Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Bankole’s Ruling: Why We Disagree-Festus Keyamo.


Festus Keyamo
By Festus Keyamo
I, Festus Keyamo, issue this Press Statement as the Lead Prosecutor in this case and on my behalf. The Commission may also issue its statement later.

The FCT High Court, sitting at Apo presided over by Justice S. B. Belgore today, Tuesday January 31, 2012, upheld the no-case submission made by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole and his Deputy, Nafada and discharged the two Accused persons.

This charge is only in relation to the allegations of obtaining illegal loans and the indiscriminate increase of the “allowances” and “running costs”  from N27million to N42million per member, per quarter, under the leadership of the accused persons. The charge in relation to the contravention of the Public Procurement Act, to wit: inflation of prices of goods purchased for members of the House of Representatives is still pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
However, we disagree with the reasoning and conclusion of His Lordship Justice S.B. Belgore in the decision reached today on the following grounds:

1.    The Court held that though it is morally wrong, morally indefensible and morally insensitive for the members of the House of Representatives led by Bankole and Nafada to have increased their “running costs” from N27million per quarter, per member, to N42million, it did not amount to a criminal offence but a moral wrong. The court reasoned that the legislature, being a different arm of government, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) cannot fix the “running costs” for members of the House of Representatives. They are at liberty to increase their “running costs” to whatever amount they so collectively wish.

Again the judge held that RMAFC can only fix “wages” and “allowances” and not “running costs” and that “running costs” do not qualify as “allowances”.

OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS POINT

Section 70 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) states as follows:
    “70. Remuneration

A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall receive such salary and other allowances as the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission may determine.”

Consequently, in our opinion, it is wrong for a judge to allow a public officer to take money from the public till under any guise without reference to the RMAFC. Our respectful view is that “other allowances” as stated in the Constitution encompasses “running costs” as monies collected by public officers to offset expenses other than wages. The difference the judge tried to create is merely splitting of hairs.

2.    The court held that Bankole and Nafada could not be held for criminal breach of trust because constitutionally, their powers do not include control of the Accounts of the House of Representatives, therefore they are not “entrusted” with those accounts.  While the court agreed that Bankole was actually the approving authority regarding expenditure, in conjunction with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Court said this was only an illegal usurpation of the powers of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS POINT

Since the Court had arrived at a conclusion that Bankole usurped the powers of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, should he not be held accountable for misusing that power he usurped? We think he should.
3.    The court held that the accused persons cannot be held guilty for theft because the funds in the accounts said to be the subject of theft were legitimately obtained as loans and disbursed to members.

OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS POINT

In our view, theft is committed when a property belonging to another is taken fraudulently without the consent of the other person. In this case, so long as monies were credited to the account of the House of Representatives which is an account of the Federal Government, they still needed to follow strict financial regulations in disbursing those amounts. To the extent that those financial regulations were not followed the “taking” is fraudulent and amounts to theft, in our view.
4.    Lastly, the judge kept repeating that the loans have been fully paid back and so no crime has been committed.

OUR DISAGREEMENT ON THIS POINT

Apart from the fact that paying back of the loan does not repair the breach of the financial regulations by the accused persons, this is what PW 9  (Sefiya Musa, the Relations Manager of First Bank) said:
“PW9:- I have looked at A41. The bottom reading =N= 12 billion. That is the loan I am talking about. The loan has not been fully liquidated.”

Therefore, we do not know how the judge arrived at the conclusion that the loans have been fully paid back when the loan obtained from First Bank Plc remain unpaid as manifestly shown in the evidence of PW 9 above (as against that of UBA).
For these and other reasons, we are totally dissatisfied with the judgment and we are consulting with our client, EFCC on the possibility of an appeal.

Thank you.

FESTUS KEYAMO, ESQ.
Lead Prosecutor

Al-Mustapha, Abacha's aide to die by hanging.


