Supreme Court and Peter Obi’s tenure

The Supreme Court literally interpreted section 180(2a) of the constitution as it affects Peter Obi’s tenure without recourse to the provisions of section 180(1) as demanded by the 1999 constitution.  Section 180(2a) of the constitution States: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration […]

The Supreme Court literally interpreted section 180(2a) of the constitution as it affects Peter Obi’s tenure without recourse to the provisions of section 180(1) as demanded by the 1999 constitution.  Section 180(2a) of the constitution States: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date when in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office”.  It is clear that a judicious interpretation of section 180(2a) cannot be made in isolation; without subjecting its interpretative meaning to the dictates of section 180(1) of the constitution.

Incidentally, the relevant portion of section 180(1) of the constitution to the case at hand here is section 180(1a) which insists: “…..a person shall hold the office of Governor of a state until his successor takes the oath of that office”.  The combined effect of sections 180(1a) and 180(2a) simply suggests that once the tenure of an incumbent governor comes to an end, the tenure of office of his successor (the new occupant of the office) commences instantly.  

The key elements that determine the commencement date of four-year tenure for governors are embedded in section 180(1) of the constitution.  If this is not the case, the constitution would not have insisted that whatever meanings that are going to be attached to section 180(2a) must first of all be subjected to, or derived from, the effects of section 180(1) of the supreme law of the Land.  In other words, if the effects of section 180(1) of the constitution have not been exhausted, any meanings attached to section 180(2a) will stand on a very shaky or faulty foundation.  Sadly, it is not only that the Supreme Court decided to adjudicate on a matter it had no jurisdiction to address, it even ended up unconstitutionally extending the tenure of office of Peter Obi from May 29, 2007 to March 17, 2010 in what must be seen as a major travesty of justice to Andy Uba, and an undeserved dent to the image of Prof Iwu’s INEC.

All the same, section 185(1) of the constitution puts in clearer perspective the status of an oath of Allegiance and oath of office administered to the Governor of any state. In very clear terms, the oath of Allegiance and oath of office defines only when a State Governor whose tenure has already started running in line with the provisions of section 180(1) of the constitution can begin to exercise the powers of his office.  In contrast to the thinking of the Supreme Court, the commencement date of the four-year tenure of a Governor as demanded by sections 180(1a) and 180(2a) of the constitution cannot be the same thing as the actual time the same Governor begins to exercise the functions of his office as demanded by section 185(1) of the constitution.

The truth of the matter is that on May 29, 2003, the tenure of Office of the then Governor of Anambra State, Dr Chinwoke Mbadinuju, came to a successful end.  Instantly, the tenure of office of his successor, Peter Obi, who won the 2003 governorship election in Anambra State commenced, even though he did not physically take over Government House, Awka.  As far as the 1999 constitution is concerned, the oath of office illegally taken by Dr. Chris Ngige was for Peter Obi who actually succeeded Mbadinuju.

In all seriousness, the oath of office taken by Peter Obi on March 17, 2006 is relevant only to the extent that it enabled him to begin  to perform his functions as a Governor as demanded by section 185(1) of the constitution..  Peter Obi’s Oath of Office had nothing to do with the commencement of his tenure as Governor because INEC did not organize any governorship election in Anambra State in the year 2006.

The negative consequences of the unconstitutional extension of Peter Obi’s tenure by the Supreme Court as a result of the interpretation of section 180(2a) alone without subjecting its meaning to the dictates of section 180(1) have now stuck out like sour thumbs.  The 1999 constitution, for instance, never contemplated a situation where there would not be a general election holding at the same time and date throughout the 36 States of the Federation.  In other words, the constitution never made any provisions for the conduct of staggered elections in Nigeria.  Unfortunately, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Peter Obi tenure case has ended up creating a confusing scenario in the polity very detrimental to the cause of democracy in Nigeria.   Today, we have the absurd situation where the tenure of office of state governors whose elections were nullified because of irregularities or malpractices or for not abiding by the provisions of the Electoral Act, is generally believed to have been extended beyond the four years allowed by the constitution after winning their re-run electoral exercises.

In effect, the Supreme Court seems to have suggested by its ruling on the Peter Obi tenure case that it is possible for governors who are the beneficiaries of electoral fraud to be handsomely rewarded with tenure extension rather than being severely punished. t is equally the untoward effect of the Supreme Court ruling on the Peter Obi tenure case that has given birth to two governorship tenures running concurrently in Anambra State today. The one of Andy Uba from May 29, 2007 to May 29, 2011 is recognized by the constitution, while the later part of Peter Obi’s tenure from May 29, 2007 to March 17, 2010 remains an aberration sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

Nkemjika Nkemjika is a research writer with Global Media