Re. Amaechi’s victory at the Supreme Court 

Reuben Abati writing in the Guardian newspaper (online edition) of Saturday October, 27, 2007 on the recent Supreme court verdict on Rotimi Amaechi Vs Celestine Omehia on the last April 2007 elections in River state under the caption ‘Amaechi’s victory at the Supreme Court’ concluded thus “The Supreme Court has ruled that Rotimi Amaechi should be sworn in immediately as Governor of Rivers State. It is a good moment for democracy and the rule of law. So let it be.” This final summation by Reuben, I beg to disagree. 

The said article was a brilliant piece of work by Reuben. In it, he captured succinctly Rotimi Amaechi’s travails in the hands of his party, PDP. His travails as a victim of Obasanjo’s gunboat politics. His travails in the hands of INEC and Prof. Iwu’s machinations. His travails in the hands of the Appeal court judges. And his final victory at the hands of the justices of the Supreme Court. Reuben’s discourse however, fell below par with his final summation. 

The final summation by Reuben that “It is a good moment for democracy and the rule of law” for the justices of the Supreme Court to pronounce Rotimi Amaechi, governor of Rivers state without standing for an election, without his name and picture pasted on the ballot paper, without being a candidate of any political party, all this as stipulated by the 2006 Electoral Act is not in my opinion ‘a good moment for democracy and the rule of law’ as adduced by Reuben. The honourable judges of the Supreme Court have reserved until January 2008 to give their reasons and I think it is premature at this stage to give them kudos without recourse to their reasons. Hence, it is illogical for Reuben to make a final comment on the case without privy to the reasons of the honourable judges, unless he has fore knowledge that he has not shared with the reading public; this I doubt. 

There’s seems to be a penchant in the Nigerian press these days for politicians to use journalists to achieve their aim. In a democratic setting, the press as, the fourth estate of the realm, carries a lot of weight. It is no longer a neglected media as was the case under the military, you ignore the press at your own peril as many people have found. The press can set the political agenda, it can answer political questions, it can elevate careers, and it can destroy careers. Nigerian politicians and indeed other stake holders in the Nigerian equation having discovered this power of the press are all rushing to the high altar of the mass media for a bite, this has empowered journalists and some of them (emphasis on some) are now abusing their newly found empowerment. They are setting agenda with game plans for the unsuspecting masses. They are as a matter of fact setting ‘paid agenda’ for the populace, their agenda is for the highest bidder and I hope Reuben Abati and the Guardian newspaper are not in that league but their antecedents these days leaves much to be desired. 

Going back to the Supreme Court judgement in favour of Rotimi Amaechi (however, hampered by not having access to the reasons of the honourable judges until January 2007) but having access to the 2006 Electoral Act, it is my opinion that rather than declare Rotimi governor and ordering that he be sworn it forthwith, the honourable judges ought to have nullified the election of Sir Celestine Omehia and call for fresh elections in Rivers state.  

This is the position any unbiased umpire should hold, this is the position I expect Reuben Abati to hold. This is the position one expect the Guardian newspaper to hold. This is the position, I, Odenigbo hold. For how can a man who never stood for an election, who never ran for an election, who was never a candidate for the election be declared a winner by the highest court in the land, by the learned judges of the Supreme Court. Grant that Rotimi Amaechi was disenfranchised by his political party, by INEC and by the Appeal Court, this disenfranchisement does warrant imposition of Rotimi Amaechi to the long suffering people of Rivers state as their governor without recourse to the ballot papers for them to exercise that divine mandate called democracy: Government of the people by the people for the people. The question that Reuben and the Guardian newspaper need to address is ‘Who voted for Rotimi Amaechi’? 

The issue is between Rotimi Amaechi and PDP and not between Rotimi Amaechi and other political parties, not between Rotimi Amaechi and people of Rivers state. It is a PDP affair and the correct judgement in my view is to replace Sir Celestine Omehia with Rotimi Amaechi and call for fresh elections. The good people of Rivers state may have even preferred Sir Celestine Omehia to Rotimi Amaechi and would have in any case voted for him irrespective of whether he is in PDP or not but that decision is theirs and theirs alone rather than that of the Supreme Court.  

In Nigeria, any thing is possible. The Supreme Court judges are not insular from the general malaise afflicting the country. They smell, breathe, eat and drink Nigeria. They are not insular from the system, they are part and parcel of the system, they are humans, they are Nigerians and hence prone to human and Nigerian susceptibilities. They are not divine.  

