Mike Ozekhome

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS

In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.

Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.

That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as  executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.

FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is  an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.

The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.

[READ ALSO] President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove an Elected Governor of a State (1)

This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.

The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly (whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???

THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL

Some have sought, in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.

The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Government it would have turned to.

The absurdity of this power imbalance, even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?

Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.

Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.

In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?

THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.

This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless.The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils

HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE

If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.

Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:

a.. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;

1. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;
2. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;
3. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;
4. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.

If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario.

ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very very essence of democracy.

Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics.

However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.

The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.

INTRODUCTION

In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency.

Let me be very firm most categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision, statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government. That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship. The last time I checked, she is supposed to be governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave, having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded,” L’Etat C’est Moi” (“I am the State” ). A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing. We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances”; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest. I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan

And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?

Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power, authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular. The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted, or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell, but time is certainly not on our side.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.

Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?

Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523)

A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as

“when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”

“Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.

[READ ALSO] Chief Edwin Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo: Two Legends Death could not Kill

The Constitution in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency:  (1)  Reasons for proclaiming it;  (2)  How it is proclaimed;  (3)  How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.

Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:

1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.

2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”

None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met, discussed and approved the president’s emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance ( in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundlly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history. Otherwise, they should be prepared to be damnified by history.

I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office, whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function, unless expressly provided otherwise by law. There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level.

The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court’s judgement. A mere blow  up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM

Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas. governments. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government, for as Lord Acton once explained, “power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.

Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.

CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?

The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999  Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.

INTRODUCTION

THE TYRANNY OF DEATH AND THE INDOMITABLE SPIRIT OF MANKIND

Death, shame on you. You have always killed the body, not the soul; never the legacy. Such is the fate of the last two men standing, Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who died few days from each other. From the dawn of existence, mankind has lived under the unyielding shadow of death. It is the ultimate oppressor; the force that acknowledges neither power nor piety; neither nobility nor knowledge. It is the great leveller; the final conqueror before whom all men- kings and commoners; heroes and villains; patricians and plebeians; rich and poor-must bow. Wearing a monstrous visage with fangs bared, death stalks us unseen. It strikes without warning. It is indifferent to the hopes, aspirations, dreams and struggles of humanity. Like our shadow, it follows us everywhere, sticking to us like a second skin. Viktor Franki was dead right when he wrote, “Death is the greatest tyrant of all, it is the one that can take away our freedom, our dignity, and humanity”. Perhaps the most eloquent tribute to death came from Thomas Sowell. Hear him: “Death is the greatest leveler, the ultimate democrat, but it is also the greatest tyrant, for it treats all lives as equal in their insignificance”.

The Psalmist explains man’s fragility better: “Man is like a breath; his days are like a fleeting shadow.” (Psalm 144:4). Indeed, life is but a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. James 4:14 puts it better when it proclaims, “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” And now, that fleeting shadow has claimed the twin colossi of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo. These were two towering figures whose lives were totally dedicated to the attainment of justice, democracy, and the eternal struggle against oppression. They stood like ancient baobabs in the political landscape of Nigeria, their roots intertwined with the fight for equity, their voices thunderous in the corridors of power.

Expressing the fleetness of life, Macbeth in Act 5, Scene 5 of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, intoned that “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.”

Yet, for all their power and defiance, they too have fallen to the callous hands of death; embraced by the inevitable grasp of mortality. “The death of a righteous man is never the death of his deeds, nor the end of his influence.” This is the paradox of existence: death takes men, but it cannot take away their legacy. It silences voices, but it cannot silence the echoes of the truth they spoke. It buries bodies, but it cannot bury the fire they ignited in the hearts of those they left behind.

Consider the tale of Achilles, the greatest warrior of Greek mythology. He was given a choice: a long, uneventful life or a short life filled with glory that would make his name immortal. He chose the latter, knowing that though his body would perish, his name would be sung in eternity. Like Achilles, Pa Clark and Pa Adebanjo chose the path of impact over the comfort of obscurity. Their names, their struggles, their legacy, will not be forgotten. NEVER!!!

Death, in its arrogance wrongly believes it has silenced them. But can death truly claim victory over men whose legacy outlives their mortal forms? The answer is an emphatic no. Death may take the body, but it cannot take the impact. It may silence the voice, but it cannot silence the ideology. The greatest flaw of death is its inability to erase the echoes of greatness. The African proverb is right that “the dead are not gone; they are only in another room”. As Haruki Murakami once put it, “Death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it”. Julius Caesar in Williams Shakespeare’s epic by the same title, “Julius Caesar” defanged death when he refused the entreaties of Calpurnia, his wife not to go to the Capital for fear of being assassinated by the conspirators. He shredded death thus, “No, Caesar shall not.  Danger knows full well that Caesar is more dangerous than he. We are two lions littered in one day, and I the elder and more terrible”. (Act 2 Scene 2).

