Jonathan’s declaration for 2015 was wrong – Obla

What is your reaction to President Jonathan’s declaration in view of the pending suit challenging his eligibility to contest in the 2015 presidential election? As the lawyer to Cyracus Njoku who is the appellant in the suit, I felt very bad because the issue of the eligibility of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to present Jonathan […]

What is your reaction to President Jonathan’s declaration in view of the pending suit challenging his eligibility to contest in the 2015 presidential election?
 As the lawyer to Cyracus Njoku who is the appellant in the suit, I felt very bad because the issue of the eligibility of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to present Jonathan is a subject matter of an appeal that is pending in the Court of Appeal Abuja arising out of a judgment delivered in March 2013 by Justice Mudasiru Oniyangi concerning the case filed by Njoku challenging the eligibility of Jonathan to contest the 2015 presidential election.
The grouse for the challenge is that Jonathan has taken Oath of Office twice. On 6th  May, 2010 when he was sworn in as President after the death of late President Musa Yar’adua, then he took another Oath of Office 29 May, 2011 after he won 2011 the presidential election. So he has served two terms.
The High Court has already given him judgment saying that he is eligible, so why do you quarrel with his declaration for 2015?
There is a challenge to that judgment and it is a subject of an appeal. The fact that the High Court says he is eligible and there is a challenge, that process is not yet over, so the status quo will be as if there was no judgment saying that he should contest, because we are on appeal and the principle in all jurisdictions, particularly in the Commonwealth is the principle of Lis pendens and subjudice.
If a matter is in court, whether in the trial court or the Court of Appeal nobody is required and expected to take steps to undermine the fair hearing of the matter or to foist on the court a situation of helplessness. So if you take those steps you render the courts useless or pre-empt the outcome of the case or try to overreach your opponent like in this case. He is trying to overreach my client – Cyriacus Njoku.

In the case of Peter Obi Vs. INEC, Peter Obi challenged the decision of INEC to conduct governorship election in Anambra State. Peter Obi said that his tenure had not expired because he took oath of office in 2006. INEC said no, your period of office has expired. So he went to the federal high court but while that matter was pending at the Supreme Court, INEC went ahead and conducted an election and thereafter Dr. Andy Uba was sworn in as governor of Anambra State but the Supreme Court invoked that principle to set aside that election and said INEC ought not to have used public funds to conduct that election since Peter Obi has challenged their decision to conduct governorship election in Anambra State.
 How would you react to the allegation  that your client – Mr. Cyriacus Njoku – is being sponsored by the PDP and the presidency?
I would be surprised and I don’t believe that. For what purpose? If they had said that my client was being sponsored by the opponents of Mr. President, I may have agreed but not by PDP.
My client has suffered because of this matter. He was arrested last year when we filed a notice of appeal. They took him to Suleja and incarcerated him for almost two weeks before I knew. I had to go to the press before he was released. They took him to court on a trumped up charge of raping but they were unable to prove their case and he was let go.
So, if he is being sponsored by the presidency how would that have happened? I think that he is just a genuine Nigerian who just wants to strengthen the law like what Dr. Umar Ardo is doing.
Could you please explain what you mean by strengthening the law?
Let us know so that it may guide us subsequently in this country. If a vice president takes over from an incumbent president upon death, is his tenure different from that of the departed President or is it a continuation of that tenure, or if he has taken the oath of office twice , the law says you cannot take the oath of office more than two times. The consequence is that if Jonathan wins 2015 presidential election, he is going to be in office for nine years. Is that contemplated by the constitution?
You quarrel with Jonathan’s declaration but may l know if you filed an injunction in the court case to restrain Jonathan from declaring because of the pending appeal?
We did not file an injunction. Even if there was no injunction or order the time tested principles is that if a matter is still in court, if you are law abiding, you cannot take any steps to pre-empt the court or to overreach your opponent. The Supreme Court in Nigeria has applied that principle in so many cases including Rotimi Amaechi, Ararume and in Ojukwu Vs Governor of Lagos State.
In this case Sir, INEC has released the 2015 election time table and the only subsisting judgment is the one delivered by Justice Oniyangi. So if you were in the president’s shoes what would you do? Would you forfeit that chance?
I will not declare because the matter is in court and you cannot forfeit that chance because INEC is aware of the case, PDP is aware and it is not only the president that is aware of this case and guilty of taking steps to overreach the appellant.
PDP has also taken several steps to overreach the appellant, for example by adopting Jonathan as candidate and giving a form to Jonathan. So they should have waited. Too bad the matter is in court but that is why they ought to have pursued the matter vigorously so that the matter is determined before the presidential  elections. So they cannot use that as an excuse. Law is not premised on sentimental reasons.
 Could you clarify whether filing of an appeal could translate into a stay of execution?
I have said that it does not translate into a stay of execution and it is not an order of injunction, what I am saying is that there is a principle – if a matter is in court or subjudice you do not take steps because we have to honour the integrity of the court. We don’t have to undermine the authority of the court. That is the law. Anybody who says that is not the law should come forward with the position of the law. The principle of the law is that when there is a matter in court nobody must take steps and that is what I rely upon to say that Jonathan’s declaration for 2015 was wrong.
What is your reaction to the withdrawal of Speaker Tambuwal’s security aides by the police?
We have been talking about the culture of impunity. I just talked about the lawlessness in Jonathan’s declaration for 2015 election. The president went to declare when a matter against his eligibility is pending in court. Why should the Inspector General of Police constitute himself into a court of law and then make an order that security details of the Speaker should be taken away from him and cited Section 68 (g) of the Constitution but there is a proviso to that section that says if there is a division in the party. So that is wrong and it is the culture of impunity that we have been condemning and which has been institutionalised in this government. So rather than go to court to determine whether or not the Speaker has to vacate his seat they resorted to self-help. Just like the self-help by the president going to declare when we were in court. Self-help is wrong and it is against the principles of constitutionalism. The law frowns at self-help which the Supreme Court warned against seriously in the case of Ojukwu Vs. Governor of Lagos State.
How do you assess the tenure of Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar as CJN?
She has done her best. She tried to fight against judicial corruption. She tried to make sure that judges work and enforce discipline in the judiciary. To that extent she has done very well.