Beneath the Nigerian Structure, elected government officeholders, significantly the president and the state governors, get pleasure from a degree of safety of time period(s) in workplace. That is made doable by the constitutional course of which elaborately specified the ambit of their phrases, {qualifications} and disqualification to the respective places of work.
Notably, whereas the tenure of an elected government officeholder is for 4 years, commencing from the date when he took oath of workplace, through which case an impeached government workplace holder whose impeachment is adjudged unconstitutional could possibly be restored and allowed to finish his tenure as espoused within the case of Peter Obi v. INEC (2007) 7 SC; a legislator, then again, has his time period of workplace tied to the constitutional interval of 4 years reckoned from the date of inauguration.
This being the case, the legislator’s time period of workplace elapses upon the effluxion of the constitutional 4 years from the date of inauguration however the time spent on re-claiming such mandate from the court docket. So, tenure elongation doesn’t guarantee with respect to legislative workplace, whose time period could have been cut-short by any circumstances, together with the size of time it took to reclaim the mandate from the Courtroom.
Whereas cross-carpeting or decampment from the get together that sponsored an elected government officeholder to a different get together could possibly be politically condemnable, there isn’t any recognisable constitutional sanction for it. It’s accepted that underneath the Nigerian legislation, it’s the political get together that sponsored a candidate that wins an election; as votes solid in an election are ascribed to it.
Nonetheless, it isn’t an affordable proposition that an individual elected into an government place loses or vacates his seat by decamping or becoming a member of one other political get together, after profitable an election or after being returned elected. Such will not be inside the precincts of the Nigerian Structure. That is completely different within the case of the legislature, as by Part 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) a member of the Nationwide Meeting or State Home of Meeting “shall vacate his seat” if he turns into a member of one other political get together earlier than the expiration of his time period until sure elements are confirmed; and now affirmed by the Supreme Courtroom within the case of Abegunde v. Ondo State Home of Meeting & 11 Ors (2015) 8 NWLR (Half 1461) 314. There isn’t a comparable or corresponding provisions regarding elected government officeholders.
This unassailable reality flows from the constitutional standpoint that the mixed impact of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 Structure regarding the qualification and disqualifications for election as president and in addition comparable sections 177 and 182 of the Structure relating to the qualification and disqualifications for election as Governor, are all particularly relevant to pre-election functions solely.
Merely put, the foregoing sections clearly relate to pre-election elements and explicitly information the preparations or participation of any one that wished to be elected as a President or Governor inside the Nigerian State within the electoral course of.
By the clear phrases of Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182, they’re drafted to information pre-election {qualifications} or eligibility necessities for election into government positions, and don’t information the eligibility to stay within the stated places of work after the election.
Among the cardinal guidelines of interpretation of constitutional provisions are as espoused by the apex Courtroom in Elelu-Habeeb & Anor v. The Honourable Lawyer-Common of Federation & 2 Ors (2012) 13 NWLR (Half 1318) 423, 489-491E-B, by a full panel of seven Justice of the Supreme Courtroom per M. Mohammed, JSC (CJN, 2014-2016), have been amongst different issues that whereas decoding the Structure, impact needs to be given to each phrase used within the Structure, the place the language of the Structure are clear and unambiguous, it should be given its plain and evident that means; and that constitutional provision shouldn’t be so construed in such a fashion as to defeat its evident objective.
Beneath the golden rule of interpretation of Constitutional provisions, it has been settled that phrases used within the constitutional provisions should prima facie be given their strange that means the place such phrases usually are not ambiguous, as are the provisions of Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure underneath reference.
Accepted that by the final provision of part 221 of the Structure, it is just a political get together that may canvass for votes for candidates at any election. This common provision, nevertheless, can’t be prolonged to negate the precise provisions of Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure which cope with particular points and can’t be validly referred to as in support within the interpretation of the Structure, as they’re mutually unbiased and relate to completely different points.
Whereas decoding Part 221 of the 1999 Structure regarding prohibition of political actions by sure associations, the apex court docket rightly held in Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Half 1080) 227, 317-318 that:
“The above provision effectually removes the opportunity of unbiased candidacy in our elections; and locations emphasis and duty in elections on political events. With no political get together, a candidate can not contest. The first methodology of contest for elective places of work is subsequently between the events. If, as supplied in part 221 above, it is just a celebration that canvasses for votes, a very good or dangerous candidate could improve or diminish the prospect of his get together in profitable, however on the finish of the day, it’s the get together that wins or loses an election. I feel that the failure of the respondents’ counsel to understand the overriding significance of the political get together quite than the candidate has made them lose sight of the truth that whereas candidates could change in an election, the get together doesn’t. In mundane or colloquial phrases, we could say {that a} candidate has received an election in a selected constituency however in actuality and in consonance with part 221 of the Structure, it’s his get together that has received the election.”