CHIEF EDWIN CLARK, THE LION OF THE NIGER DELTA

This Nationalist spent all his life in ceaseless advocacy, ensuring that his people were not reduced to mere spectators in a nation built on their resources. He was not just a politician; he was a movement, a force of nature. He spoke for the voiceless, demanded justice for the marginalized, and carried the weight of an entire region’s hopes on his shoulders. Beyond these, his common cliché was “we are all Nigerians” a clear exemplification of this Pan-Nigerianity.

CHIEF AYO ADEBANJO

Chief Ayo Adebanjo, on the other hand, was the embodiment of ideological purity. As a disciple of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, he stood firmly by the principles of federalism, free education, and self-determination. His words carried the weight of history. His defiance against injustice never wavered; and his belief in a restructured Nigeria remained unshaken even in his final days. He was, as Marcus Garvey once said, “a lion who did not live to entertain hyenas.”

Yet, death still claimed them as it has claimed countless others before them. Death will still claim more. Its bacchanalian propensity to consume mortals like Bacchus the good of wine is unhinged. The finality of mortality forces a painful question upon us: If even men of such towering stature cannot defy death, then what hope does mankind have?

But therein lies the irony. True death is not the cessation of breath but the erasure of memory. These men are not truly gone. Their essence remains, immortalized in the ideals they fought for, in the words they spoke, and in the lives they touched.

We are reminded of the African proverb: “A man dies twice. The first is when he breathes his last; the second is when his name is spoken for the last time.” Pa Clark and Pa Adebanjo, by virtue of their works, have ensured that the second death shall never come. Their names will be inscribed in the annals of history; their voices will continue to echo through the ages. In the grand battle between mankind and death, memory is the battlefield. And men like Clark and Adebanjo never truly lose out.

THE GIANTS AND THEIR ETERNAL STRUGGLES

To understand the lives of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo is to understand the very fabric of Nigeria’s history, its triumphs and tragedies, its betrayals and its resilience. These were not men who merely lived through history; they made history themselves. They were not silent observers; they were architects of change and warriors in the relentless fight for justice.

Yet, even the greatest of warriors must one day lay down their swords. The passing of these two titans forces us to confront the painful reality that no man, no matter how powerful, can defeat the tyranny of time. It is as the Bible states in Ecclesiastes 9:11, “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.”

But if time has claimed their mortal frames, it has not diminished their impact. Death has never been able to claim greatness. It has tried throughout the ages but failed abysmally. Silencing Socrates did not kill philosophy. Crucifying Christ did not end Christianity. Assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. did not halt the civil rights movement killing Adaka Boro and Ken Saro Wiwa did not end Niger Delta agitation. Likewise, the passing of Chief Clark and Chief Adebanjo will not end their struggle.

EDWIN CLARK: THE INDOMITABLE VOICE OF THE NIGER DELTA

The story of Edwin Clark is the story of a man who refused to be silent or silenced. His life was defined by resistance, relentless advocacy and the ceaseless fight for equity. From his earliest days, he knew that the Niger Delta, despite being the economic heartbeat of Nigeria, had been condemned to perpetual marginalization and squalor. Oil flowed beneath the feet of his people, yet poverty sat on their shoulders. Their land was rich, but their lives were poor. There is water everywhere, but like in the ancient Marina, none fit enough to drink. Clark refused to accept this as man-imposed destiny.

He fiercely championed resource control, fiscal federalism and the rights of the marginalized, knowing that freedom is never freely given but must be fought for and won. His voice thundered in political arenas; his presence was felt in the highest echelons of power; and his influence shaped the policies that sought to address the inequities of his time.

One of Pa Clark’s defining moments was the 2005 National Political Reform Conference, where he led the South South Delegates Forum in one of the most historic protests against the injustice of oil revenue allocation. When Northern delegates refused to allow an 18% derivation formula for oil-producing states, Clark led a mass walkout. This was not just a political maneuver; it was an act of defiance, a statement that injustice must never be negotiated, tolerated but must be rejected. I was the spokes person for the entire South South delegates at the Conference.

A true leader does not retreat, and Clark never did. Even at 97, Pa Clark was still on television screen, pontificating, advocating, teaching, directing and crusading for good governance, restructuring and strong Nigerian nation. His life was a testament to the words of the legendary poet Dylan Thomas, who wrote: “Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Clark never surrendered to injustice. And though death has claimed him, his voice will continue to echo in every struggle for equity in Nigeria. His light will continue to illuminate dark paths towards national regurgimento, restructuring, equity, egalitarianism and social justice.