The Chief Security Officer, CSO, to late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, Major Hamzat Al-Mustapha and a protocol officer in the MKO Abiola campaign organisation, Alhaji Lateef Shofolahan have been sentenced to death for the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.
Kudirat was a wife of late MKO Abiola, a presidential candidate who was widely believed to have won the  1993 poll that the then military President, General Ibrahim Babangida (retd) annulled.
Abiola, the wealthy businessman was  jailed in 1994 after he challenged the military’s decision to annul the vote. He died in jail a month after Abacha’s death in circumstances yet to be clarified.
Al-Mustapha’s lawyer said he would appeal the verdict of the court.
"The judgment was a great surprise, since the prosecution confirmed that one of the witnesses was not reliable ... The judgment is regarded as a travesty of justice," his lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, said outside court.
Mustapha walked out of the court in Lagos smiling and was hugged by supporters waiting outside.
Abacha died age 54 in the company of two Indian prostitutes in 1998. The official cause of death was cardiac arrest.
Kudirat Abiola
KudiratIt took 12 years for the nation‘s judiciary to finally determine that Major  Hamza Mustapha, the Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the former military head of state, General Sanni Abacha, was the person that masterminded the 1996 assassination of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola
During the campaigns for the June 12, 1993 presidential election, Alhaja Kudi Abiola traversed the nooks and crannies of the country with her husband and was in the fore front of the campaign  in the North because of her flawless understandingand knowledge of the Hausa language.
The assassination of Kudirat Abiola in1994 was received with outrage and condemnation and was described as  cruel and cowardly.
After the annulment of June 12, 1993 Presidential election by the General Ibrahim Babangida military administration, Bashorun Abiola commenced a political campaign across the world to drum up support for his mandate. But before this could be achieved, Babangida stepped aside and handed the government of the country to an Interim National Government (ING) led by Chief Ernest Sonekan.
The interim government of Sonekan was barely three months in office before it was overthrown by General Sanni Abacha who installed himself in office as the military head of state.
Basorun Abiola came back to the country to continue with his campaign against the Abacha regime and to reclaim his mandate but was arrested and put in detention shortly after he declared himself as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Following the detention of  Basorun Abiola, his wife Kudirat stepped out and became the symbol of democracy and championed the call for the release of her husband and for the revalidation of the June 12, 1993 mandate given her husband at the polls by Nigerians and consequently became a thorn in the flesh of the military junta.
Kudi  spoke fearlessly against the government of Gen. Sanni Abacha, even after  key political associates and the running mate to her husband in the annulled presidential election, Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, had taken up appointments in the military government.
She was going to keep an appointment at the Canadian High Commission in Victoria Island when her car was doubled-crossed somewhere around 7Up on the Lagos/Ibadan Expressway by al-Mustapha‘s hit men led by Sergeant  Barnabas Mshelia and was felled in a blaze of gun fire.

Henry Okah's trial set for Oct. 1


Henry Okah, a terror suspect already jailed more than a year will remain in jail for another eight months before his trial starts in South Africa, a judge ruled Monday.
Henry OkahHis trial had been scheduled to start Monday. Instead of starting their arguments, prosecutor Shaun Abrahams and defense attorney Rudi Krause told Judge Geraldine Borchers they had agreed to ask for a postponement until Oct. 1. No reason was given, and the judge granted the request.
Okah, who was in court wearing a dark suit, took the news calmly. He has complained about conditions in jail and tried unsuccessfully to get judges to grant him bail in lengthy hearings over the last year.
Okah was arrested in South Africa, where he had been living for months, soon after deadly bombings in Nigeria's capital during Oct. 1, 2010 independence celebrations. He has denied involvement, and says he is not a member of the militant group the Nigerian government blames for bombings and widespread unrest in the delta.
Okah is being tried under South African anti-terror legislation. Nigerian government has not requested his extradition and its investigators are working with South African prosecutors in the Okah case.
Prosecutor Abrahams, speaking to reporters Monday, refused to say why he had requested the eight-month postponement. He said that trials for other suspects for the bombings had begun in Nigeria, and witnesses who were testifying in those proceedings may also testify in South Africa.
During earlier bail hearings, prosecutors presented evidence drawn from Okah's diaries and computer correspondence that they said bolstered accusations he masterminded the October bombings.
Nigerian officials say Okah leads the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which claimed responsibility for the bombings. The group known as MEND accuses Nigeria's government of failing to alleviate poverty in the delta, even though it is earning billions of dollars from the region's oil.
In 2008, Okah was arrested in Angola and extradited to Nigeria, where he was accused of treason and terrorism and linked to a gunrunning scandal involving high-ranking military officials. His arrest and trial sparked an escalation in MEND attacks. Charges against Okah were dropped and he was freed in July 2009 as part of the amnesty program.
The delta militants have destroyed oil pipelines, kidnapped petroleum company workers and fought government troops. The violence in the delta is unrelated to unrest in northern Nigeria, where an Islamist sect claimed coordinated attacks this month that killed at least 185 people.

