Victor Okpara is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. In this interview, he speaks on the legal implication of the political crisis in Rivers State. He said nothing stops the President from advising any governor, saying it is constitutional and part of good governance. Okpara urges Governor Siminalayi Fubara to be politically astute and sensitive to understand that he needs to work by the rules. Excerpts:
As a lawyer, what is your take on the political crisis in Rivers State, where a former governor and his godson are at loggerheads?
I don’t understand what you mean by godfather and godson. These are concepts not recognised by the Constitution of the Federal Republic or the Electoral Act.
What I know is that as of today, the Independent National Electoral Commission returned Siminalayi Fubara as the governor of Rivers State, and when his electoral success was challenged in court, the court upheld it. This means that the court maintained the expression of the democratic will of the people in the River State. So, as far as I am concerned, he is the governor.
I cannot say I am ignorant of the fact that there is a political crisis there, but nobody has convinced me that it is a godfather and godson thing. Again, it is no longer news that certain members of the PDP in the House of Assembly have defected to the APC, and it is also not news that there have been cases and counter-cases; injunction, as it were, but my take on it is very simple. Nigeria’s public policy is that we must constantly seek peace for the greater good of Nigerians, and in this case, River State in particular, which led to the intervention by Mr President.
What do you make of the terms of the agreement that was reached after the intervention of President Bola Tinubu?
Viewing it strictly from the constitutional point of view, it is not for the President to be calling and dictating on what to do. But my take on it is that what the President did was merely advisory. It has no power or potency under the law. And of course, he is the number one citizen, and to bring lasting peace to Rivers State, he had to do that.
As far as I am concerned, that particular document was clear, and everybody signed it willingly and without coercion. The governor didn’t say he was forced to sign it when he returned to his state. The other parties who co-signed it have not said they were forced. What that simply means is that he (the governor) believes in the settlement; he has endorsed it, and he believes it will bring peace to his state.
They now need legal experts to assist them in navigating so that they don’t run afoul of the law. If there is a subsisting court ruling, the President cannot torpedo the court ruling by getting parties to sit in Abuja and enter into terms of settlement. But you can see that one of the things advised in those terms is that everyone should withdraw their court cases, and when they do, the cases are struck out, while all other issues go with the court cases.
So, I don’t agree with the people who raised concern that President Tinubu torpedoed the court cases because it was written in the agreement that they should withdraw the court cases. It is also believed that all parties will take legal advice to ensure that the terms of settlement are workable and practicable.
“I think it is not right for anyone to say that it is wrong for the President to intervene when there is a crisis in a state. And of course, to a large extent, you can see some relative peace in the state. Since it is mere advice, both parties have the right to accept or reject the terms of the agreement”
At the peak of the crisis, some members of the PDP in the River State House of Assembly defected to the APC. Is it not constitutionally correct that they should lose their seats because of that defection?
That is one of the areas in the agreement that there is an issue. There is a provision of the constitution that talks about how a person should vacate his or her seat because of defection to another political party. The grounds for defection are well stated in the constitution. The question then will be; are those grounds available or not? If it is, it will then mean that those people have forfeited their seats and if that is the case, then it constitutionally mandates INEC to conduct a by-election.
Is it constitutional for the President to intervene in a political crisis affecting any state in a federal system?
Did the President tell you he was interfering constitutionally? He is the father of the nation. Nothing is stopping the President from advising any governor. It is constitutional, and in fact, it is part of good governance. Moreover, there is a distinction between an advisory and a compulsory step.
He invited both parties to discuss how he wanted to settle it. And if you look at that agreement, the President didn’t sign. It was the feuding parties that signed. So, when you are looking at its constitutionality, you must look at it against the background of the social, political, and legal milieu that triggered it. It is a deep question if the President summoned them as a matter of law, supposedly wielding power and now probably decreeing that they should follow those steps.
I believe if there is a crisis in your bedroom and you are having issues with your wife, nothing is stopping President Tinubu from telling you he should intervene and see if he can settle it with his wisdom. You can’t begin to ask if it is matrimonially correct. If he had used compulsion or probably used state power to do it, then I would say he had no constitutional power for such, but when the President was intervening, he was not exercising any constitutional power; he was just advising as the father of the nation.
I think it is not right for anyone to say that it is wrong for the President to intervene when there is a crisis in a state. And of course, to a large extent, you can see some relative peace in the state. Since it is mere advice, both parties have the right to accept or reject the terms of the agreement.
Of course, the thing is that if you sign and Governor Fubara decides to bridge it, what will happen? Nothing! Have you forgotten that he has constitutional immunity? But again, it raises the moral question of competent leadership. If you attended a meeting, you were not forced to settle; elders and the President intervened, and you appended your signature to a fixed document. If you go ahead to do it against the agreement, you will cause a problem. Is that not part of the reason why we had problems during the civil war? Have you forgotten the accord? And of course, anybody can flaunt it because it is just a memorandum of understanding. It is a move that everyone should settle for. But these are no things that will torpedo the provisions of the constitution as it were. Don’t forget, the President said they should withdraw the court cases to give room for peace.
One of the key points in the agreement was that Governor Fubara and his allies would withdraw all court cases related to the crisis. On the other hand, the State House of Assembly would drop the impeachment proceedings initiated against Fubara. What do you make of this?
That is why I said it was purely advisory. Does it mean that if Governor Fubara commits an impeachment offence, they will not impeach him? No. What it is simply saying is that all these things that have given rise to all these issues should be dropped. People were saying that the demolition of the State House of Assembly complex was orchestrated. Nobody knows if it is true or false. Of course, we know these are political things. So, they are expected to be morally in obedience to the constitution.