AYO ADEBANJO: THE ETERNAL FLAME OF IDEOLOGY

If Chief Edwin Clark was a warrior for the Niger Delta and enthronement of justice in the Nigerian space, Chief Ayo Adebanjo was a lion of ideological purity. In a world where political leaders switch allegiances as easily as changing tissue papers, Chief Ayo Adebanjo remained unwavering in his ideological beliefs. From his earliest days in the Action Group, under the mentorship of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Adebanjo embraced a set of principles that would define his entire life-true federalism, free education, regional autonomy, and social justice. While many leaders evolved into political opportunists, Adebanjo remained a true disciple and guardian of Awolowo’s ideals, unshaken by the temptations of power.

Pa Adebanjo was imprisoned, harassed and exiled; yet he never compromised. In 1993, when the military annulled MKO Abiola’ selection, Adebanjo was at the forefront of NADECO (National Democratic Coalition), risking his limbs and life to demand the restoration of democracy. He was not one for silent negotiations; his brand of politics was radical, bold and unapologetic. “There is no diplomacy in truth,” he often said.

Chief Adebanjo’s fearless advocacy extended into his old age. In his 90s, he was still one of the loudest voices demanding the restructuring of Nigeria. While younger politicians hesitated or defected, fearful of repercussions, Adebanjo spoke with fire and clarity, insisting that Nigeria’s survival depended on true federalism. His courage reminds us of Winston Churchill’s words: “To each, there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do something unique to them and their talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared or unqualified for what could have been their finest hour.”

Adebanjo did not just seize his moment; he made sure every moment of his life was dedicated to fighting for justice. If Edwin Clark and Ayo Adebanjo have taught us anything, it is that death’s greatest weakness is its inability to erase legacy. It is said that when Alexander the Great lay on his deathbed, he ordered his generals to carry his coffin with his hands stretched out. When asked why, he said: “Let the world see that even the greatest conqueror leaves this world empty-handed.”

But some men do not leave empty-handed. They leave behind them movements, ideas, ideologies, revolutions and a generation greatly inspired to carry on their good works. That is the difference between ordinary men and legends. Clark and Adebanjo were legends.

Death thought it could silence Chief Clark and Chief Adebanjo, but death has yet failed. It could not erase or silence names which are now immortal, etched into the pages of Nigeria’s history. Their ideas and ideals will live on in the youthful activists who demand a just Nigeria; in the communities that still fight for fairness; and in the common people who refuse to accept oppression as their fate.

Therefore, even as we mourn these two legends, we must recognize that they have won the only battle that matters-the battle against irrelevance; against obscurity. Surely, their bodies will rest, but their fight continues.

DEFYING DEATH THROUGH LEGACY

As I reflect on the passing of Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo, I am struck by one immutable truth: death may take the man, but it cannot take his legacy. The true measure of a life is not in its duration but in its impact. These two titans of justice and democracy may have departed, but their spirits remain embedded in the struggles they fought and the victories they secured. The philosopher Marcus Aurelius once said, “What we do now echoes in eternity.” And indeed, Chiefs Clark and Adebanjo lived lives that will echo far beyond their years. They were not merely politicians; they were symbols of defiance, embodiments of truth, and sentinels of justice who challenged impunity and spoke truth to power.

Their deaths, like those of all great men, force us to ask: What remains after the body has returned to dust? What is the true test of immortality? If it is in the endurance of one’s impact, then these men have conquered death itself.

MY PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS WITH PA ADEBANJO

I have had the rare privilege of knowing and working closely alongside these giants in their lifetime. My undiluted respect for them is not borne out of distant admiration, but from personal experience; from standing in the trenches with them in the many battles for a better Nigeria. Of Chief Ayo Adebanjo, I had earlier written with conviction thus:

“Chief Ayo Adebanjo is truly one of the very last of the Mohicans – the last men standing. Here’s wishing and praying that he outlives his father and continues well beyond his 100-year anniversary in good health, fine cheer, and peace that passeth all understanding.”

(https://www.google.com/search?q=CHIEF+AYO+ADEBANJO%253A+A+MEMBER+OF+THE+DWINDLING+MOHICANS; https://mikeozekhomeschambers.com/chief-ayo-adebanjo-a-member-of-the-dwindling-mohicans/,

Papa Adebanjo’s passing is therefore not just a personal loss but a national one. He was more than a political figure; he was an ideologue, a moral force in a landscape often devoid of conscience. He lived not for himself but for the idea of a fair and just Nigeria, and his unyielding advocacy for restructuring will not be forgotten. While he fought from the NADECO flank, I fought from the human rights and pro-democracy odeon. We always converged towards achieving common goals of having a better and more equitable Nigeria.