Fresh Polls To Hold In 5 States.


Indications emerged yesterday that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) might organise fresh primaries and elections in the five states whose governors were sacked last Friday.
Attahiru Jega2The decision to go for fresh elections in the affected states, according to a competent source, is based on the order by the Supreme Court for INEC to organise fresh elections in those states within three months.
It was learnt that INEC came to the decision to go for fresh polls in the affected states after reading the verdict of the five-man Supreme Court panel that ousted the governors.
It was also further learnt that top INEC officials, who have been meeting over the apex court’s verdict since Friday, came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was adhere strictly to the verdict to avoid being accused of acting a script.
Apex court gives consequential orders
Contrary to insinuations that the highest court in the land did not give consequential orders after sacking the governors, it was learnt that one of the five justices of the Supreme Court made a binding order that the commission could not ignore.
In her verdict as part of the landmark judgment, Justice Olufunlola Adekeye, said: “Consequently, with the outcome of these appeals, the 1st respondent (Murtala Nyako, former governor of Adamawa State) in suit No. S. C. 141/2011 is ordered to vacate office immediately while the speaker of the Adamawa House of Assembly shall be sworn in as acting governor of Adamawa State in line with section 191 (2) of the Constitution .
“The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)shall conduct an election within three months to fill the vacancy in the office of the governor of Adamawa State now created.”
A source close to INEC hinted yesterday that the commission was mulling two options: to go back to the governorship primaries it conducted before May 29, 2011, or conduct a fresh one in line with the court verdict, to avoid being seen as working for a particular interest.
The source who craved Anonymity  because of the sensitive nature of the matter, also said the commission might today announce its decisions to reschedule gubernatorial elections in the five states based on the outcome of the court verdict.
It said, “INEC has consulted with its lawyers and have been duly advised on further action. It is based on their legal advice that the commission is mulling the options to either go back to the previous list of party nominations submitted before May 29, 2011 or order fresh primaries in these states in question.
“Looking closely, you will agree withthe Supreme Court judgment renders all election decisions taken after May 29, 2011, a nullity. The election timetables released by INEC for the five states, in any case, was premised on a Federal High Court and Court of Appeal judgments that have been set aside by Friday’s Supreme Court verdict”.
Supreme Court judgment, setback to Nigeria’s democracy - PDP
...woos acting governors
In a studied reaction, the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, yesterday expressed disappointment with the judgment, describing it as a setback to the nation’s democracy.
A statement released by the party’s publicity secretary, Prof. Rufai Alkali, the  PDP expressed dismay over the apex court’s verdict, which threw out five of its governors in one fell swoop.
“The judgment, no doubt, throws a major challenge to our determination to deepen democracy in our country. For us in the PDP, it is a huge setback, considering the time and resources spent in the last one year to ensure smooth transition in the affected states.
“While we await a clear position from the INEC on the status of the elections in these states, we call on our members to remain calm and be rest assured that we shall continue to stand by them and do everything legally possible to maintain our dominant position in those states,” the party said.
And, in a swift move to checkmate the opposition parties and consolidate its position in the five states, the presidency and the PDP yesterday summoned the acting governors for a “crucial” meeting in Abuja.
A source close to the meeting said the acting governors were summoned to Abuja to woo them not to do anything that could make their sacked principals lose the elections to be rescheduled by INEC.
The party is said to be worried by reports that some of the acting governors were at loggerheads with their sacked governors and were already dismantling their structures, a situation the party sees as detrimental to winning the states back when election is held.