I do not see any sense for the honourable judges to wait till January 2008 to make their reasons public, it is a sensitive case, it is an emotional case and they should not further inflame these fragile sensitivities and emotions, they know their reasons already, they should have made it public straight away and not give room to further heating of the polity. This is the view I expect Reuben Abati, the Guardian newspaper and indeed any middle of the road umpire to hold. Once again, I ask Reuben, the Guardian newspaper and the honourable judges of the Supreme Court, who voted for Rotimi Amaechi?  

I hope that this Supreme Court judgement, this explosion of judiciary fury is not a game plan to raise our hopes high by the judiciary only to deflate it when that time comes; the people of Nigeria Vs Musa Yar’Adua. And with the likes of Reuben and the Guardian newspaper overtly and covertly setting the agenda for us, shepherding us into accepting an unacceptable judgement using the Rotimi Amaechi Vs Celestine Omehia and perhaps a few other expendable cases as an example of the impartiality, of the uprightness of the Nigerian judiciary. 

The Guardian newspaper has as its motto ‘Conscience, Nurtured By Truth’, which evolved from the sayings of Uthman Dan Fodio that “Conscience is like an open wound, only the truth can heal it”. I hope Reuben’s writing on the Rotimi Amaechi case is borne out of the truth (as he sees it) nurtured by a professional conscience and not an attempt to ‘set the agenda’ by virtue of him being in a position to do so, by being a journalist, writing for and in cahoots with the acclaimed Guardian newspaper. In Nigeria, anything is possible and Reuben and the Guardian newspaper knows where I, Odenigbo is coming from. 
 

Odenigbo Chidi Anyaeche Mr.

Enfield, London

Robot  Villager

# 1 There’s seems to be a penchant in the Nigerian press these days for politicians to use journ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 27.10.2007 19:21

Omovudu  Villager

# 2 Chidi As I indicated in my earlier contribution on this issue (repasted below), you too miss the point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The supreme court did not substitute any 'winner' of any election. What the Supreme Court held was that Amaechi was the validly elected nominee of the PDP primaries, was validly nominated by PDP and validly accepted by INEC before the stipulated 120 day deadline. On the other hand Omehia, never contested in the primaries, his substitution to INEC was not cogent and subjudice and thus DOES NOT EXIST (NULL & VOID) in the eyes of the law. Therefore the only nominee of the PDP known to the law was Amaechi (who in the eyes of the law has not been removed or substituted). Now a supposedly valid election was held in Rivers State, several parties with their nominated candidates contested the election. Please note that the Nigerian constitution and electoral act does not recognise the option of independent candidates for election to public posts. So in the eyes of the law elections are contested by parties. The gubenotorial election for Rivers State that was validly held on the 14th of April by the contesting parties was said to have been won by the PDP. Since in the eyes of the law, there is only one valid nominee of the PDP, hence he is the person that the law is seeing on the governors seat in Port-Harcourt. This was why the Supreme Court in interpeting the law maintained that Amaechi is the nominee of the PDP and hence the governor elected on the PDP platform. If any person has an issue with the election or feels aggrieved that he or she may have been dealt with unjustly by the arbirtrary behaviour and failure of the PDP, then he should take the PDP to court and seek that the election be annulled. This is a likely possibility especially with the current verdict of the supreme court. However this must be done within the ambit of the law and parties stand a better chance of claiming injustice since they are the only ones recognised in law to contest for election to public positions (sic Audu vs Idris where Audu lost in individual petition but his party the ANPP won their case which resulted in the nullification of the Kogi state elections). You should also realise that the law recognises the time limit within which such depositions should be made and after which they no longer serve the course of justice. So it is clear that the Supreme Court has not erred and has granted the appropriate reliefs as viewed from the position of the law. The people of Rivers State if they feel shortchanged have the rights to seek redress through legal means which included seeking that the current governor - Ameachi be impeached by the house and if the house doesn't do its bidding, by recalling all the members of the house. This is the current procedure available in law to effect a change of government personnel by the people. Otherwise they would have to patiently wait for 4 years from yesterday to elect and swear in another governor of their choice. In all for the rule of law in Nigeria, this judgment sets a major precedence on which the premise for justice as upheld by the rule of law would drive the actions or people rather than arrogant and arbirtrary behaviour which assumes that the thinking of some powerful men is equivalent to the posturing of the law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The supreme court only intepreted the law on the issues before it (the Rivers State gubernatorial election was not on the table) and made the reliefs as viewed just from the perspective of the law. If anybody has an ax to grind about the election, they should take it to the election tribunal and let justice be done there (which could mean the nullification of the entire elections). Election matters and its associated litigations as stipulated by the constitution are dealt with by the tribunal and the final authority rests with the appeal court, so even the Supreme Court knows when it lacks jurisdiction. So let us stop saying they should nullify the elections. They have no constitutional authority to do so. This supreme court ruling however sounds the death knell of arbitrariness in our body politic (even beyond politcal matters) and for this reason it is one of the best things that have happened in recent times. So as Abati said, let it be and let us savour the moment for now. Posted by Omovudu| 28.10.2007 05:12

