Posted by By GODWIN TSA Abuja on
After five months of his impeachment by a faction of the Plateau State House of Assembly, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered that Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye be restored and immediately reinstated to his office as the executive Governor of Plateau State with all rights, privileges and perquisites of his office.
• Supreme Court orders his immediate reinstatement
After five months of his impeachment by a faction of the Plateau State House of Assembly, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered that Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye be restored and immediately reinstated to his office as the executive Governor of Plateau State with all rights, privileges and perquisites of his office.
The apex court in affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos division, dismissed the appeal brought before it by six members of the Plateau State House of Assembly as lacking in merit.
In his reaction, Governor Dariye described the judgment as victory for democracy, saying he is in Jos and ready to resume work as soon as his security details are restored.
Eight members of the state Assembly impeached Governor Dariye on November 13, 2006 over allegations of gross misconduct.
In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court which described the process leading to his impeachment as unconstitutional, null and void held that 'whereas the initiation of the impeachment process requires the signatures of not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly on the notice of written allegation of gross misconduct against the governor or deputy Governor intended to be impeached, the actual removal of the said Governor or Deputy requires the support of not less than two-thirds of all its members."
Reading his leading judgment, Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen said that when subsection [2] of section 188 of the 1999 constitution is compared with subsection [9] of the same section, it becomes clear that the expression 'of the members" and 'all the members" do not mean the same thing.
His words, 'I hold the further view that the expression 'all the members" refers to the members present and voting at the House of Assembly on any particular day after forming the required quorum for the transaction of legislative business which is 1/3 of all the members as provided for in section 96[1] of the 1999 constitution.
The same expression is used in section 9 [2] and [3] in relation to creation of State; section 143 [4] and [9] in relation to the removal of the President or Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; section 188 [9] in relation to motion to investigate the allegation; and section 305 dealing with the procedure for declaration of State of emergency, all under the 1999 constitution.
'In all the above situations, it appears that the intention of the framers of the constitution is that the numbers required to transact the particular business of the legislature is a percentage or proportion of the total number or the totality of the assigned membership of the House under the constitution.
' In the instant case it is two-thirds of all the members of the plateau State House of Assembly which is made up of 24 members; that is 16 members. It is not in doubt that the word 'all" means; entire, complete, the whole number of; everyone of. See page 47 of Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged second edition, 1975."
The court also held that 'In the instant case, it is not disputed that eight out of ten members of the House of 24 membership initiated and carried out the impeachment of Governor Dariye. There is no doubt that there existed in the Plateau State House of Assembly 14 vacant seats as a result of the cross carpeting. It is the view of the learned leading counsel for the appellants [Chief Gani Fawehinmi [SAN]] that the vacancy did not affect the capacity of the eight members to carry out the impeachment process as eight is more than 2/3 of 10 members.
However, the apex court said, 'The simple and complete answer to Fawehinmi's contention is the decision of the court [Supreme court] in the case of Inakoju Vs Adeleke wherein Justice Niki Tobi held as follows;
'By section 102, the proceedings of the House cannot be invalidated by the fact that there is a vacancy in its membership. This seems to be an answer in the appellants' way to section to the 18 persons who purportedly removed Governor Rasheed Ladoja of Oyo State.
The law is elementary that where the constitution or a statute contains a general provision, the specific will prevail over the general provision. In this wise, it is my view that the specific provision of section 188 [9] will prevail over the general provision of section 102. Accordingly the removal of Ladoja is governed by section 188 [9] and not section 102 of the constitution."
The court held that until the vacancies created by the carpet crossing members are filled by the process of by-election, the Plateau State House of Assembly can only transact such legislative duties that require the participation of less than 2/3 majority of all the members of that House, which duties definitely excludes impeachment proceedings.
The Court while holding that the Court of Appeal was right in coming to its conclusion invalidating the impeachment said 'it is true that section 188[10] of the 1999 constitution oust the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of the impeachment of a Governor or Deputy Governor but that must be subject to the rule that the legislature or the House of Assembly complied with all the constitutional requirements in section 188 needed for the impeachment as the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether the said constitutional requirements have been strictly complied with or not."
Justice Onnoghen said the desire of the judiciary to curb the now notorious attitude of some legal practitioners and politicians faced with very bad cases to employ delay tactics to either defeat the ends of justice or postponed the evil day, needs the encouragement of well meaning legal practitioners, particularly the very senior members of the profession.
According to the apex court, 'it is apparent that in impeachment cases, like election matters, time is of the very essence. In the instant case which was commenced by originating summons designed to expedite the matter, the objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court, if well intentioned and not directed or aimed at causing inordinate delay in the determination of the issues, could have been taken together with the substantive matter so as to speed up the process of adjudication.
'Rather than adopt that prudent procedure, the appellants chose to appeal against the well intentioned decision of the trial court to hear arguments on both the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and the originating summons expecting that in the event of being overruled they would have to return to the trial court for hearing of the substantive matter; meanwhile time, like tide, as they say, waits for no man; it keeps running out and at the end may likely leave justice prostrate and the aggrieved party frustrated and bitter with the judicial system. This court has to do something about the situation for the restoration of hope and credibility in the system for the benefit of all. Is it not said that justice delayed is justice denied? The reign of technical justice is over. On the throne now sits substantial justice."