Although details of the meeting were not made public, it was gathered that the party used the occasion to reconcile the acting governors with their former bosses.
Adamawa acting governor dissolves Nyako cabinet
In the meantime, the acting governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, has dissolved the cabinet put in place by the former governor, Murtala Nyako.
Fintiri, in his first major action, sacked all commissioners, special advisers and close aides of Nyako and appointed Prof Abdullahi Tukur to serve as the secretary to the state government.
Sokoto acting governor backs Wamako
But in Sokoto, the acting governor, Alhaji Lawal Zayyanu, has said that the former governor, Aliyu Wamakko, remains the leader of the party in the state and that he is merely holding the forte for him.
He promised to continue to work for the return of the former governor whom he described as his mentor and leader, when fresh election is held. 
Zayyana stated this while receiving members of the standing committee of the Nigerian Guild of Editors that visited him in his office shortly after their meeting in Sokoto yesterday.
ACN ready for fresh election in Kogi
The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in Kogi State has said that it is ready for fresh governorship election in line with the court verdict.
The chief strategist to Prince Abubakar Audu, Otunba Dino Melaye, told one of our correspondents on the telephone yesterday that the party had put behind the political events of the past and prepared its mind for fresh election in the wake of the verdict.
But, the media aide to Captain Idris Wada, Mr. Edi Jacob,  who was also sworn in as acting governor of the state by the president of the state’s Customary Court of Appeal, said that it was not clear why a governor who won a free and fair election was not sworn in as acting governor.
Confusion in Bayelsa
But in Bayelsa, supporters of the former governor, Timipre Sylva, and Seriake Dickson are sharply divided over the court verdict.
The factional chairman of the CNPP in the state, Mr. Sunday Frank-Oputu, said the court verdict has provided a new opening for INEC to conduct a fresh election in the state.
He said the commission must allow all those who participated in the primary election before May 2011 to take part in the fresh election in the state.
Lawyers differ over fresh polls
Meanwhile, lawyers who have been analysing the verdict have also given conflicting advice on what to do in the wake of the decision of the apex court.
In separate interviews, Prof  Itse Sagay (SAN), Dr Konyinsola Ajayi (SAN), Chief Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) agreed that elections should be held in Adamawa, Sokoto, Bayelsa and Cross River states since Kogi State already had an elected governor.
According to Sagay, the Supreme Court judgment implies that fresh election should be held in four states.
Sagay said, “The Chief Judge of the state ought to have sworn in the governor-elect in Kogi.”
But Ajayi disagreed with Sagay, saying that since one of the seven panel members, Justice Olufulola Adekeye, declared that the speakers be sworn in and that fresh election be held in the five states, there was no need to look for any other interpretation.
Ajayi said, “No one can go outside that judgment, otherwise he would run foul of the law.”
Malami said that the position of the court was unambiguous and that the five states must carry out the instruction of the verdict.
He said: “The apex court has, in a nutshell, directed that the speakers be sworn in and fresh elections be conducted within 90 days from the day of the judgment. That also means fresh party primaries leading to fresh governorship elections should be held as well.
“With respect to Kogi State, the election of the governor-elect was held within the extended time the apex court declared as illegal. Hence, the election of Wada lacks legal foundation upon which it can stand. You can’t place a valid election on illegal platform and expect it to stand.”
Akeredolu also insisted that fresh election must be held in four states, arguing that the situation in Kogi required further interpretation by a competent court.
In his contribution, a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, said there was sufficient order for fresh elections in the affected states and that there was no need for any confusion.
He said, “Going by the decisions of the apex court, a supporting contribution by Justice Olufunlayo Adekeye has edified and strengthened the lead judgment. Since the additional order of Adekeye JSC constitutes an integral part of the decision, it is very dangerous to give the misleading impression that the Supreme Court did not make any consequential orders.”