MY PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH PA CLARK

My encounter with Pa Edwin Clark was equally profound. I remember vividly the 2005 National Political Reform Conference, where I was entrusted with the role of Publicity Secretary and Spokesperson for the South-South Delegates Forum. It was there that I saw first hand Clark’s brilliance, his uncommon courage and defiance; and his ability to command respect from all and sundry. He was the undisputed leader of the South-South Delegation, and under his guidance and leadership of a field Marshal, we fought for a well-structured federation; for devolution of power; and for a fair derivation formula for oil-producing states.

Thus, when our proposal of a modest 18% derivation was rejected by the Northern delegates who said the South-South should even be grateful for 13% it was having, Clark led the historic walkout; an event that has since been termed the “First Walkout” in Nigeria’s conference history. It was a moment of historic reckoning, a statement that the oppression of the oil-bearing communities of the Niger Delta would not go unanswered. I stood with him, alongside other progressive minds, as we challenged the status quo and demanded justice and fairness. That was the kind of man Pa Clark was-fearless, courageous, bold, unrelenting and unbowed.

Pa was a father to all; a mentor; a scholar; and an activist who led from the front. He loathed sycophancy, servility and political opportunism. You either loved him passionately or hated him malevolently, but never could you ignore him.

THE FINAL DEFIANCE: A LEGACY THAT CANNOT BE BURIED

It is often said that “a man dies twice: once when his body ceases to function, and again when his name is spoken for the last time.” If that is true, then Clark and Adebanjo will never truly die. Their names will be spoken for generations to come, their contributions studied in classrooms, and their courage invoked by young activists who refuse to accept a Nigeria that is anything less than just.

Like Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea, they parted the waters of oppression and repression, clearing a path of for those who would come after them. Like Socrates drinking the hemlock, they stood by their convictions even when the price was too high. And like Mandela in Robben Island, they fought a system designed to silence them and won.

If death thought it could erase them, it has grossly miscalculated. For their works remain; their speeches still resonate; their ideas still shape the destiny of Nigeria.

It is a cruel paradox of existence that we must often celebrate greatness in the shadow of its departure. That we must find words to honor titans whose very absence renders language inadequate. But if time is the great equalizer, then it is also the thief of presence. It robs us of our icons, leaving us with only echoes of wisdom where once stood the steadfast guardians of justice. And yet, not all echoes fade.

As I write this elegy for two legends, my heart is heavy and sad for Nigeria; but my resolve is strengthened. The best way to honour them is not through words but through action. To those of us who remain, their deaths must not mark the end of their battles; it must mark their rebirth in those of us left behind.

They have passed the torch to us. It is now our duty to ensure that their labours and sacrifices are not in vain.

Rest well, Chief Edwin Clark.

Rest well, Chief Ayo Adebanjo.

INTRODUCTION

In a landmark decision in ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62576(SC) last year, the Supreme Court gave the local government system full autonomy, warning governors to keep their political fingers off Local Government Councils (LGCs). The legal status of the LGCs in Osun State has however been the subject of intense political and judicial debate following the 2022 local government elections. The matter has seen multiple judicial determinations, culminating in two critical Federal High Court judgements; one obtained by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the other by the Action Peoples Party (APP). While both judgements invalidated the elections conducted by the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC), the judgement secured by APP remains the extant, binding, and subsisting legal authority, as no superior court has set it aside.

DISTORTION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE JUDGMENTS

In recent times, misinterpretations and misinformation have sought to distort the legal position, with some claiming that a recent Court of Appeal judgement reinstated the sacked local government officials. However, a critical examination of the Court of Appeal’s latest decision shows that it merely struck out the PDP’s appeal on the ground that no cause of action had arisen at the time of its filing. The position of the law in this regard is that when judgements are not to the substance of a case, they do not change the rights and liabilities of parties. See the case of IGBUNBOR V. AFOLABI (2001) FWLR (Pt. 59) 1284 at 165. Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not nullify or overturn the subsisting Federal High Court judgement granted in favour of APP, which therefore remains the authoritative and binding authority affecting the rights of the parties.

It is therefore meet that we clarify the foggy situation by analyzing the relevant judgements, applicable laws, and legal principles that govern the status of the 2022 Osun local government elections. This analysis will demonstrate that the local government councils were legally dissolved and that no subsequent judicial pronouncement had restored them. It will also demonstrate that the latest foiled invasion of many LGCs across Osun State by some APC persons is unconstitutional, illegal and amounted to self-help.

