Connect with us


POLITICS

Lawyer Faults Falana’s Position On Jonathan

Published

on

…Says he’s eminently qualified to contest 2023 elections

I have just read a story currently trending on social media credited to the leading Human Rights Lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana to the effect that former President Goodluck Jonathan is constitutionally barred from contesting in the 2023 Presidential election. Mr. Falana predicated his position on the provision of section 137 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). I beg to disagree with Mr. Falana’s submission. It does not reflect the position of the law.

Beyond Mr. Falana’s submission, this issue has generated a lot of controversy in recent times, and in this short piece, I shall show that former President Jonathan is constitutionally qualified to contest in the 2023 Presidential election and that the provisions of section 137 (3) of the 1999 Constitution do not apply to him.
THE IMPORT OF SECTION 137 (3) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED) AND ITS ORIGIN
Section 137 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides thus:
‘A person who was sworn in as President to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term’’.

In simple terms, section 137 (3) means that a person who had completed the term of another person, just like former President Jonathan completed the term of late President Yar’Adua, can be elected for only one term.
However, the key question is whether this constitutional provision, that is, section 137 (3), applies to former President Jonathan in respect of his constitutional right to contest the 2023 Presidential elections. This leads us to the determination of its origin. Section 137 (3) came about as a result of the 10th alteration to the 1999 Constitution which was assented to by President Buhari on the 7th day of June 2018. In effect, the commencement date or the date section 137 (3) enters into operation is from the 7th day of June 2018. Now, former President Jonathan completed the term of Late President Yar’Adua from May 5, 2010, to May 29, 2011, and served a single term from May 29, 2011, to May 29, 2015.

The question is whether a law or constitutional provision which came into effect on the 7th day of June 2018, after Jonathan had served the term of Late Yar’Adua and a single term in office, has retrospective application to an event that occurred before the coming into effect of the law. The apex court in Nigeria, which is the Supreme Court, has distinguished between two sets of laws. That is, the substantive or organic and the procedural laws. Whereas substantive laws deal with substantive rights and obligations of persons, on the other hand, procedural laws deal with issues of procedure such as rules of court. As to the application of these two sets of laws to practical situations, the Supreme Court has provided a guide in a plethora of cases. In the recent case of Nwora & Ors v. Nwabueze & Ors (2020) ALL FWLR (Pt. 1029) 58, 93, paras A-H, a case that deals with one of the constitutional alteration bills signed into law by President Buhari on the 7th day of June 2018, the Supreme Court, Per Nweze, JSC stated the law in these words:
‘’Both in England and Nigeria, superior courts have made it, abundantly, clear that the applicable law to a cause of action is the law prevailing at the time the cause of action arose, notwithstanding, that the law has been revoked at the time the action is being trial … In all, it is a fundamental principle of our law that rights of parties in an issue in the litigation are decided based on the substantive or organic law in force at the time of the act in question. This distinguishes them from adjectival or procedural law where the rule governing practice and procedure is the rule in force at the time of trial or the application is heard unless there is provision to the contrary…’’

In simple terms, constitutional provisions or laws relating to the right to contest elections such as section 137 (3) fall under the umbrella of substantive or organic law and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, the substantive or organic law applicable is the law that was in existence at the time the act in question occurred. The simple reason is that laws generally do not have retrospective effect, except otherwise stated. In other words, laws apply only to acts that occur after the enactment of the law and not those that occurred before the enactment. See SHABA & ORS v. KPOTUN & ORS (2021) LPELR-54766 (CA), 29-30. The actin question here is that former President Jonathan completed the term of Late President Yar’Adua before spending another term as President from 2011 to 2015.
Clearly, from the foregoing statement of the law, the relevant questions that come to mind are:
i. When did former President Jonathan complete the term of President Yar’Adua and served one term?
ii. Was the provision of Section 137(3) the law in existence at that time?
The answers to the foregoing questions are not farfetched. Former President Jonathan completed the term of Late Yar’Adua from May 10, 2010, to May 29, 2011, and served one term from May 29, 2011, to May 29, 2015. Then, the answer to the second question is simple. Section 137 (3) was not in existence or operation from May 10, 2010, to May 29, 2015, when the act in question occurred; hence it is not applicable.
Based on the foregoing, I submit most humbly that the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana was wrong to contend that former President Jonathan is not qualified to contest the 2023 Presidential election based on section 137 (3) which came into effect on the 7th day of July 2018. Section 137 (3) does not apply to former President Jonathan and he is constitutionally qualified to contest the 2023 Presidential election if he wishes to aspire.