Saturday, January 28, 2012

"Boko Haram Is A Multi-billion Naira Outfit", Security Source.



Several top security personnel in Nigeria have exclusively told SaharaReporters on condition of anonymity that the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, popularly known as Boko Haram, is multi-billion naira organization.

One source said the extremist Islamist group has a substantial financial base and has invested millions of naira to penetrate Nigeria’s security agencies, obtaining vital and sensitive data. In addition, Boko Haram reportedly is embedded with many other institutions in Nigeria and beyond.

Our sources revealed that the Nigeria police are the institution most penetrated by Boko Haram. “Both President Jonathan and National Security Adviser, Gen. Azazi, have vital reports about Boko Haram’s in-roads in the police and other security outfits,” said one source. He added: “We don’t know why they are not acting.”

One of our sources disclosed that all plans and security details concerning how to cripple the terror group are always leaked to the sect – because of their heavy investment in the security agencies.

“The least they are offering informants is about five million naira,” said a source, adding that “many senior security agents have been compromised and cannot speak about how Boko Haram can be contained.”

Several of our sources indicated that Boko Haram was now, in the words of one of them, “a very big organization with cells across the country, even though its strategic hub is in the North.”

Aside from Boko Haram’s infiltration of the security community, the group reportedly maintains a network of thousands of informal spies who are doing menial jobs or hawking but who provide information about what they observed as well as what people security are saying about the group.

“If you doubt what I am saying, try to say something about Boko Haram in the community. You will be shocked how it will reach them and you will be made to pay for it dearly,” said one source. He attributed the easy escape from police custody of Kabiru Sokoto, a suspect in the Christmas Day bombing of a Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State, to Boko Haram’s tentacles within the police.

A police source described Boko Haram as “more highly sophisticated than Nigerian security agencies. They carry superior arms and have better fighting strategies. I am within and I know what I am saying. Some of our [police] men and women are running errands for them. Go and investigate. Some of us are even resigning now to work for them.”

On Boko Haram’s financial base, the source said, “They have strong financial base, and possibly receive funds from the Arab world. You should see how they are spending money. That’s why all the security agencies we sent to the borders cannot resist their largesse. I am telling you, our borders are just human figures standing. They [Boko Haram members] pass through thick bushes without serious check.”

Our sources concurred that the government had lost precious years when its security agencies would have been monitored and combated Boko Haram during its infancy. Said one, “I know that security reports [about Boko Haram] were written, but those in government were not paying attention.” Another source suggested “that the government act now based on the evidences at their disposal.”

Jubilation in Yenagoa as Police seal Govt House.


Yenagoa the Bayelsa State capital, Friday, erupted in celebration as the news of the ouster of Governor Timipre Sylva by the Supreme Court hit the airwaves.
Jubilation in Yenagoa
Immediately, the police authorities sealed off the Creek Haven Government House, in Bayelsa State ostensibly to prevent looting of the place.
Heavily armed policemen barricaded the Onopa end of the  Mbiama-Yenagoa road leading to the Government House  and it was closed to traffic.
When Vanguard visited the area armed  policemen were sighted diverting traffic to the Lambert Eradiri road connecting the DSP Alamieyeseigha way to other parts of Yenagoa.
Armed policemen were also deployed around the Peace Park, directly opposite the Government House, stopping visitors from gaining entry into the amusement park.
It was jubilation galore at the popular Swali  Market and other parts of Yenagoa as traders and residents chanted songs to celebrate the exit of Governor Timipre Sylva.
Most of the pubs and other relaxation joints witnessed heavy turn-out of customers as many stormed the beer parlours, reveling over the court verdict.
As at press time, the state Chief Judge, Justice Kate Abiri was yet to  swear in the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon Nestor Binabor allegedly awaiting a certified copy of the court ruling.
It was gathered that a helicopter had already been despatched to Abuja to get the certified copies of the apex court ruling.
Reacting to the development, the Commissioner of Police in Bayelsa State, Mr Hilary Opara, in an interview with newsmen said “Bayelsans should remain calm and law abiding. The government belongs to the people. If there is any change of leadership, a Bayelsan is going to be there”.
On the planned swearing-in ceremony of the Speaker, Hon Nestor Binabo as the Acting Governor, the police commissioner said, “The Chief Judge, Kate Abiri said she was waiting for directives from Abuja. I told her that anytime she is cleared with the directive, she should let us know so that we can discharge our responsibility of providing effective security”.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Why Supreme Court sacked 5 Governors!


