My attention has been drawn to a misleading video purported to be created and sponsored by a group called “Joint Action for Democracy.” The video misquoted the Supreme Court case of Dapianlong and 5 others v. Dariye and 1 other, 2007, presided over by Justice Onnoghen, JSC.
Furthermore, the video indicated that the Constitution provided for the automatic declaration of Assembly members’ seats for moving to another party by deliberately citing Section 109, Subsection 1(g) in an incomplete manner to misinform unsuspecting people.
As a legal scholar, several persons have forwarded the video to me and have asked me to further enlighten them on the content of the video. The following is my unbiased assessment of the case and section of the constitution, though I will not delve into the issue of whether the 27 lawmakers have decamped or whether they have already taken an oath claiming to have decamped. The judiciary is tasked with the responsibility of interpreting actions, intent, and the position of the law on issues.
My plea to all parties is to desist from misinforming the people against the judiciary. As a citizen of the state who means well for the people and the government at large, and in order to prevent anarchy in our state, I have spent my time critiquing the video. Let me remind us that there is no section of the 1999 Constitution that declares the seat of a legislator “automatically vacant.” Even the currently trending Section 109, Subsection 1(g) of the 1999 Constitution did not mention or infer “automatic vacancy” of a seat in the event of a lawmaker moving to another party.
Section 109, Subsection 1(g) states:
(1) “A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if”;
(g) “being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected”:
“Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.”
The second paragraph of Subsection 1(g) indicates that the vacancy of a lawmaker in the State House of Assembly as a result of moving to another party can only be resolved and determined in a court of competent jurisdiction because a conflict will arise as to whether it was due to a crisis in the party or not. It is very obvious that at any point, the lawmaker who is moving to another party will assume a conflict or division in the party.
One should not deliberately quote a paragraph of a section or subsection without looking at the subsequent paragraphs.
Also, in the case of Michael Dapianlong and 5 others v. Joshua Chibi Dariye and The Chairman of the Seven (7) Man Panel of Investigation, SC. 39/2007, presided over by Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C, the court’s main focus was the proper interpretation of the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of “all the members” of the House of Assembly for valid impeachment proceedings, which was not satisfied by the 8 members out of 24 who carried out the impeachment. The Supreme Court upheld the strict compliance with the constitutional provisions. Instead of this case being used against the 27 Lawmakers of the State House of Assembly, it can instead be used to invalidate all actions carried out by Oko-Jombo and Co.
The key points of the judgment are as follows:
1. 8 out of the remaining 10 members initiated and carried out the impeachment proceedings against the 1st respondent (Governor Dariye).
2. Section 188(4) of the 1999 Constitution requires that a motion for the investigation of allegations against a Governor must be supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of the House of Assembly.
3. Two-thirds of 24 members is 16 members. The 8 members who initiated and voted for the impeachment did not constitute the required two-thirds majority of all the members.
4. The Supreme Court held that the impeachment proceedings were unconstitutional, null, and void for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 188(4) of the Constitution.
5. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had nullified the impeachment and reinstated the 1st respondent (Governor Dariye) to his office.
Conclusion:
The analysis of the video and the relevant constitutional provisions clearly shows that the video contains misleading and inaccurate information. The video misinterpreted the Supreme Court case of Dapianlong and 5 others v. Dariye and 1 other, as well as the provisions of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Dapianlong case was focused on the proper interpretation of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority of “all the members” of the House of Assembly for valid impeachment proceedings, which was not satisfied in that case. The video’s attempt to use this case against the 27 lawmakers is misguided and inaccurate.
Furthermore, the video’s portrayal of Section 109(1)(g) as providing for the “automatic declaration of Assembly members’ seats” for moving to another party is a deliberate misrepresentation of the law. The section clearly states that the vacancy of a lawmaker’s seat can only be resolved and determined in a court of competent jurisdiction, as a conflict may arise as to whether the move was due to a crisis in the party or not.
Recommendation:
Based on the above analysis, it is recommended that:
1. All parties should desist from misinforming the public against the judiciary and the Constitution. The role of the judiciary in interpreting the law should be respected, and attempts to undermine it should be condemned.
2. The relevant authorities should investigate the source and sponsors of the misleading video and take appropriate action to prevent the spread of such disinformation.
3. The public should be cautioned against relying on unverified information and should seek authoritative sources when seeking clarity on legal and constitutional matters.
4. The ongoing issues regarding the 27 lawmakers should be addressed through proper legal channels, with due respect for the rule of law and the constitutional provisions.
Overall, this assessment aims to provide an objective and impartial analysis of the video and the relevant legal issues, in order to prevent the spread of misinformation and maintain the integrity of the judicial process and the Constitution.