THE 2022 OSUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS HALLMARKED LEGAL CHALLENGES

The dispute over the Osun local government elections actually commenced in 2022, following the conduct of the elections by OSSIEC. The elections were challenged in court on the basis that OSSIEC had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 thereof.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Peoples Party (APP) had separately instituted legal actions at the Federal High Court, seeking to have the elections nullified. The basis of these suits was OSSIEC’s alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional violations.

THE PDP SUIT IN BRIEF

In the case of PDP, it was alleged that OSSIEC was planning to conduct local government election in Osun State in violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 30 and 150 thereof. PDP also called on the Federal High Court to apply the decision of the Supreme Court in OSSIEC & ANOR V. ACTION CONGRESS & ORS (2010) LLJR-SC (delivered in 2010), to the effect that any notice of a local government election which is not in compliance with the Electoral Act is null and void. The law in existence as at the time of filing the said suit was the OSSIEC Law, 2015 (as amended).

While the suit was pending, the Osun State House of Assembly repealed the existing 2015 amended OSSIEC Law, and enacted the new OSSIEC Law, 2022, which prescribed 360 days’ notice for election, same as contained in the Electoral Act, 2022. OSSIEC then, during the pendency of the action, published a notice of election prescribing only 60 days as against the 360 days specified by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

PDP, then, by an order of court, amended its processes to bring in the new development. OSSIEC still went ahead with the conduct of the election and the All Progressives Congress (APC) participated despite the pendency of the suit at the Federal High Court. It was after the election that the APC and some of its candidates brought a joinder application to the suit in a representative capacity, for all its candidates who reportedly participated at the election. The Federal High Court granted their application for joinder and the whole court processes were amended to reflect all the parties and issues. On 25^th November, 2022, the Federal High Court delivered a judgment in the suit, nullifying the election and consequentially sacking all the purported elected officials.

SUMMARY OF THE APP SUIT

The APP’s suit was similar to the PDP suit in all respects; the only difference being that the APP’s suit was filed after the enactment of the OSSIEC Law 2022 and after the publication of the 60-day election notice by OSSIEC, as against 360 days provided by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

While both parties obtained favourable judgements, the judgement in the APP suit has become the legally binding decision, as APC’s appeal against it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the 13^th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution. This dismissal rendered the APP judgement the final and only subsisting authority on the matter.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTIONS

The FHC Judgement in APP v. OSIEC (Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/75/2022)

In this case filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP), the Federal High Court (FHC), delivered a landmark judgement that rendered the October 15, 2022, Osun Statw local government elections null and void. The court held that the elections violated the Electoral Act, 2022, and were also inconsistent with the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

The FHC in the APP case held as follows:

“The election into local government councils across Osun State held on the 15th of October 2022, pursuant to the notice of election issued on the 15th of August 2022, is hereby declared unconstitutional, invalid, null, and void for violation of the Constitution and breach of Sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

“All persons or individuals occupying offices in the state local government councils by virtue of the said election are accordingly sacked from holding such offices.”

“Sections 25 and 26 of the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission Law, 2022, having been enacted in contravention of Paragraph 12 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution and being inconsistent with Sections 29 and 32 of the Electoral Act, 2022, are hereby struck down.”

I agree with the decision of the FHC because it is trite law that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void and must be struck down because the Constitution is the grundnorm of the land (see section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 [as amended]). The Supreme Court, Per JAURO, JSC, pronounced on the supremacy of the Constitution in NPF & ORS V POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782(SC) (P.154, paras. A-F), thus:

“It is equally imperative to restate the elementary principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the grundnorm, the basic law of the land. It stands head and shoulders above any other law or instrument enacted by the National Assembly, State House of Assembly or any other person or authority empowered in that regard. It is from the Constitution that every other enactment or instrument derive their validity and binding force. The doctrine of the Supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution is traceable to Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), which provides thus: “1. Supremacy of the Constitution (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

Consequently, as was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LIMITED V HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC 1, there is undoubted power in the Court to declare null and void any law that conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution”. See also the cases of HON. INAJOKU & ORS V. ADELEKE & ORS (2007) ALL FWLR; OLAFISOYE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2004) ALL FWLR 1106; AINABEBHOLO V. EDO STATE UNIVERSITY WORKERS FARMERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (2007) ALL FWLR 712; PDP v. EDEDE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57480(CA); PRESIDENT OF THE FRN & ORS v. ISA & ORS (2015) LPELR-25981(CA); and, AG FEDERATION & ORS v. ABUBAKAR & ORS (2007) LPELR-3(SC).

