Anthony Kila examines the sound judgement that may escape many partisan commentators in the subsisting legal challenge faced by Governor David Umahi of Ebonyi State
Dear Readers In a good and stabile society, its law sanctions and its politics represents what is regarded as consonant with common sense, a society wherein law, politics and common sense are not in harmony is a society on the brink of rupture; in such a society, something has to and tends to happen: such imbalance is not sustainable.
One of two things tend to happen when rupture looms: It is either the system automatically and internally adjusts itself by a process of reform that sees its ruling class making the necessary modifications or the system breaks and new figures outside the ruling class leads a revolutionary process towards a dramatic change. Amongst the biggest political news in the country this week not doubt is the case of the Federal High Court’s decision pronouncing the sack of the Governor of Ebonyi State, David Umahi, his deputy, Kelechi Igwe, along with 15 lawmakers in the state over their defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressive Congress (APC).
The court’s position in plan language is that the votes that got these politicians into their respective offices are votes that were casted for the party and not an endorsement or appreciation for the persons of the politicians that can be transferred to a party of their choice. Expectedly, partisan reactions immediately followed with members and sympathisers of the PDP shouting bravo and giving their thumbs up to the judgement of the Court and hailing it as real justice, whilst members and sympathisers of the APC saying the judgment is biased, wrong and unfair. The most visible, most dramatic and most colourful partisan voice against the Court’s judgment has been that of the ousted Governor David Umahi.
Not only did he reject the judgment, Governor Umahi went on to attack the integrity of the Judge, termed the judgment as “bought” then threatened and promised a petition to the Nigeria Judicial Commission (NJC). No matter where one stands on the political and legal divide, it is, on a personal note, easy to understand David Umahi’s pain. Generally speaking, no one wants to be ousted, not even a hardworking dentist, let alone a Nigerian governor. Even amongst fellow governors, the situation here is even worse because inside voices have it that one of the reasons for which David Umahi left the PDP for the APC is for him to be able to run for president.
To find himself in a twist of fate with no presidential ticket and no governorship position might be funny to some but certainly painful for David Umahi. He truly has my understanding and even sympathy. Without dwelling on it, Governor David Umahi must however be told that in expressing his disagreement with the court judgment, his choice of words and tone were rather crass and certainly not statesmanlike. The legitimate and logical thing for him to do is to file an appeal.
No drama, no insult, no threat, just filing of an appeal as he has the right to do. Other voices who think the judgment of the court is wrong seem to base their position on the lack of any law that expressly prohibit governors to cross carpet. They seem to be saying everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Some of these voices then go on to cite other cases like that of the Zamfara State where the governor successfully defected with the ruling of another court. Rightly, they point out that the conditions that regulate the process of losing a gubernatorial seat are clearly stated in the constitution. Lacuna and contradiction therefore seem to be their ammunition.
These are strong ammunition. There is no milder way to put it, the lack of clear and easily understandable laws on the process and consequences of cross carpeting is an indictment of the political class. History and theory readily show any rational observer of politics that defecting is more of high probability value than a mere possibility. A political class that has not put in place clear guidance that regulates the process and consequences of defection of all its elected officers either by accepted tradition or legislated law is a political class that has much to learn and to do, such political class can logical be accused of being incompetent or mischievous. Our judicial class to has a lot to do in terms of avoiding conflicting and contradicting judgements. It really does not make sense for one court to say one thing and for another court to say the opposite in similar cases.
Justice to be seen as fair needs to be swift, clear and consistent at all times.It matters not whether one is a lawyer, politician decorator or trader, it takes more than common sense for most to understand and accept that it is okay to be elected on one platform and with no validation from electors, the elected can simply change platform move to the opposing side against whom you were elected and get one as if nothing happened. This dilemma is made more complex to many when we are reminded that during elections, voters thumbprint logos of party not names of candidates. It is true that there are situations where electors vote a candidate not the party, but I wonder how many Christians will automatically become Muslims if their pastor converted to Islam or how many Muslims will convert to Christianity if their Imam became Christian.
To think that clerics don’t even pretend to get their mandate from worshipers. Everything is possible in politics so the world will not come to an end if politicians decide that in the matter of defection, the laws guiding elected legislators must be different from the ones regulating governors and lawyers and judges decide to defend and uphold such position. We must be warned however: A political and legal position that does not reflect the common sense of its people is a position that will test the equilibrium and harmony of the society.
Prof. Kila is Centre Director at CIAPS Lagos
