Hottestgistnaija.com
There has been a swirl pool of public conversations concerning the decision of the 21-members plenary of the Rivers State House of Assembly (9th assembly) which unanimously voted against the recognition of Celestine Omehia as a former governor of Rivers State contrary to the 2015 resolution of the State’s 8th Assembly which recognized him for having served 5 months as the governor before he vacated the office pursuant to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 which recognized Rotimi Amaechi as the governor in his stead. The resolution which was made on the 7th of October was followed by an assent of the incumbent Governor Nyesom Wike, and in so doing, Celestine Omehia stands derecognized. Consequently, the motion derecognizing him also ordered him to refund over N696 million received as benefits and pension so far as well as stop adding titles of “His Excellency” and “General Service Star of Rivers State (GSSRS)”
In considering this issue against the back drop of all the concerns raised, it is first and foremost imperative to consider the case of Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC & 6 ORS as the foundational basis upon which this issue lies. The facts leading to the courts decision are that, in 2007, Chibuike Amaechi contested in the governorship election Primaries of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), against seven other members of the party which he won with a total number of 6,527 votes in his favour out of 6575 votes. His name was submitted to INEC by PDP as the PDP Governorship candidate, but was later substituted with that of Celestine Omehia. This was without any court order to that effect. Chibuike Amaechi, the Plaintiff/appellant then sued the Independent National Electoral Commission in the Federal High Court, then later sought leave and was granted leave to join Celestine Omehia and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as 2nd and 3rd defendants, who are 2nd and 3rd respondents in the Supreme Court, respectively.
Summarily, the he claimed for the following reliefs:
1. That a declaration be made that neither a political party nor the Independent National Electoral Commission could substitute a candidate’s name for another under the Electoral Act, without a court order first made, disqualifying the candidate whose name had already been submitted.
2. That a declaration be made that INEC had no power to screen, verify and disqualify a candidate already screened by his political party.
3. That a declaration be made that it is only the court that can disqualify a candidate whose name has already been published under Section 32(2)(5) of the Electoral Act.
4. A declaration that the 1st respondent had no cogent reason to substitute the appellant’s name with that of the 2nd respondent.
5. A declaration that the actions of the 1st and 3rd respondent was illegal and unlawful.
6.An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from substituting the appellant’s name with that of the 2nd respondent without a court order disqualifying the appellant or a cogent reason given by the 3rd respondent.
However, Omehia put up a defense, summarily, that the Amaechi’s name was erroneously sent to the 1st respondent. He argued that this error was then corrected by the substitution that was made. Holding in favour of the Amaechi, the Supreme Court posited that the political party did not give sufficient reason for substituting the appellant’s name for that of Celestine Omehia. The reason did not meet the requirements as provided under Section 34 of the Electoral Act (in force at the time).
Rotimi Amaechi, never being removed as the candidate chosen by the People’s Democratic Party in the Primaries; having had his name sent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); and the Independent National Electoral Commission, having never given a cogent reason for substituting his name for that of Omehia’s, was still the candidate of the political party at the time of the election.
The substitution was merely a purported attempt to change the candidate which had had victory, and which attempt, was not valid.Thus, the party properly nominated will step into the shoes of the party improperly nominated whether such a party has won the election or lost it. It is pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court that Rotimi Amaechi validly and legally became the governor of Rivers state deposing Celestine Omehia after serving 6 months as the governor before the conclusion of the case.
In adressing this issue, what can be imperatively deduced from the decision of the Supreme Court is that, Omehia wrongly and illegally held office for the period of time he was the governor of Rivers State since Amaechi was declared to be the rightful holder of that office. It follows therefore that the basis upon the initial recognition of Omehia and his continuous recognition as a former governor stands nullified. It is a trite principle of law that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand which is copiously encapsulated in the Latin maxim “Ex nihilo nihil fit”. There has to be a legal basis and justification upon which every right or responsibility lies. The Court gave credence to this principle in the case of Macfoy v United Africa Company limited (1961) 3 All ER 1169 (PC) at page 5 of the judgment Denning LJ held that:
“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse” see also Salihu &ANOR V. Danjuma &Ors (2015) LPELR-40621(CA). His governorship tenure was declared unlawful and a nullity, therefore it is only appropriate that nothing can stand on a claim that was vitiated by order of the Court.
In addition to the foregoing, the basis upon which former governors are paid is to compensate them for the number of years of service rendered to the State, based on the State Legislation for same where applicable. Logically speaking from 1999 till date, Nigeria has only had 3 tenures of 8 years each, where such person wins’ re-election for a second term, with the requirement to pay all former governors and deputy governors, by the Rivers State Law, recognizing him would mean putting unnecessary burden on the economy of the State. Meaning that the State would have more than the proper number of Governors to cater for from 1999 till date. Accordingly, it suffices to state that all entitlements accruing from that position have been paid in vacuum without a concrete foundation and legal basis, as the now repealed Law was in itself illegal having been enacted contrary to the Apex Court’s judgment.
It is my candid opinion that it was indeed entirely right for the Rivers State House of Assembly to order for the payment or return of all emoluments and entitlements erroneously paid to him. The decision of the Rivers State House of Assembly is not one without basis having considered the decision of the Court that deposed the person in question and the general position of the law in this regards. This simply reiterates the fact that although the decision is legally valid, it took the legislative house a long delay to give a wholistic effect to the decision of the Supreme Court, having albeit erred earlier in the aforementioned case. It is the writer’s opinion that the illegal occupation of the office of the Governor can not give rise to valid entitlements and emoluments.
Acts and/or other official duties performed by Omehia as “governor” during the pendency of the suit of Rotimi Amaechi, which culminated at the Supreme Court, are saved from same implication, that governance abhors a vacuum, without more.
Henry Kelechukwu Eni-Otu, Esq is a
Legal Practitioner and Senior Partner,
