2024, in Ogu-Bolo, Rivers State, at a grand reception in honour of Chief George Thompson Sekibo for his 20 years of public service, Wike – who no longer has the luxury of daily political rhetoric as when he’s governor – addressed five issues Fubara would likely tackle on separate days.
They include: A mistake he’d made, without elaborating; his deliberate bullying of the Fubara camp, to create fear, and make it to commit mistakes; that nobody can remove his pro-lawmakers sacked by the court; denying asking anyone to worship him; and the need for beneficiaries to show appreciation to their benefactors.
This comes as Fubara says he’s records of his duties as a civil servant, and the Accountant General of Rivers State under the Wike administration (2015-2023), stressing that all activities he carried out were based on “approvals” from his superiors.
In a veiled reference to his promise to probe the Wike government, Fubara, during the inauguration of Egbeda internal roads, in Emohua local government area on Thursday, May 16, said he’s ready to answer any queries, as his records would show that his previous official activities in government “were based on approvals.”
In similar masked remarks obviously referring to Fubara, Wike said he made a mistake in his political calculation, by shutting out an array of chieftains of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from the Rivers governorship in 2023, and settling for Fubara. “But nobody is above mistakes,” Wike said, and asked Rivers people to forgive him.
His said: “I want to say this clearly, in life we have made a mistake. I have made a mistake. I own it up and I say God forgive me. I have said all of you forgive me. I am a human, I am bound to make a mistake. So, forgive me for making a wrong judgment. So, nobody should kill (because of it). But we will correct it (mistake) at the appropriate time.”
On the sacked lawmakers loyal to him, Wike said the law and due process would take its course, irrespective of whatever happened, adding, “If they like, they can go to anybody by 2 a.m or 4 a.m to get an injunction. The law will take its course. We must follow due process.”
Wike urged the lawmakers not to be intimidated, saying, “Don’t be afraid. Nobody will remove you as a lawmaker. Most of you don’t understand. This is our work. Our business is to make them fear. That is what I am doing. We will make them to be angry every day, and they will continue to make mistakes.”
Rounding off, Wike said he isn’t God, and as such, had never demanded that anybody should worship him. “Nobody can worship man. All of us believe that it is only God we will worship. (But) as politicians, we appreciate people who have helped us.”
On the latter issue, Fubara’s previously said he appreciated the fact that Wike played a pivotal role in his governorship, but that it’s God that used him as a vessel to fulfil His purpose, and so, only God deserves his worship and not any human.
Fubara said: “God can do anything He wants to do when He wants to do it. It is only for us to realise that God will not come down from Heaven but will pass through one man or woman to achieve His purpose. So, for that reason, when we act, we act as humans; human vessels that God has used, and not seeing yourself as God.
“I want to say this clearly, that we appreciate the role our leaders, most especially the immediate past governor (Wike) played. But that is not enough for me to worship a human being. I can’t do that.”
On the hot-potato matter of probing Wike, whose government Fubara served as Accountant General, the governor told his audience at the Egbeda roads’ inauguration in Emohua that he wasn’t entertaining any fears, but ready and prepared to defend himself whenever he’s queried or called to answer alleged financial impropriety under the Wike government.
Fubara said: “What we bring to our people is service delivery at record time and cost-effective. Everything we are doing is in my white paper (record of activities). I carry it along. There is no issue of any manipulation. Call me any day, any time, it is there.
“Even the ones l did (as a civil servant) before this time, I still have all the records. If you call me any day, I will bring my records of all my activities in government. I know that as a civil servant, what is most important is record-keeping.
“I am not scared of anything. Anybody who calls me up any day, any time, I have my records to show. I have all the approvals to show that I acted based on approvals, and not personal decisions. We are not going to rest until we make everyone happy in Rivers State.”
This leads to the questions: If Fubara’s that sparkling clean, as he claims, why did he allegedly hide, and refuse to surrender himself to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for investigation during the 2023 general election? Or was it then Governor Wike trying to shield him from the EFCC, to prevent him from spilling reported malfeasance in the Wike government? Members of the public Fubara’s called to witness his incorruptibility deserve a plausible answer to the query!
Meanwhile, as the probe of Wike looks to proceed apace, only a miraculous intervention in the crisis – which Fubara doubts can be settled amicably after President Bola Tinubu’s brokered peace deal between Fubara and Wike looks to breakdown – would prevent him from declaring soon that, “enough is enough,” and go for Wike and his members’ jugular, deploying the enormous powers at his disposal that he’s said “he doesn’t know what to do with power,” as “the most hit and abused governor” (in Nigeria). So, when he’s decided, the scenarios may look as follows:
First, there’re a few strategies that Fubara’s outlined to deal with the recalcitrant lawmakers he’s described as “not existing.” The governor could evict them from the Rivers State House of Assembly Residential Quarters in Port Harcourt – where the legislators and their families domicile, and also use as a legislative chamber – to deny them the venue and avenue to make laws and/or plot his impeachment.
Second, Fubara could mimic some of his counterparts, and withhold the lawmakers’ emoluments, and allocations to the legislature, such as he allegedly did to the April 2024 allocations to Rivers local councils, whose chairmen, majorly loyal to Wike, have vowed to remain in office after their tenure in June 2024, “in line with the law” passed by the pro-Wike lawmakers, extending their tenure until elected local government officials are installed.
Remarkably, a Rivers High Court has struck down that “law” as illegally enacted by the lawmakers whose seats had been declared vacant on account of their defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the PDP, which sponsored them in 2023.
Prior, Fubara had warned the council chairmen that they’d a few days remaining in their tenure, and shouldn’t forment trouble within the period, as “nobody has monopoly of violence.” He handed down the warning at Egbeda community in Emohua, during the official flag-off of the Elele-Egbeda-Omoku road project.
As reported by New Telegraph, this comes as miscreants, allegedly at the behest of the aggrieved council chairmen, attacked some persons who attended the governor’s inauguration of the Aleto-Ogale-Ebubu-Eteo road project in Eleme local government area on Tuesday, May 14.
Fubara said: “Let me also say this here. When we left Aleto the other day, some people went there and attacked our people. There is no need for that. Nobody has the monopoly of violence. So, I’m begging everyone, please, conduct yourself. As a matter of fact, I am the one who is most hit and abused as a Governor who doesn’t know what to do with power. Is it not? Have I said anything?
“So, I am advising those people, who call themselves local government chairmen: you have a few days in office. Please, conduct yourselves in a peaceful manner. Politics will come, politics will go, but we will still live our lives. Let nobody deceive you, if you deliberately hurt anybody because of expressing your useless support, nobody will forgive you. You will pay for it.
“Just endure until when you finish, then you go your way. I don’t want trouble. I don’t want anything that will bring any problems in this state. I know what they want to do, but we will not give them the opportunity.
“We have made our promise to our leader, who happens to be the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that we will take the path of peace and that is the path we are taking. We will continue to take that path.
“Don’t mind what they say. Don’t mind what they do. Peace remains the path to take. (But) while taking the path of that peace, it does not mean that we won’t defend ourselves… No, no no. We need to also protect ourselves in a lawful manner.”
The next installment of the serialisation under the running header will conclude what Governor Fubara could do to cage former Governor Wike and his loyalists in the cascading political crisis that daily produces different scenarios in Rivers State!