Nobody can sign an agreement beyond the constitutional provisions. Don’t forget that members of the House of Assembly swore to uphold the constitution. And the constitution has stated clearly what impeachable offences are. Do you think this agreement will now supersede the provisions of the constitution? No. Any member of the House of Assembly that does that should be recalled because that is an adjudication of his responsibility.
So, the agreement signed is a way of trying to restore events to the status quo as they were before the issues, believing that all the political weight and gladiators will be able to see the reasons and take River State to the next level. After all, the entire Attorney General who resigned from the government was in the Fubara cabinet. We need to look at these things from both sides. Talking politically, if a lot of people who were in the cabinet resigned because of these issues, it tells you that a lot of them are loyal to (Nyesom) Wike. Even Fubara needs to be politically astute and sensitive to understand that he needs to work by the rules. Politics does not work in isolation. He needs to work as a team.
Don’t forget that when the victory came, it was achieved as a team, and all the people who formed the cabinet were appointed by him. So, this godfatherism, I don’t understand. All I know is that before you can appoint a commissioner, you are the governor who appointed them. It is too late to say it was your godfather who appointed anyone for you because the very fact that you accepted the appointment shows you are responsible for it. He has to realise that there is unity in strength and strength in number. I don’t think it will be very easy for him as the governor to run the state in isolation. That is why you have to commend someone like President Tinubu because he is a bridge builder. Look at the appointment in the Supreme Court, for instance. Do you see anyone complaining? Almost all geo-political zones are balanced.
What do you make of the directive asking the governor to resubmit the names of commissioners who willingly resigned in a federal system of government?
This is where I differ a bit from what the President did because if you look at all the reasons why the people resigned, it was meant for personal reasons and they voluntarily resigned.
So, for you to tell the governor to represent their case, those people should have been called to ask them if they still wanted to serve in that government. It would have been a different issue if it was the governor who sacked them because the people were resigning for personal and not political reasons. What makes you think that if he resubmits their name again, they would want to serve? I believe that aspect of the MoU was not well written. So, I don’t agree with that aspect.
The governor was also asked to re-present the 2024 budget to the Martin Amaewhule-led Assembly. What do you make of that?
It looks laughable to me that you will present a budget to five people in a state with such a large representation. If you say they declared the seat of others vacant, did the constitution say you should leave the seats unoccupied? No. So, you (Fubara) are presenting a budget, and all the other contingents of River State were not represented. So, since those people have defected and Fubara has accepted, as it were, that those people are members of the APC, it means that he agreed that there is a crisis in the PDP and those people legitimately left.
If he doesn’t believe they legitimately left, no matter what he has done, the constitution is there to trash it. If those they had were still members of the PDP at the time they were presenting that budget, it means they couldn’t present the budget because they would not constitute a quorum. But having signed the budget, it means he has accepted that those people left properly because there was a crisis in the PDP.
From a legal perspective, what has happened? Do you think the House of Assembly members who defected have lost their seats?
From what I have read so far, I cannot locate a serious crisis in the PDP that will make them defect to the APC. The constitution and Electoral Act do not allow for independent candidature; the political party must be involved. It was the political party that sold the manifesto to the electorate. People can’t vote for someone on the platform of a party, and when they get there, they are defeated and still want to keep their seats. The only exception is if there are serious political crises in that party. But was there a crisis in Rivers PDP? If we are talking about the so-called crisis of godfather and godson, is that a party thing? It is a personal thing, and the constitution does not recognise a personal fight between godfather and godson.
“It would have been a different issue if it was the governor who sacked them because the people were resigning for personal and not political reasons. What makes you think that if he resubmits their name again, they would want to serve?”
In one of the provisions, it was stated that the dissolution of local governments is null and void. Do you think this should be the business of the President?
No, that should not be. That is a matter for the court. If there is dissolution of the local government, as it were, and the matter is in court, it is either you withdraw the matter from the court or the governor can reverse it. I don’t think that’s what President Tinubu means. What I think he means is that they should reverse all the things you have done and withdraw all the court cases. If you dissolve the local government, stop it, and let’s go back to the drawing board and do it well. I don’t think he will declare and undo what the court has done. That will be contempt of court.
Just like Rivers State, when a crisis erupted in Ondo State regarding the absence of the governor, they also ran to the President to intervene. Don’t you think if the states follow the constitution on every matter, there will be no need to seek intervention from the President?
I agree with you. It is equally good that they have somebody they can run to. In some other cases, the crisis will engulf the state, and a state of emergency will be declared. Have you forgotten that there is that power in the hands of the President? He can declare a state of emergency in a state if it becomes ungovernable. But again, Nigerians need to understand that everything has been substantially provided in the constitution. If only we could follow the constitution and this is where the court needs to do more to revive the confidence of the people in the court system.
Barely 24 hours after the death of the governor of Ondo State was announced, his deputy was sworn in. Don’t you think it would have been right to honour and mourn the late governor for at least a week before the new governor would be sworn in?
The demise of Akeredolu is very unfortunate and painful. Well, swearing in is a constitutional requirement; there is nothing wrong with it. And don’t forget that there are a lot of crises in that state. Before you know it, somebody will go and get an injunction restraining him from being sworn in. But I am sure it is a political move but then, there is nothing wrong constitutionally with what they have done.
If a governor dies, the deputy will step into his shoes. It is now left for the present governor to recognise the impact and contributions of Aketi by ensuring that he is given a state burial and every accolade. This is an opportunity he has to allay the fears of several people by giving credit to Akeredolu because he contributed to the state. And of course, nobody is perfect.