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 3 Thanks a lot Chidi Sir, for this insight. Your position gives me hope that all is not yet lost on our present breed of intellectuals. Posted by Frisky Larr| 28.10.2007 09:17

tonsoyo  Villager

# 4 I am more than baffled and flabbergasted by the insinuations, tacit accusations and coy adumbrations of character assassination contained in this piece. You have accussed Reuben Abati of offences from possibly trying to set an agenda to a possibility of being a paid agent just for voicing his opinion on the side of the honorable men of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. What I will expect a reasonable and an unbiased journalist like yourself to do is to voice your disagreement with Reuben Abati based on sound legal reasoning instead of making unnecessary insinuation and sly accusations of another reputable journalist for having an opinion different from yours. I am inclined to believe that you are the one who have a hidden and irresponsible agenda that you are trying to set. Though I do not know your educational background, but we all know that Reuben Abati is an honorable member of the Nigerian Bar, I would therefore place his opinion over yours anytime, anyday on issues regarding the law, because I have reasons to believe that you are not a lawyer. Who are you to have expectation on where other people should stand on a judgment delivered by the highest court in the land? other than say where you stand? Why should you feel that every other person should stand against the judgment of the Supreme Court, except they have been paid to set an agenda? Your article is a shame and gave me a reason to doubt your sincerity in every other articles submitted by you. The Supreme Court gave enough reasons in the part of the judgment already delivered by them for people to take whatever side they believe is right especially a lawyer and a seasoned journalist like Reuben Abati. The Nigerian 1999 Constitution gave more powers to the political parties than the electorates. This is why the Constitution gave the powers to the political parties to substitute candidates even after primary elections, that is, susbtitute an electorate's choice at the primaries, in as much as it is done within the stipulated time. The Constitution also do not recognize independent candidates but political party candidates. What the Supreme Court has done was to substitute (even after the electorate decision at the poll) the rightful candidate of PDP in that election, just like the Constitution permits such substitutions after the primaries. In such event the benefits and liabilities of the office illegally assumed by Omehia will automatically be vested in Amaechi. You may call it a bad law, because it relegates the power of the electorates as secondary to that of the political parties, but that is the body language of our Constitution. Again our judges are not spirits or aliens from the space, they live here amongst us, they knew precisely what happened during those days, remedying such gun-boat politics as described by you requires courage and the will to do justice. To look the other way from justice in favor of some unnecessary legality will be the injustice. You are only entitled to your own opinion mister man, you cannot decide for the other person how he should have reasoned except he got money from some politicians to reason the other way. What a psychedelic nonsense? Who is actually setting an agenda here against the personality of another or who actually has an agenda? I think that will be you Chidi for whatever reason that you have spewed out the arrant nonsense you wrote above. My goodness how do you attack a lawyer for preempting a judgment and having an idea? Shame, shame, crying shame indeed! Posted by tonsoyo| 28.10.2007 10:01

Chidi Anyaeche  Villager

# 5 Dear Tonsoyo You contradict yourself by positing: - "Though I do not know your educational background, but we all know that Reuben Abati is an honorable member of the Nigerian Bar, I would therefore place his opinion over yours anytime, anyday on issues regarding the law, because I have reasons to believe that you are not a lawyer". The Appeal Court judges that were repeatedly castigated by the Supreme Court judges are all honourable members of the Nigerian Bar. So being a member of the Nigerian Bar does not confer superior moral and legal logic on any one. I stand by my well informed views. Posted by Chidi Anyaeche| 28.10.2007 10:26

Sapele Man  Villager

# 6 =Robot;2091814179> There’s seems to be a penchant in the Nigerian press these days for politicians to use journalists to achieve their aim. In a democratic setting, the press as, the fourth estate of the realm, carries a lot of weight. It is no longer a neglected media as was the case under the military, you ignore the press at your own peril as many people have found. The press is the mouth piece of the people. If the people are not happy with what the press says they will stop buying it, the newspaper will loose its readers and it will eventually fold up. The Guardian has years of responsible journalism behind it. I can only conclude that Abati and other journalists there are responsible people. The writer seems to confuse morality with law. In law, you can only get the remedy you ask for. If other governorship candidates have challenged the election result on the same ground, the Supreme Court would have ordered a re-election. So there would have been no question of someone who did not contest an election (.....but his party did!) being imposed on the electorate (....that would have voted for his party!!). Based on the evidence before me I disagree with the writer. Posted by Sapele Man| 28.10.2007 10:38

