It is no long news in our political scene the crises in River State Nigeria which could be summarized as an effect of godfatherism in Nigerian polities.
The previous governor of River State Nyesom Wike now the Hon. Minister of the Federal Capital Territory still insist on being the lord over the state and its affair. It is only right that the current governor Siminalayi Fubara takes charge of the state, through the mandate of the people not from the previous governor. It is safe to state that same can be deduce to be the genesis of the crises in river state.
The above issue found its way to the legislative arm of the State which resulted to the decamping of about 27 house members of the state House from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress and a bill to impeach the governor of the state was passed.
Sequel to the above the president intervened.The issue for determination is whether or not such intervention is constitution.
Human Rights Lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, said while the President of Nigeria may intervene in the crises rocking the states, his intervention must always be grounded in the provisions of the Constitution. He also stated that an intervention of the president in the river state political crises should be purely advisory.
Examining the content of the resolution/ presidential directive reached between the stakeholder of River state at the villa, it is inconsistent with the Nigeria jurisprudence under the following reasons;
a. When a matter is before a court and parties intends to settle out of court, an application would be made to the court and if granted, after which terms of settlement be reached and filed in court as consent judgement. In the instant case, there was a breach of a fundamental procedure of law in the sense that the matter is currently before the court of law and terms of settlement was reach without an order of court.
b. The president’s reinstatement of the 27 defected members of the River State House of Assembly is alien to the constitution in every material particular. Section 109 of the constitution provided procedures at which a member’s seat become vacant, the court not the president is constitutionally competent to set aside the pronouncement of the speaker which is in accordance to section 109 of the constitution. Furthermore, the current speaker cannot be removed by a mere directive of the president.
c. Godfatherism is now encourage in the Nigeria by this resolution.
d. This resolution will encourage more illegalities by the members who cross carpeted, reason been that all decisioned reached by the legal house in the period which their seats were vacant was asked to be revisited eg the budget defense and lots more. Their salaries for December was directed to be paid.
In conclusion, the above issue is purely a matter to be guided by the constitution. The court is the interpreter of the law not the presidential villa. We still await the decision of the federal high court on an application come January 2024.
Chief Peter Ameh
National Secretary CUPP