At Last, INEC Appeals Ruling on 5 Govs’ Tenure

Posted by admin Governors, INEC Politics, Latest Politics Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Despite its denials, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Thursday asked the Supreme Court to hold that the tenures of five state governors expired on May 29, this year.

The five governors are Ibrahim Idris (Kogi), Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Liyel Imoke (Cross River) and Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa).

Counsel to the commission, Mr. A. B. Mahmoud, applied to the apex court for a short adjournment to enable the commission to put in all its papers.

The governors already have two judgments in their favour as both the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court upheld their claims that they were entitled to stay beyond May 29.

By virtue of the two judgments in their kitty, Idris will leave office on April 5, 2012; Wamako will vacate office on May 28, 2012; Nyako’s tenure ends on April 30, 2012; Sylva is to leave office on May 29, 2012; while Imoke will vacate office on August 28, 2012.

In one of the appeals to the Supreme Court, which was filed on behalf of INEC by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), the commission argued that the justices of the Appeal Court were wrong when they held that the time already spent in office by the governors should not be contemplated when computing the period of four years which the governors were entitled to.

In the commission’s view, the judgment was given in disregard to section 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which stipulated that a governor should vacate office at the expiration of four years.
Ground 2 of the appeal reads: “The learned justices of the court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice when they held that the oaths subscribed to by the governors pursuant to their victory in the re-run elections conducted in the states were the oaths of office and of allegiance taken by them as persons first elected as governors under the constitution.”

The commission also stated that the Court of Appeal failed to determine the validity of the initial oath of office taken by the governors.

It claimed that the nullification of the election after the initial oath did not have the effect of nullifying the oath of office previously taken by them.

INEC also faulted the Appeal Court’s justices’ reliance on the case of Peter Obi vs INEC (2007)11 NWLR Part 1046, saying that the case did not involve a governor who was re-elected after his initial return was set aside.

Last month, INEC Commissioner on Media, Solomon Soyebi, at a press briefing in Abuja said the commission did not file any appeal even though one had been filed on behalf of the commission as at the day he held the briefing.

Already, former Lagos State Administrator, Buba Marwa, has secured the nod of the apex court to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal as an interested party.
Although, the Abuja Court of Appeal refused his application, the Supreme Court on July 5 granted his application and ordered him to file his briefs within the shortest time possible so that the appeal could be determined before the elongated tenure of the governors expired.

Marwa’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), was in court yesterday to argue the appeal of his client, but the hearing could not go on because INEC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) begged the court for a short adjournment to put in their papers.

Olanipekun pointed out that INEC had issued a timetable for the election in a bid to foist a fait accompli on the court.

He further argued that the justice of the case required that the appeal be heard and determined timeously.
In his appeal, Marwa is contending that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja were wrong when they held that the affected governors were entitled to stay beyond May 29, 2011.

He wanted the court to hold that the tenure of the governors had expired on May 29. He told the court that he was interested in becoming governor of Adamawa State on the platform of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and that the decision of the Court of Appeal had denied him that opportunity.

Before adjourning the case to October 13 for definite hearing, the apex court said because the appeal involved very weighty issues of constitutional importance, it would be better to afford the other parties a fair hearing.

-ThisDaywp_posts