Governor Sylvia Should Be Arrested

Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital, southsouth Nigeria remained calm and quiet Friday after the Supreme Court sacked Chief Timipre Sylva, the state governor along with four other state governors.

However, an activist has called for the immediate arrest of Governor Sylva.

Dr. John Idumange, a lecturer at the Niger Delta University and Deputy President, Niger Delta Integrity Group and human rights activist who is also a strident critic of Sylva, in his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, said he would be surprised if Sylva is not arrested immediately in Abuja, Port Harcourt or Yenagoa to answer for the numerous allegations against him.

He accused the Governor of frittering away the resources of the state and superintending a state that has remained backward since he came to power as governor.

Idumange said that it is both morally and politically wrong for Sylva to be jostling to be re-elected as governor.

He said: “It would be a surprising to me if he is not arrested in Abuja, Port Harcourt or Yenagoa because of the allegations of monumental fraud and extra-Judicial killings and his threat that if he was excluded in the governorship race, he would import Boko Haram to bomb oil facilities and would kill the first families of the country and a former Commissioner of Health in the state.”

He said that that the campaign by Bayelsans for regime change has been on for about two years ago.

He promised that not even a fire cracker would be thrown or bomb exploded in the state now that he is out power because the sponsor of such is out of the way.

The lecturer activist said that President Jonathan should be commended for not interfering in his own state politics, even when there have been sponsored campaigns of calumny against his person in media adverts and sponsored articles .

He wants Sylva to answer all the allegations of fraud, extra-judicial killings and sponsoring political violence in state.

Governor Sylva has been accused of allegedly threatening to kill President Goodluck Jonathan and other members of the first family.

Though he had denied the allegations, he may have been under surveillance by security operatives who may be waiting for him to lose his immunity before they arrest him.

Besides the tussle over who becomes the PDP Governorship candidate between him and Seriake Henry Dickson, the sacked governor has a date with the Economic Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and other security agencies in connection with alleged cases of extra-judicial killings in the state.

He accused the Governor of frittering away the resources of the state and superintending a state that has remained backward since he came to power.

Idumange said that it is both morally and politically wrong for Sylva to be jostling to be re-elected as governor.

He said that that the campaign by Bayelsans for regime change has been on for about two years now.

Idumange promised that not even a fire cracker would be thrown or bomb exploded in the state now that he is out of power.

Meanwhile, Sylva’s supporters said that the Sylva camp has taken the judgement in good faith, but warned that PDP and Seriake Dickson should not celebrate yet because the Governor’s political structures are intact, with all members of the state and National Assembly being in his camp.

Read More...

High drama as two governors emerge in Kogi

Two governors emerged in Kogi State yesterday soon after the Supreme Court terminated the tenure of Alhaji Ibrahim Idris and that of four other PDP governors.

One is Captain Idris Wada winner of the December governorship election and the anointed candidate of Alhaji Idris.

The other is the Speaker of the State House of Assembly, Hon. Abdullahi Bello.

The drama ensued after Alhaji Idris apparently invited Chief Judge Nasir Ajanah to the Government House,Lokoja to come and swear in Wada. Ajanah declined and drove out of the complex.

Alhaji Idris then sent for the President of the State Customary Court of Appeal,Justice Ibrahim Atadoga who proceeded to swear-in Wada.

About three hours afterwards Justice Ajanah administered the oaths of office and allegiance on Alhaji Bello,the speaker as acting governor at the high court.

Justice Ajana said on the occasion that it was sequel to the ruling of the Supreme Court.

He said there was no consequential order on who the governor should be in the state and that he was directed to swear in the speaker in acting capacity pending when the decision on who to take over the mantle of leadership of Kogi would be made.

All members of the state assembly, some members of the state executive and special advisers were at the high court to witness the ceremony.

The Special Adviser to the immediate past governor, Zakari Adamu said the President of the customary court of appeal has a right to swear in the governor.

Read More...

Supreme Court sacks 5 Nigerian governors

A seven- man panel of the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision this morning sacked Governors Liyel Imoke, Murtala Nyako, Ibrahim Idris, Wamako and Temipre Silva of Cross River, Adamawa, Kogi, Sokoto and Bayelsa states from office.

The court in Abuja held that the tenures of the governors started to count from the time they took their oath of office after emerging winners in their respective state governorship elections in 2007 and not from the period they took their second oaths of office after emerging winners of the re-run elections when there initial elections were nullified.

A Federal High Court had earlier held that their tenures of office started to run from their later oaths of office and oath of allegiance which they took upon their emergence as winners of their respective re run elections.

The apex court held that the trial court as well as the Court of Appeal erred in law when the considered the actions taken by the respective governors before their elections were nullified by the various Election Petition Tribunals as valid on one hand while discounting the time they spent doing those valid actions from their constitutionally prescribed tenure of office.

180. (1) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of Governor of a State until -

(a) When his successor in office takes the oath of that office; or

(b) he dies whilst holding such office; or

(c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or

(d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

In reaching their decision, the Supreme Court relied on section 180 (2) of the Constitution wherein the tenure of office of Governors were prescribed and held that that section did not envisage any form of elongation of occupants of the office of the Governor of the state as well as that of the President.

The section reads:

180 (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when -

(a) in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office; and

(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

The court held that the provisions of that section of the Constitution will stand violated if the tenure of office of the Governors is calculated from their second taking of Oath of Office and the Oath of Allegiance and stated that their tenure started counting from their first Oath of office which they all took after they were declared winners of the April 2007 elections and that they are entitled to four year terms from that date.

The court also rapped the Peoples Democratic party for attempting to abort the hearing of the matter at the court through their preliminary objections filed against all the consolidated appeals. The party had argued that the subject matter of the appeals have become academic and should be dismissed.

While dismissing the PDP’s preliminary objections, the apex court maintained that the matter is of grave constitutional importance whose subject matter is still alive and cannot be truncated on the grounds of mere technicalities.

In countering the decisions of the Federal High Court and that of the Court of Appeal, the apex court asserted that the provision of the law did not envisage an indefinite occupation of office by a Governor and did not also envisage re run elections, left alone one to be won by the same person.

It went on to hold that since acions of these governors, like contracts awarded by them, Commissioners and Special Assistants appointed by them as well as Budgets and Bills signed into law by them remained valid and subsisting when their election were annulled, that it followed that upon emerging winners of their respective re run elections, and having to take another Oaths of Office and Allegiance which is a standard procedure before they can function as Governors, that their tenure begins to count from that first oaths they took in 2007 and not the second ones they took in 2008 after their victories in the re-run elections.

Read More...