IN a landmark decision, the Supreme Court yesterday sacked five Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors, who won re-run elections in 2007
In an unanimous judgment delivered by its full panel, the apex court maintained that former governors Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa), Liyel Imoke (Cross River), Ibrahim Idris (Kogi) and Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto) ought to have vacated their offices before May 29 last year, stressing that in-line with the provisions of section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution, their statutory four-year tenure had already elapsed.
The verdict elicited plaudits from many Nigerians as  the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), ordered that speakers of the affected states be sworn-in immediately as acting governors pending the conduct of fresh polls and it was obeyed
Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Ibrahim Idris (Kogi), Liyel Imoke (Cross River) and Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto)

This was as Sylva urged his supporters to be calm, saying that he would bounce back as governor in spite of the running battles he is currently waging at the law courts with the hierarchy of the PDP over the party’s guber ticket, which has been handed Hon Seriake Dickson.
Imoke also accepted the verdict and appealed for calm as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said that dates for guber polls in the affected states would be: Adamawa (February 4, 2012), Bayelsa (February 11, 2012), Sokoto (March 10, 2012), Cross River (April 14, 2012). The governorship poll in Kogi was conducted on December 3, 2011.
Among those, who reacted to the judgement yesterday were Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN), Senate Leader, Ndoma Egba (SAN), Mr Bamidele Aturu and former Governor of Kogi State, Prince Abubakar Audu.
The former governors’ ouster was sequel to consolidated appeals that challenged two lower court judgments that hitherto barred the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from including their states in the governorship election it conducted across the federation on April 26, last year.
Although, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher presided over the panel that heard and determined the appeal, Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen prepared and read the lead judgment yesterday. Other members of the Supreme Court Bench, who concurred with the judgment were Justices Mahmud Mohammed, Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh, Mahummad Saifullah Muntaka-Coomassie, Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye and Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili.
The verdict
Pronouncing the sack of the governors’ vis-à-vis the provision of Section 180 (2) of the Constitution, the apex court noted that the object of interpreting statute or the constitution by any court is to discover the intention of the legislature, adding that such intention was usually deduced from the language used.
It held: “From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight (8) years under the 1999 constitution.
“It has been argued that the tenure of four years envisaged in the 1999 constitution is a single unbroken tenure but that submission loses sight of the glaring fact that the provisions of Section 180 (2) supra does not expect or envisage an indefinite occupier of the office of governor of a state that is why the tenure is very definite: four years.
“It is clear from the provisions that in the case of commencement of tenure of a person first elected, it starts with the taking of the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office, in this case, the 29th day of May, 2007 when the 1st respondents took their Oaths of Allegiance and Oaths of Office.
“The most important thing to note having regards to the provisions dealing with tenure of governors reproduced supra is that looking closely at the provisions of section 180(2) (a), there is no room for the same person elected governor being elected again following a re-run election. A person elected following a re-run election cannot be said to have been ‘first elected as governor under this constitution’ except he was not the winner of the earlier or first election.
“The present problem arose from the fact that the very persons who won the “first” election also participated and won the re-run elections.
“In consequence, the lower court held that while the actions of the governors during the period prior to the nullification are valid and legal, the same period cannot be taken into account in calculating the tenure of the said governors following the nullification of their election.  The issue/question of nullity and its legal consequences/effectiveness is usually traced to Lord Denning’s obiter dictum in the case of Mcfoy vs UAC (1961) 3 ALLER, 1169 at 1172.  To say that the above principles are based on facts which are not material in this case is to state the very obvious.
“It is the case of the respondents that since their elections in 2007 where nullified it meant that in law the said election never took place and as such the Oaths of Allegiance and of office they took on 29th May, 2007 became non-existent and that the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office which is valid and relevant to the determination of the four year tenure is that which they took at various dates in 2008.
“It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated.