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 7 Tonsoyo Sir, Don't be too hard on this writer please. I'd prefer we focus on the real issue rather than abuses and derogations. I lost sight of the accusations made against Reuben Abati in the write-up because I have seen indications of such tendencies (the substance of the accusations) in past write-ups by Reuben Abati on major national issues. While I will advise this author at all times to avoid this personal end, I guess there is a limit to the moral authority of Mr. Reuben Abati Sir, no matter how qualified and eloquent he may be. Moreover, thanks a lot for your interpretation of what the constitution says on installing a candidate after elections. You are by now, aware that I hold a different view completely. I have just been informed that Gani Fawehinmi's disagreement with this judgment will be out tomorrow if it is not already publicized. I'll compare his position with yours because I know you have always taken brilliant positions on legal matters in the past. I'll remain open-minded on this and let myself be educated if I am missing any salient legal point. But the installation of Amaechi as governor doesn't sound legally right by any means and will do far-reaching damages to Nigeria's legal system. Best regards! Posted by Frisky Larr| 28.10.2007 11:22

fxo  Villager

# 8 Amaechi asked the SC to affirm he was the legitimate flagbearer of PDP. Not the elected Governor of River State. He certainly was not in a position to make that prayer to the SC, if we are talking about law. If you want to talk about legalities : a political party cannot be sworn in as Governor, only an individual can take that oath. The law does not recognize PDP as the Governor of Rivers state but an individual. The law does not mandate the removal of an elected person if he was to change political party. So where do you arrive at the so called legal position of the SC Justices. They are playing politics and stepping beyond there briefs, simple. Posted by fxo| 28.10.2007 13:13

fxo  Villager

# 9 =tonsoyo;2091814302> The Nigerian 1999 Constitution gave more powers to the political parties than the electorates. This is why the Constitution gave the powers to the political parties to substitute candidates even after primary elections, that is, susbtitute an electorate's choice at the primaries, in as much as it is done within the stipulated time. The Constitution also do not recognize independent candidates but political party candidates. What the Supreme Court has done was to substitute (even after the electorate decision at the poll) the rightful candidate of PDP in that election, just like the Constitution permits such substitutions after the primaries. In such event the benefits and liabilities of the office illegally assumed by Omehia will automatically be vested in Amaechi. You may call it a bad law, because it relegates the power of the electorates as secondary to that of the political parties, but that is the body language of our Constitution. The SC Justices are asking for an unelected person to be made Governor, how is that the law. You seem so keen to declare the people of River State as having no choice in the matter because they are citizens in a country where educated people would advocate the perpetuation of error. You are so sure about this so called legal victory, doesn't this same constitution specify how a person can become a Governor of a state? Isn't participation in a general election required? Does the constitution not require this individual to achieve a certain percentage of the votes of all registered voters within the sphere he would have executive coverage? In your excitement to declare the SC Justices as 'gods' you forgot to ask even this legal questions. Lets not continue to perpetuate intellectual laziness. Lets get to work. Posted by fxo| 28.10.2007 13:33

tonsoyo  Villager

# 10 =anyaechec;2091814308>Dear Tonsoyo You contradict yourself by positing: - "Though I do not know your educational background, but we all know that Reuben Abati is an honorable member of the Nigerian Bar, I would therefore place his opinion over yours anytime, anyday on issues regarding the law, because I have reasons to believe that you are not a lawyer". The Appeal Court judges that were repeatedly castigated by the Supreme Court judges are all honourable members of the Nigerian Bar. So being a member of the Nigerian Bar does not confer superior moral and legal logic on any one. I stand by my well informed views. My disagreement with this writer is not about whether he agreed or disagreed with the Supreme Court judgment. My reference also to Abati being a member of the BAR is not to assert his moral or superior legal reasoning per se, but that conferred an authority on him to be able to make a quick assessment of a legal judgment besides his calling as a journalist. My grouse with this writer is the insinuation that he could have been paid to have a legal opinion, haba. As a lawyer, matters of far reaching legal implications should naturally interest him. That is my point. Posted by tonsoyo| 28.10.2007 18:09

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---