This judicial standpoint of the Supreme Courtroom was adopted within the later choice of Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Half 1543) 61, thereby re-affirming that with no political get together, a candidate can not contest in an election; and the place a candidate has received an election in a selected constituency, in consonance with Part 221 of the Structure, it’s his get together that received the election.
Nonetheless, a relaxed perusal of the foregoing choices pointedly exhibits that the apex Courtroom weren’t decoding any of the provisions of Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure or contemplating the problems of disqualification of an elected government officeholder for the needs of his elimination from workplace or whether or not an elected government officeholder can lose or vacate his workplace by leaving the get together that sponsored him on the election. The inapplicability of judicial authorities to mutually distinct and unrelated cases have been famous by the Courtroom and in Adegoke Motors Restricted v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 5 SC 113 at 166 the Supreme Courtroom per Oputa, JSC held that:
“…It additionally appeared in quite daring reduction that there’s now a bent amongst our attorneys, to think about pronouncements …in pointless isolation from the information and surrounding circumstances of these explicit circumstances through which these pronouncements have been made. I feel it must be apparent by now, that it’s the information and circumstances of any given case that body the problem for choice in that individual case. Pronouncements or our Justices, whether or not they’re ratione decidendi or obiter dicta, should subsequently be inextricably and intimately associated to the information of the given case. Citing these pronouncements with out relating them to the information that induced them might be citing them out of their correct context, for with out identified information, it’s unattainable to know the legislation on these information…”
Related judicial perspective was expressed within the case of Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Half 1177) 265, 286 E-F, the place the apex Courtroom per Adekeye, JSC held that:
“Circumstances are to not be cited at giant. The information of the case should be comparable, whereas typically talking circumstances are selected their peculiar circumstances or information. Citing circumstances which can be inapplicable to the peculiar findings in a selected matter results in grave false impression and finally miscarriage of justice.”
In any occasion, within the above-mentioned circumstances of Amaechi and Faleke, the apex court docket weren’t invited to find out the problem of whether or not an elected government officeholder who leaves the political get together that sponsored him on the election underneath which he assumed the manager workplace, will vacate his government workplace upon leaving the stated get together or decampment. On account of this, the circumstances of Amaechi and Faleke are subsequently not good authorities for such supposition.
Thought-about in a distinct prism, Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure clearly set out the pre-election elements pursuant to which an individual in search of to be elected into an government place will be certified or disqualified from contesting. In impact, Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure are completely inapplicable after the conduct of the election as they don’t have or envisage post-election software.
Evidently, these provisions are solely meant by the draftsmen to set the information for pre-election participation and don’t cowl post-election points or in any method regulate continuation in workplace by such an government officeholder after his election.
Due to this fact, the place an individual meets all of the pre-election constitutional necessities as stipulated in Sections 131 and 177 of the Structure, by being a member of a political get together and sponsored by that get together, he isn’t underneath any additional constitutional obligation to stay so after the election and subsequently can not vacate his elected government place or deemed to have ceased to carry the stated workplace if he leaves the get together that sponsored him within the election thereafter.
So, Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Structure can’t be misconstrued as considering that after an elected government officeholder joins one other political get together, after being sponsored and profitable the election, he can not retain the votes of the solid for get together that originally sponsored him and subsequently his seat deemed vacant by purpose of his decampment. Such constricted interpretation will not be express from the clear phrases and intendment of the provisions and can solely result in ‘stultifying narrowness’ and undoubtedly defeat the evident functions of the constitutional provisions.
The Structure is elaborately clear on the post-election grounds or processes underneath which an elected government officeholder, such because the president or a governor, can stop to carry or be faraway from workplace which is majorly by impeachment.
On this sensible, state governors who left the political events that sponsored them within the election can’t be deemed to have vacated their positions, whether or not expressly or by implication, on grounds of leaving the political get together that sponsored them within the elections.
Ibegbunam, a authorized practitioner, writes from Abuja.