Recently, the Rivers State Governor, Barr. Nyesom Ezebunwo Wike, decided to restore the rights and privileges of former governor Sir Celestine Omehia, who was sacked from office on October 27, 2007, by the Supreme Court. Since Wike took the decision and went further to place his portrait in Government House Port Harcourt, there have been dissenting voices on the subject matter from members of the public, especially from constitutional lawyers. Some had commended Wike for according Omehia that recognition, while others faulted his action, describing his action as an aberration. Not only legal practitioners had argued the matter, even members of the state House of Assembly, All Progressives Congress (APC) among others, had aired their voices on the issue.
Those, who faulted the governor’s decision, invariably supported the verdict of the apex court, maintaining that the judgement has not been vacated. On the contrary, the lawyers, who gave kudos to Wike for recognising Omehia as governor, frowned at the Supreme Court’s verdict, stating that it was given outside the reliefs sought by the former Governor Chibuike Amaechi. The opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) was first to condemn the decision of the governor, saying Wike could not over rule the Supreme Court. The party, through its state Publicity Secretary, Chris Finebone, stated that instead of the governor to set a bad precedence, he should have approached the apex court to reverse that judgement. “As a party, the APC recalls that the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a 2007 verdict, that is now popular in Nigeria, ruled that Sir Celestine Omehia was never a ‘governor in the eyes of the law’ and consequently, nullified his governorship, as having not happened. That landmark judgment also ordered that Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi be sworn-in immediately as the rightful Governor of Rivers State. The Supreme Court explicitly declared that Omehia held the office in error and illegally.” At one of the lawmakers’ plenary sessions recently, as expected, almost all of them, except two, voted in favour of the decision of the state governor. Leader of the House, Martin Amaewhule, had presented a motion on the floor of the House, after the governor had already taken the decision. In the motion, the lawmaker argued that Omehia performed the duties of a governor within the short time he was in office before the apex court sacked him. Moreover, he was said to have proclaimed the Sixth Assembly as a governor. He added that: “It is only to right the wrong; to remove impediments and ensure there was smooth governance”. Ruling on the matter after much contribution by members, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Ikuinyi Owaji Ibani, pointed out that the House did not intend to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court on Omehia, saying “we are trying to look back, if there was a vacuum created”. He said the House would recognise him from the period he was sworn-in as governor and sacked by the Supreme Court, adding that his portrait should be at Government House Port Harcourt. The Speaker said that the House would not debate whether or not his rights and privileges should be restored.
Interestingly, a member of the Sixth Assembly, who is also a member of the Eight Assembly, declined to vote in favour of the decision. Another member from the opposition party was silent on the matter. However, the reactions and views of the legal practitioners, who talked to the reporter, became educating, as they gave divergent interpretations of the clause ‘in the eyes of the law’, as applicable to Omehia. A renowned Port Harcourt-based lawyer, Mr. Festus Ogweche, argued that the matter before the Supreme Court as that time was a pre-election matter over substitution, and not an appeal on an election petition. He maintained that the Supreme Court’s judgment that sacked Omehia failed short of the present realities. Ogweche argued: “Much as I try to find it difficult to reconcile myself with the judgment of the Supreme Court, which installed Amaechi, governor about eight years ago, certain aspects of that judgment are out of sync with the realities of law and jurisprudence. Then, there was also the concrete issue of jurisdiction which I find difficult to convince myself that the Supreme has to do what it did.
“For instance, the matter before their lordships was a pre-election matter over substitution and not an appeal on an election petition. Even at that time, governorship election petitions stopped at the Court of Appeal. So, where is the jurisdiction? I, till date, quarrel with the principle that parties and not candidates are voted into offices and, I have my doubts if that obtains in other constitutional ambience and jurisdiction. Again, to what jurisprudence would you ascribe that to, United States America (USA), Britain, Canada, Australia? Of course, no!
“Now, substitution or not Omehia, was the person, who contested and won the election. Through stringent campaigns, he sought and obtained the people’s mandate and became governor. Supreme Court acknowledged that in the judgement”.
He asked: “Should this reality and the privilege of his short period in office be thrown to the dogs on the basis of the judgement putting Amaechi in his place? No. Can the judgement capsize the fact that he was the subject cum recipient of the people’s mandate? No. Can the Supreme Court decision shorn him of any recognition to the effect that he once was elected governor? Still, no. “Omehia in this sense cannot be likened in the mould of usurpers, who manipulate their ways into elective offices until the courts or tribunals send them packing. So, Governor Wike was right and he has not by so according due recognition and honour to Omehia, set any bad precedence. Omehia, you will agree, was not a usurper, but, rather, a victim of circumstances.
Mr. Ogweche expressed optimism that: “One can here make a valid legal prediction that one day, in not too distant future, the Supreme would find cause to either reverse its decision or overrule itself in that case.” Another constitutional lawyer, Mr. Christian Njigwum, in his submission, said Omehia constitutionally assumed office as governor.