“If the interpretation favoured by the respondents is adopted and the four year tenure is to be calculated from the second oaths taken in 2008 while in fact and law the 1st respondents took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office on 29th May, 2007 and remained and functioned in office as governors of their various states, would their period not exceed the constitutionally provided tenure of four years?
“The answer is clearly in the positive hence the argument on the principles of null and void acts.
The argument that following the nullification of their elections the said elections were in the eyes of the law non-existent as they are regarded not to have taken place as well as the subsequent oaths they took to enable them function in the office of governors of their states is brilliant though it does not deny the fact that there was an election conducted and winners declared thereafter in accordance with existing laws and regulations: that the winners of that election subsequently took their Oaths of Allegiance and of Office as required by the constitution and did function in  that office for about one year effectively exercising the executive powers of the state such as signing Bills into law including appropriation Bills: appointing commissioners and numerous Advisers, awarding contracts, etc.
“The proponents of this contention agree that the acts performed by the affected governors remain valid and subsisting after the nullification of the elections but the oaths they took to function in that office went with the nullification of their election!
“I hold the considered view that since the acts performed during the period prior to the nullification of the election remains valid and subsisting and the same person contested and won the re-run election thereby taking another set of oaths and since what was nullified was the election, the oaths they took on 29th May, 2007 remains valid and the starting point in calculating their four years tenure of office as governors of their respective states particularly as the 1999 constitution does not envisage a tenure exceeding four years by the same person who took the first oaths following the election which kick started the tenure.
“To accede to the argument of the respondents is to bring uncertainty into the clear provisions of section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution which will render the tenure of governors indefinite as what it will take an elected governor whose election is nullified to remain in office almost indefinitely or for life is to continue to win the re-elections which would then be nullified to continue the cycle of impunity.
“I hold the considered view that to uphold the validity of the acts of the governors in office prior to the nullification of their election and reject the period they spent in office during which time they performed those acts in the determination of the period of their tenure is contrary to common sense and the clear intention of the framers of the constitution.
“The fact that there was an election in 2007 as a result of which the 1st respondents (governors), took their Oaths of Allegiance and of Office, are facts which cannot be wished away, just as the acts they performed while occupying the seat.
The said governors may not have been de-jure governors following the nullification of their elections, which is not supported by the acceptance of their acts in that office as legal and binding on all and sundry, they were certainly governors de-facto during the period they operated ostensibly in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and Electoral Act and as such the period they so operated has to be taken into consideration in determining the terminal date of their tenure following, what I may call, their second missionary journey vide a re-run election particularly as the constitution unequivocally grants a tenure of four years to a person  elected governor of a state calculated from the date he took the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office which was the 29th day of May, 2007.
“It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states.
To calculate the tenure of office of the governors from the date of their second Oaths of Allegiance and of Office while ignoring the period from 29th May, 2007 when they took the first oaths is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the governors to occupy and act in that office which would be unconstitutional.
“It is therefore clear and I hereby hold that the second Oaths of allegiance and of Office taken in 2008, though necessary to enable them continue to function in that office, were clearly superfluous in the determination of the four years tenure under section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution.”
In conclusion, I resolve the issue against the respondents. In allow the appeals, which have been demonstrated, to be meritorious and set aside the judgments of the lower courts and in their place, it is hereby ordered that suit Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/246/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/648/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/650/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2010 and FHC/ABJ/CS/665/2010 be and are hereby dismissed. In consequence, I hold that the tenure of the 1st respondents began on the 29th of May, 2007 and terminated on the 28th day of May, 2011 being four years allowed by the 1999 constitution.”
FG implements judgment