The legal implication of this judgement cannot be overstated. By declaring the 2022 Osun State LG elections unconstitutional, null and void, the court completely erased any legal foundation for the existence of the local government councils elected through that flawed process. The said APP judgement was also a judgement in rem, meaning that it applied to the whole world, all parties and stakeholders, and non-parties alike, irrespective of whether or not they participated in the litigation. In DIKE & ORS V. NZEKA II & ORS (1986) LPELR-945 (SC), the Supreme Court underscored this point most lucidly when it held:

“… A judgment is said to be in rem when it is an adjudication pronounced upon the status of some particular thing or subject matter by a Tribunal having the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on that Status. Such a judgment is usually and invariably founded on proceedings instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. It is thus a solemn declaration on the status of some persons or thing. It is therefore binding on all persons in so far as their interests in the status of the property or person are concerned. That is why a judgment in rem is a judgment contra mundum – binding on the whole world – parties as well as non-parties. ….”

See also the cases of OYETOLA & ANOR v. INEC & ORS  (2023) LPELR-60392(SC); and, A.G. ABIA STATE & ORS V. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (2022) LPELR-57010 (SC).

The Dismissal of APC’s Subsequent Appeal and the Finality of the APP Judgement

Following the Federal High Court’s judgement, the All Progressives Congress (APC), which had benefited from the October 2022 elections, appealed the judgement in the case filed by APP. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the 13^th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution.

The legal implication of that dismissal is that the FHC’s judgement in the APP case remains the extant and binding position of the law. Under section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, all authorities and persons within Nigeria, including government institutions, political parties, and law enforcement agencies are obligated to enforce and abide by the said judgement, the appeal arising therefrom having been dismissed.

The current legal position on the status of the Osun State LGCs following these decisions of both the FHC, Oshogbo, and the Court of Appeal is that the earlier judgment of the FHC, which nullified the local government elections conducted on October 15, 2022, remains binding and validly subsisting. The election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 therefore stands nullified, while all candidates in that election remain sacked. This will continue to be the position of the law until the judgment is set aside by the apex court of the land at the instance of the APP.

The PDP Case and the Court of Appeal’s Technical Dismissal of Same

The PDP had in a separate case similar to APP’s, also challenged the legality of the OSSIEC conducted elections. The FHC sitting in Oshogbo had held in its favour. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal sitting at Akure struck it out on technical grounds. The court held that the PDP’s case was premature and speculative, having been filed prematurely when notice of the election had not yet been issued at the time of filing. This, in the intermediate Court’s view,  deprived the FHC of jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeal was right as is trite that where a matter is instituted when no cause of action has arisen, the doctrine of ripeness applies and such a matter becomes merely speculative and amounts to an academic exercise. This position of the law was upheld in the cases of EDEVIE V. OROHWEDOR & ORS (2022) LPELR-58931 (SC); OGBIMI V. OLOLO & ORS (1993) LPELR-2280(SC); and, UWAZURUONYE v. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-20604(SC).

It must be understood that this judgement did not invalidate the decision earlier obtained by APP at the FHC. Rather, it was a purely procedural decision that had no bearing whatsoever on the substantive matter – the validity or invalidity of the Osun State LG elections. The Court of Appeal held as follows:

“As at the time the PDP brought the suit, the cause of action had not arisen because the notice of election had not been issued. The suit was therefore premature.”

This judgement merely struck out the PDP’s appeal without ruling on the legality or otherwise of the elections. Nor were  consequential orders made. More significantly, no declaration or consequential orders were made reinstating the ousted local government officials. When no consequential orders are made in a suit, the status quo remains as contained in the judgement appealed against. See the cases of AKINBOBOLA V. PLISSON FISKO (NIG) LTD & ORS (1991) LPELR-343(SC) and FCDA STAFF MULTI-PURPOSE (COOP) SOCIETY & ORS V. SAMCHI & ANOR (2018) LPELR-444380(CA). The fundamental issues that could have propelled the Court of Appeal to pronounce on the validity or otherwise of the notice of election and the propriety or otherwise of sacking the APC purported elected council officials who had participated in the said election were never considered by the Court of Appeal as they were treated as academic.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: THE INCONTROVERTIBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS

The 2022 Osun State LG Elections Were Null and Void

By virtue of the APP FHC judgement, the 2022 Osun local government elections were clearly unconstitutional and void from the outset. As a matter of law, a void act confers no legal right. When an act is void, it is void for all times and is not required to be set aside. In the case of OYENEYIN & ANOR V. AKINKUGBE & ANOR (2010) LPELR-2875 (SC), the apex court held that:

“In law, a void act is an act which has no legal effect or consequence. It does not confer any legal right or title whatsoever, and it does not impose any legal obligation or liability on any one or make any party liable to suffer any penalty or disadvantage.”