Eric K. Omare, Esq is the Principal Partner in the law firm of E. K. Omare & Co, based in Warri, Delta State, and can be reached via [email protected]

BIG STORY

BREAKING: Court Finds Natasha Guilty Of Contempt, Fines Her N5 million

Published

on

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday convicted the senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, for contempt over a satirical apology she posted on her Facebook page on April 27.

Justice Binta Nyako, delivering judgment in the suit filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging her suspension, began with the contempt application submitted by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.

Akpabio, in his application, argued that the senator’s social media post breached an earlier court order that restrained all parties from speaking to the press or posting on social media about the matter.

Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel contended that the post was unrelated to the court’s order on her suspension but was about a separate matter involving sexual harassment claims against the third respondent (Akpabio).

However, Justice Nyako ruled that after reviewing the post and the application before her filed by the third respondent, she was convinced it was connected to the suspension case before the court and therefore declared the plaintiff guilty of contempt.

The judge directed Akpoti-Uduaghan to publish an apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days. She also imposed a fine of N5 million.

 

More to come…

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

BREAKING: Court Orders Senate To Recall Suspended Natasha Akpoti

Published

on

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday ruled that the Nigerian Senate exceeded its powers by suspending Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, ordering her to be immediately recalled to the Red Chamber.

Justice Binta Nyako, delivering the judgment, described the suspension period as “excessive” and lacking a solid legal basis.

The court stated that both Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Orders and Section 14 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which the Senate relied on, do not specify a maximum suspension length. Therefore, their application in this situation was considered overreaching.

The judge noted that since the National Assembly is only mandated to sit for 181 days in a legislative year, suspending a lawmaker for about the same length of time effectively silences an entire constituency, calling it unconstitutional.

“While the Senate has the authority to discipline its members, such sanctions must not go so far as to deny constituents their right to representation,” Nyako ruled.

However, the court agreed with Senate President Godswill Akpabio on a different issue, ruling that his decision to prevent Akpoti-Uduaghan from speaking during a plenary—because she was not in her designated seat—did not violate her rights.

Nyako also dismissed Akpabio’s argument that the judiciary should not interfere in what he described as an “internal affair” of the legislature, saying fundamental rights and representation fall squarely within the court’s jurisdiction.

In a separate twist, the court imposed a monetary penalty on Akpoti-Uduaghan for violating an earlier court directive that barred both parties from making public comments about the ongoing legal proceedings.

The fine amounts to millions of naira.

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

COALITION: We’ll Register New Party As Backup To ADC — El-Rufai

Published

on

A leader of the Social Democratic Party, SDP, and an important figure in the opposition coalition, Nasir El-Rufai, stated that a new political party would be registered as a backup for the African Democratic Congress, ADC.

El-Rufai explained that the new party would serve as an alternative option to guard against potential infiltration by the All Progressives Congress, APC, into the ADC.

The opposition coalition had chosen the ADC as its platform on Wednesday.

However, El-Rufai noted that there is a possibility the APC could spark a crisis within the ADC by turning old members against the new leadership.

He revealed this during an interview with Radio France International (RFI) Hausa Service on Wednesday night.

“Those who refuse to join the APC face threats of investigations by agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), or Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

“The opposition parties’ alliance in the ADC is temporary, and we may register a new party as a second option, which we will move to should the ADC be instigated into crisis by the government,” the former Kaduna governor stated.

Continue Reading



 

Join Us On Facebook

Most Popular