Posted by By GODWIN TSA, Abuja on
The National Assembly has asked the Court of Appeal to declare that Vice President Atiku Abubakar did not lose his seat and office by defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Action Congress (AC) where he is the presidential candidate.
The National Assembly has asked the Court of Appeal to declare that Vice President Atiku Abubakar did not lose his seat and office by defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Action Congress (AC) where he is the presidential candidate.
The federal legislative arm of government, while making its submissions in the suit filed by Atiku over the declaration of his seat vacant by President Olusegun Obasanjo, urged the appellate court to draw a distinction between law, morality and politics and to hold that Atiku's defection to another political party was a political problem that can be resolved politically.
Counsel to the Senate and the Senate President, Mr. Peter Eze, who made the submissions, contended that the National Assembly was the sole authority vested with the constitutional powers of removing a sitting president or his deputy.
Conceding that section 142 of the 1999 constitution requires that candidates for the post of president and vice president should belong to the same political party, he contended that the requirement was only for the purpose of election and not after elections.
According to him, "once a vice president has been elected into office, he does not need to belong to same political party with the president," adding: "Section 142 is not a requirement for the continuation of the vice president in office after election. It is merely a qualification for election and nothing more."
Eze argued further that if the constitution had meant that the vice president should lose his seat by changing a political party, it would have stated so expressively, adding that if the constitution could do so in respect of members of the National Assembly, it could have included the office of the vice president, which is higher.
He contended that Atiku was not an employee of Obasanjo but a servant of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, adding that it would be wrong for the attorney general of the federation and other respondents in the suit to hold that Atiku had resigned his position as the vice president since he has not written to the National Assembly or the president to that effect as provided for in Section 306 of the 1999 constitution.
Aligning himself with the submissions of Eze, counsel to Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ikechukwu Ezechukwu, said the vice president could only be removed from office with strict compliance with the reasons spelt out by the 1999 constitution. He told the court that if President Obasanjo or the PDP were aggrieved by the actions of Atiku, "all they need to do was to approach the National Assembly and lobby for his impeachment and not through any other means."
However, the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Sunday Ehindero and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) pitched their tents with the Federal Government in demanding that the court should declare Atiku's seat vacant. Counsel to the IGP and INEC, Messrs Patrick Ikwueto (SAN) and Joe Gadzama (SAN) respectively prayed the court to declare the seat of the vice president vacant in view of his defection to another political party.
Earlier, counsel to Atiku, Chief Wole Olanikpekun (SAN), had, while arguing his case, submitted that his client had not done anything wrong within the ambit of the constitution to warrant his removal from office as the vice president or to make the president to declare his seat vacant.
He said the office of the vice president was a corporate office belonging to all Nigerians and not property of a political party as his constituency covers the whole country.
Referring to the oath of office of the vice president, he submitted that nowhere did Atiku take oath to be loyal to the PDP or the president. He challenged the counter affidavit filed against the suit by the Federal Government as lacking in merit and urged court to disregard it.
Counsel to the Attorney General of the Federation, Adebayo Adenikpekun (SAN), urged the court to discountenance the position canvassed by Atiku and declare his seat vacant. He told the court that Atiku, having resigned his membership of PDP, his sponsoring political party, to a rival party, has lost his office as the vice president.
According to him, Section 142 of the 1999 constitution demands from the vice president, absolute loyalty to the president and his sponsoring party, PDP and urged the court to declare his seat vacant as that special relationship and loyalty no longer exist between him, the president and the PDP.
In addition, he submitted that the requirements for the vice president under Section 142 does not cease just because he has been elected into office but continues even after election. He contended that Atiku's continued stay in office, having constructively resigned his office, defeats the purpose of sections 142, 143, 144 and 146.
His words: "For decamping to another party, the VP has constructively resigned from his office, resigned his membership of the PDP and no longer an associate of the president. He has also abandoned his office, no longer attends the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meetings. The court should therefore, declare his seat vacant."
The panel of justices of the Court of Appeal was led by its president, Justice Umaru Abdullahi. Others are Justices Isa Ayo Salami, Olukunlola Adekeye, Abdul Aboki and Chidi Nwaoma Uwa.
Meanwhile, the court has fixed February 20, 2007 to deliver judgment on the matter.