In simple terms, one cannot put something upon nothing and expect it to stand. It will collapse. See the cases of LEONARD MACFOY V. UAC LIMITED (1962) AC 152; OKWUOSA V. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 (SC); IFEANYI V. OGBA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58787(SC); and, MUSTAPHA & ORS V. ADENOPO & ORS (2020) LPELR-51409(CA). Consequently, no political party, individual or group can lay any valid claim to any Osun State local government offices based on the voided election.

All Purported Local Government Officials Remain Legally Removed from Office

Since the FHC in the APP case had expressly sacked all persons occupying the local government positions and no appellate court has reversed that judgement, all the said officials remain legally removed from office. The said judgement remains binding on all parties and the whole world until set aside.

Indeed, the Supreme Court had upheld this position of the law in NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC), where it held:

“…The judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset on appeal. While the judgment subsists, every person affected by it or against whom an order is made must obey it even if it appears wrong. Judgments take effect immediately they are delivered and every Court has inherent power to proceed to enforce judgments at once. The enforcements on delivery can only be interrupted by a stay of execution provided there is an appeal.”

The Court of Appeal’s Judgement in the PDP Appeal Did Not Reinstate Anyone

Contrary to the position of the sacked LG officials who had sought to forcibly gate-crash into their offices, the Court of Appeal never reinstated any sacked LG officials. It merely struck out the PDP’s case without considering or commenting on the validity or otherwise of the voided elections. Consequently, any claim that the Court of Appeal reinstated the ousted chairmen is a deliberate distortion of facts and a result to sophistry.

The APP Judgement Is Binding on All Parties

Since APC’s appeal against the APP FHC judgement was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, that judgement remains final and binding on all political parties, individuals and institutions in Osun State. See the case of NOEKOER V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44350(SC), where the apex court held that:

“it is well settled law that the  judgement of a competent court subsists and remains binding until it is set aside on appeal”.

Any Attempt to Reoccupy Local Government Offices Is Unconstitutional and Amounts to Self Help

Any action taken by political actors to forcefully invade and reoccupy LG offices as was witnessed few days ago is not only illegal but also constitutes a contemptuous disregard of a valid and subsisting court judgement; and indeed a resort to self help, viet armis. The law forbids such resort to self-help by parties in a pending matter with a view to usurping the functions of a court of law. The Supreme Court in AGBAI & ORS V. OKOGBUE (1991) LPELR-225 (SC) 69-70, F-A, trenchantly cautioned that:

“The ratio decidendi of the decision of this Court in Ojukwu’s case is that once there is lis inter partes and the Courts of law are seised with the dispute, no person or authority, whether parties to the lis or not, is allowed by the Constitution to usurp the functions of the Court of law. It is the duty of every person or authority not to interfere with the legal and judicial process from taking its due course.”

The Supreme Court further confirms this position in NWAKIRE v COP (1992) LPELR-2097 (SC) 42-43, A-D, where it held thus:

“That self-help is not allowed in adjudication has been firmly ensconced in the jurisprudence of this nation like the Rock of Gibraltar, which position remains as constant, in Caesar’s words in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “as the Northern Star”.

See the causa celere case of MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) LPELR-3186 (SC). See also GARBA V. FCSC (1988) LPELR-1304 (SC) 28-29.

The Court of Appeal did not make any consequential Order of Re-instatement of the Sacked LG Officials

It must again be emphasised for the umpteenth time that the Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal decision never validated the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 under any guise as the issues on the validity of the election that could have led to a pronouncement on whether or not the APC candidates were rightly sacked were never considered. As a result, there was no consequential order for reinstatement by the Court of Appeal. The only consequential order by the Court of Appeal was an order directing PDP to pay a cost of N250,000 to the Appellants. NO MORE, NO LESS!

CONCLUSION

UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

The Judiciary’s intervention in both the PDP and APP cases rather than show a Judiciary that is complicit, actually underscored the supremacy of the Electoral Act over state laws in regulating local government elections. Under Nigerian legal jurisprudence, the doctrine of “covering the field” applies here, which provides that all state laws which are inconsistent with federal laws are to the extent of those inconsistencies, null and void. In the case of A.G LAGOS STATE V. EKO HOTELS (2017) LPELR-43713(SC), the apex court expounded on the doctrine of covering the field thus:

“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the Law made by the National Assembly will prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of its inconsistency be void” – Section 4(5) CFRN 1999 {As Amended}. This, in clear language, means that only the law validly enacted by the federal legislature will prevail on that which is also validly made by the state house of assembly but this is only where that State Law is inconsistent with that of the Federal law.”

