A member of the Rivers State Elders and Leaders Forum, Aseme-Alabo Professor Edward Bristol-Alagbariya, is the Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Port Harcourt (UNIPORT). He was one of the signatories of the communiqué issued by the forum during the week in reaction to the eight-point directive of President Bola Tinubu to resolve the lingering legislative and executive crisis gripping the state. He speaks with IMOLEAYO OYEDEYI on some of the issues raised by the elders in the document and why the president’s directive cannot stand.
PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu recently issued an eight-point directive to the warring camps in Rivers State in a bid to resolve the legislative and executive crisis almost sinking the state. But the president’s move has received more criticisms than commendations. As a professor of Law, what is your reaction?
Rivers State is a state of its own. We have our own three arms of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. So what role do you want the president to play? The president plays a role only at the federal level of governance.
Some senior lawyers have argued that the president does not have a constitutional role to ask defecting lawmakers to return to their seats in the Rivers State assembly; do you agree with them?
Of course, the president cannot do that. He is a chief executive and belongs to the executive arm of government. There is the legislative arm of the government, which has done its work by the Nigerian law and constitution. And so, the president who has sworn to uphold the constitution of the country cannot subvert the same constitution and the sacred doctrine of separation of power, affecting himself as a chief executive belonging to the executive arm of government. This is because we have a legislative arm of government that is distinct and separate. The issue on the ground is very clear and there should be no intense debate about it. I stand with the position of senior lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) on the matter. He did not oppose the president’s intervention in the Rivers crisis but has explicitly stated the constitutional provisions, the law of the land, and due process.
He said he agreed with former Lagos State governor, Tunde Fashola (SAN), that President Tinubu has no constitutional role in resolving the political crisis in both Ondo and Rivers states, which therefore, means the intervention of the president in both cases is purely advisory.
He said the seats of the cross-carpeting members of the Rivers State House of Assembly have been declared vacant by the speaker known to law. To that extent, the Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] is mandatorily required to conduct the by-election once the ex parte order issued by the Federal High Court last Friday is quashed.
According to him, even if all the cases in the Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court are withdrawn in line with the advice of the president, it is submitted that all actions taken by the speaker recognised by the Rivers State High Court remain valid, including his pronouncement on the vacant seats of the 27 cross-carpeting members of the House. In other words, only a court of law is constitutionally competent to set aside the pronouncement of the speaker, which is anchored on Section 109 of the Constitution. Furthermore, as Falana rightly said, since the speaker has not been removed by the required number of legislators, a presidential directive cannot remove him.
In the Rivers State Elders and Leaders Forum, our position is that the directives unilaterally suspended the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by virtue of an attempt to reverse a court order recognising Edison Ehie as the speaker and directing that the remainder of the members of the House of Assembly constituted the quorum for legislative business. We stated that the directive also contravenes the hallowed doctrine and practice of separation of powers, particularly as it affects the responsibility of the judiciary. We wondered whether Mr President or the executive arm of government could overrule the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction. We posited that the president’s directive portends executive rascality which undermines our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and good governance.
To us, the directives to the parties were one-sided in favour of Chief Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and to the detriment of the Governor Siminialayi Fubara, and the good people of Rivers State. We believe that in the eyes of the law and due process, as evidenced by the Rivers State High Court decision, Martins Amaewhule and his team have ceased to exist in the state House of Assembly having defected to another political party, and therefore cannot be reinstated and remunerated through the back door.
The executive arm of government must provide accommodation for legislators in a constitutional democracy as exemplified by the FCT minister concerning the National Assembly. As we have stated in the communiqué, it is hypocritical to suggest that the Rivers State House of Assembly under Martins Amaewhule could sit anywhere of their choice, whereas, in Abuja, it is the FCT Minister, on behalf of the executive arm that provides accommodation for federal legislators.
But in the eye of the constitution, what should the president have done in resolving the Rivers crisis?
The only constitutional role the president has in cases like this is to advise. It is purely advisory, not to be giving directives. The president cannot do that at all, even though he is the chief executive of the country. Whatever he has to do must be in tandem with the ground norm, which is the constitution of the country, and any other enactment as a subsidiary law, and due process of the law. I read that the defected Assembly members have withdrawn the impeachment notice they served on the Rivers governor, but it is really of no issue. They have said they have resigned from their party. So, the only thing is for them to go to another party and try their luck. Since they said they have resigned and have given notice to that effect, their party should deal with the matter. Already, the Electoral Act and the constitution have a way of dealing with issues of those who were elected on a party platform but have resigned from the party, which means they have traded with the people’s mandate. So, I think they are open to a new election.
But do you think this may likely happen since it appears both camps will likely follow the president’s directive…
Nobody will follow the president’s directive, because he has contravened the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He has no directive; what he has given is null and void. It has no standing in law. The president cannot just wake up, because he is the president and begin to breach the constitution that he has sworn to uphold. He cannot do that, and nobody is going to allow him to do such.
So what is the way forward now?
The solution is for everyone to abide by the constitution of the land and not go for photo-shopping. When there is a matter in court and the court has given a ruling, you should simply go and appeal the verdict, not go behind to photoshop the same order.
What will be your advice to the Rivers State governor, given the president’s directive on the crisis?
I cannot advise the governor, because the president cannot give him a directive on matters like this. The directive has no place in law and is of no effect. The president should not bring his office to public ridicule. It is not good. He has advisers and the Attorney General of the Federation is there. These are issues that are legal and constitutional. They also border on the separation of power. Is governance a child’s play?
Are you saying the AGF should have come into the picture instead of the president?
I am not saying so. But if the president feels that some constitutional matters and issues have to do with law and he does not know much about it, the AGF is there to advise him. So the president should have allowed the AGF to advise him accordingly. He would not have made this mistake by bringing his position and office to public ridicule.
But can the mistake be corrected?
It cannot. The directive is void because it has no standing in law. You cannot be putting something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will not stand. So, let the president go to his advisers for the proper advice. I am not going to go any further or play with the jurisprudence of the matter. Let everyone just stick to the rule of law and abide by the constitution of the country and the positions of all subsidiary enactments. We should also respect the doctrine of separation of powers. That will lead us to good governance, sanity, and fair play, while we move on as a people. Thank you.
READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