Reacting to the judgment, Adoke, said the Federal Government acknowledged the decision and called on the Speakers of the five affected states to, in line with the provisions of Section 191(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, take over the governance of their states till  elections are conducted.
Noting that the government was committed to the observance of rule of law, he directed the Inspector-General of Police and other law enforcement agencies to put in place, appropriate security measures to ensure orderly transition and to avoid any breach of the peace.
It’s temporary setback – Sylva
Embattled, Sylva viewed the judgement as a temporary setback.
In a stament by his Spokesman, Doifie Ola, he said, as a democrat and firm believer in the rule of law he had taken the apex court verdict in good faith.
Enjoining his supporters to remain calm as they had always and shun taking laws into their hands, he said: “What has happened is only a temporary setback. The implication of this judgment is that the January 2011 primary election, which Sylva won as candidate of the PDP subsists.” He expressed confidence that he would be re-elected and wished the acting governor the best of luck.
No U-turn on Dickson, others – PDP
However, the national leadership of the PDP maintained that the emergence of its four governorship candidates in the remaining four states including Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson, in Bayelsa would not be altered. The party had earlier picked the ousted governors apart from Sylva as its candidates for the scheduled polls.
National Legal Adviser of the party, Chief Olusola Oke, said though the party expected a contrary judgment, it had accepted the ruling because it the decision of the Supreme Court was not questionable.
Relatedly, Senate Leader, Chief Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), said that the apex court’s judgment  was final and that the party accepted it in good faith. He said that as a politician, he had his reservations because it was believed that staggering election would reduce pressure on the INEC as well as ensure security.
It’s a sound verdict – AturuSagay
For Bamidele Aturu, “the decision of the Supreme Court on tenure elongation is correct, sound, defensible, legal, morally justifiable and cannot be faulted. It can be supported on the well- known ground that a person cannot profit from his or her own wrong. I had held on to this position tenaciously and feel vindicated that the Supreme Court declined to follow the strict constructionism of the two lower courts.
It may even be viewed as laying down the principle that a beneficiary of a wrong even where not directly attributable to him, election rigging in the instant case, will not be allowed to profit from the wrong. In other words, the decision is not only of academic significance as some would want to argue as the relevant constitutional provision has since been amended. The decision will reverberate in other areas of our national life. I salute the courage of the Justices and hope that the politicians will abide by it without any undue rancor.”
Legal icon, Itse Sagay, also spoke in like manner, saying: “Personally, I support the judgment. That was the line of my argument that I presented in my opinion before the Supreme Court judgment. I am in agreement with the judgment. It is my view that the judgment in the cases of nullification of elections takes effect from the very day they were given. They don’t have retroactive effects, so, it follows from that logic that whatever has happened before the judgment which is irreversible will be accepted as valid. It is only from today (yesterday) onwards that the effects will be felt.”
Ruling long overdue – Audu
Relatedly, Prince Abubakar Audu applauded the judgement, saying that the outcome of the case was expected. “The judgment is a victory for democracy. It has been long expected. We have been given judgment in Kogi State. it is long overdue, it is better to be late than never” he added.
How it started
The sacked governors initially dragged the electoral body to court shortly after their states were listed for election.
They argued that going by the provisions of section 180 (2) of the constitution, their four-year tenure commenced in 2008 when fresh Oath of Allegiance and of Office was administered to them following the nullification of their elections of 2007 by various election petition tribunals.
They insisted that with the nullification of their first election, the period they expended in office prior to the re-run elections they subsequently won amounted to a nullity in the eyes of the law.
Sequel to their consolidated suits, Justice Adamu Bello of a Federal High Court, Abuja on February 23 entered judgment in their favour, a decision that was upheld by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on July 31, 2011.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower courts, INEC and the Governorship Candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, in Adamawa State, Gen. Buba Marwa (Rtd), proceeded to the Supreme Court, urging it to sack the governors from office on the premise that their tenure expired on May 29, 2011.
The appellants argued that the tenure of the five governors started running from 2007 when they were firstly administered Oath of office and Oath of Allegiance, stressing that the nullification of their first election did not render the Oaths they took thereto nugatory.
The apex court granted Marwa and INEC’s prayers.