Similarly, in FRIDAY & ORS v. GOV OF ONDO STATE & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7886(CA), the appellate court held thus:

“…It is thus legal and legitimate for both the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly to legislate on same subject matter provided there is no inconsistency from the State law. Where there is inconsistency however, the State law will be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency, and in order not to create any vacuum, resort will be had to the old jurisprudential principle of covering the field, that is to say, that since there is a Federal Legislation on the subject matter, it is not necessary for a Federating State to legislate on that area and the provision made by the National Assembly covers the subject matter in question.”

See also the cases of O.S.I.E.C. V. A.C (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 273;  NPF & ORS V. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782 (SC); INEC V. MUSA (2003) LPELR-24927 (SC); and, AIRTEL NETWORKS LTD V. AG OF KWARA STATE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-23790 (CA).

All the judgements involved in these cases actually reaffirmed the necessity for electoral bodies to adhere strictly to established legal frameworks, ensuring transparency and compliance in the electoral process. See the cases of AUGUSTINE & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2024) LPELR-61876(SC) and BUHARI Vs. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (1120) 246. Such a judgement serves as a significant precedent for future electoral disputes in Nigeria, thus emphasizing the importance of lawful conduct in the governance process. The Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal having struck out the suit without considering the merit of the decision as regards the validity or otherwise of the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022, the effect is that the suit filed by the PDP never existed in the eyes of the law.

However, the Court of Appeal in the PDP case did not strike down the judgment of the FHC in the APP case, nor did it validate the 2022 LG election and re-instate the sacked LG officials. The FHC’s decision in the APP case thus remains the only definitive legal authority on the status of the 2022 Osun State LG elections. Until and unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the said elections remain null, void, and of no effect whatsoever. No person elected in that flawed process can lay any lawful claim to any office.

Any claim to the contrary is a deliberate misinterpretation of the legal position and  constitutes an attempt to undermine the rule of law and subvert the judicial process. Such would also serve as a subterfuge to the powers and decisions of arguably the most important arm of government – the Judiciary.

THE COURT’S DECISION IN THE OSUN LG BROUHAHA MUST BE EXECUTED

It is now the duty of law enforcement agencies and government institutions to ensure that all judicial decisions involved in these cases are respected and upheld. It is trite that all persons and authorities must obey judgements of courts and parties are not permitted to pick and choose which judgements to obey, or which to disobey. This legal principle was emphasised in the case of PDP v. LALONG & ORS (2023) LPELR-61629(CA), where the intermediate court held thus:

“By the provision of Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, all authorities and persons, including this Court, are expected to observe and ensure the compliance of order/judgments of the Court including High Court particularly orders/judgments that are in rem…An order of a competent Court of law, no matter its nature, is absolute and binding on all and sundry without question until it is legally and legitimately set aside by a competent Court of appellate jurisdiction. The fact of its being final or interim does not therefore affect its application and effectiveness. It remains valid and enforceable and must be obeyed”.

See also the cases of NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC); SHUGABA V. U.B.N. PLC (1999) LPELR – 3068 (SC); and, OBOH & ANOR V. NFL & ORS (2016) LPELR-50559 (CA).

THE LAW MUST BE VISITED ON THOSE WHO RESORTED TO SELF-HELP

I watched with dismay and disgust the act of certain LG officials who forcefully barged into the LG headquarters, attempting to reclaim office in the false and erroneous belief that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the PDP case had re-instated them to their official positions, such was nothing short of brigandage and crude resort to self help. It must be condemned in the strongest terms and I so condemn it. It was selfish and uncalled for. In the same vein, all those who aided and abetted this democratic aberration must be fished out and charged before the law courts, however highly placed they are.

ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY?

My above take is not to say that there is no remedy available to the sacked officials; they still have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the APP case. But until the Supreme Court overturns the valid and subsisting judgment in rem of the FHC in the APP case, the said judgment remains binding on all parties.

The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from these events is that all LG offices across Osun State remain vacant and that the sacked APC officials cannot lay claim to the benefit of any judgement to occupy the council offices until they obtain a different outcome, if any, from the apex court. This is the LAW.

THE WAY FORWARD

To save themselves from needless orchestrated violence, all the political parties in Osun State should go for fresh polls and test their popularity in a free, fair and credible election. Politicians should leave the Judiciary alone by playing clean politics. As to the title of this piece, my humble submission is that the Judiciary was not in any way complicit in the Osun State LG imbroglio. Rather, it acted in good faith, striving fiercely to defend the rule of law and uphold electoral integrity.