But, he pointed out that with the present law, none of them could be declared a winner. He cited several authorities. Njigwum explained: “Omehia came into power constitutionally; it is important to state that by the current position of the Law, neither Omehia nor Amaechi can be declared a winner. As governor, see Section141 of Electoral Act. They are child of circumstance, is upon this, Amaechi versus INEC (pt1080), that the Electoral Act was amended.” According to him, “Omehia occupied the office of the governor on the strength of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) victory at the 2007 election, as duly elected candidate. See Chukwu V Omehia (2013), pt1354, and was sworn-in, in compliance with Section 185 of the Constitution as governor for over five months before he was removed, and Ameachi was ordered by the Supreme Court to complete the unexhausted tenure, which Omehia vacated. He explained the interpretation of the position of court in respect of Amaechi’s participation in the 2011 governorship election.
“To confirm this in 2011, when INEC excluded Rivers State from election, the court said that, in the eyes of the law, Amaechi’s tenure terminated on 28th May, 2011, by implication recognition of Omehia tenure. Note that the law does not harbour vacuum, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Omehia occupied the office as governor, carried out duties, projects, signed legal documents, built flyovers, none was declared a nullity.
He further cited the case of the former head of Interim National Government, Chief Ernest Shonekan, whose administration was not recognized by law, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and Alhaji Shehu Shagari, who attend heads of state meeting and were entitled to pensions. He concluded that restoring Omehia’s rights as governor, even if it was a day, was in order.
Barrister Finjite Amachree, in his view, said Wike’s decision was accurate. He pointed that Chief Ernest Shonekan’s interim government was declared illegal, yet, he attends heads of government meetings. According to him, Wike merely corrected an absurdity. He argued: “The Supreme Court stated that in the eyes of the law, Omehia never existed as a governor. So, in the eyes of the law, Omehia never appointed commissioners, special advisers, and other political appointees? He never collected salaries, the commissioners, special advisers, aides and other appointees never collected too? “Again, in the eyes of the law, Omehia said anything as a governor, had no deputy governor; the Supreme Court never said anything about him. Omehia never carried out an act; that is, attending governors’ meetings, PDP meetings and others. “The absurdities are endless. It was to correct these absurdities that Governor Wike did what he did, to stop Rivers State from being a laughing stock and continue to live in pretence,” Amachree queried: “Why is it that anything that has to do with Rivers State, people must raise eyebrow? Many of us quarrel with the Supreme Court judgement. How can somebody who did not contest any election be declared a winner? Wike is completely in order.” In the views of another constitutional lawyer, Mr. Angus Chukwuka, what Wike did was not recognized by law and had no basis. He said that it was an affront on the decision of Supreme Court. “Wike’s restoration of Omehia’s privileges and rights is unconstitutional and without legal basis. It is entirely political; but, it ought to have had solid legal foundation. “In Amaechi and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Supreme Court held that it was not Celestine Omehia, who won the election, but, PDP; and since the authentic flag-bearer of PDP was Amaechi, it meant in the eyes of the law, that Omehia was never elected the governor of Rivers State.
“Therefore, if Omehia was never a governor in the eyes of the law, it followed that there is no privilege or right to restore. Wike’s step is an affront on the decision of the Supreme Court contrary to Section 4.5 and 6 1999 Constitution”.
Chukwuka concluded by saying that: “The judgement is novel as it has not been overruled, set aside or upturned. It is still the law. The executive is bound to execute the law as it is interpreted by the judiciary. And, it will amount to executive rascality or excess to defy or derogate from the judicial interpretation of the law. Also, Rivers State Commissioner of Housing, Barr Emma Okah recently faulted a statement credited to the rights activist and former President of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Chief Olisa Agbakoba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) on Omehia’s case. He said the former NBA president misdirected himself on facts and, therefore, was ‘wrong and insensitive’ by describing the decision of the State government to accord a special privilege and recognition to Sir Omehia as “useless, unnecessary and capable of overheating the system”.
Okah, in his argument, said that a state government had the powers to confer an advantage on anybody without reference to any court judgement and wondered why such a reconciliatory and uniting action should annoy Chief Agbakoba.
“This is purely a political concession, far away from the courts. There must be an end to acrimony and bitterness or politics of hate. As a people, we should encourage harmony, peace and consensus building so that we can put the agony of yesterday behind us and together, move the state to greater heights”, he said. He noted that in all jurisdictions, litigants could still seek peace outside the court room or even after judgement and such agreements calmed frayed nerves and healed wounds better and faster. According to Okah, “A time comes when as leaders, you need to think outside the box to solve political problems and create happiness for the people. Nigeria did the same for Chief Ernest Shonekan, who headed the Interim Government, which the Court declared as illegal.
“In Ekiti State, Governor Ayo Fayose accorded similar recognition to Chief Segun Oni even though the court said he was not a governor in law. People are happy with these situations and that of Rivers State cannot be different.”
