By Inibehe Effiong

The purported impeachment of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr. Simon Achuba, by the Kogi State House of Assembly, and the alleged nomination of one Mr. Edward Onoja as his replacement by Governor Yahaya Bello, are acts of constitutional vandalism and a nullity and should be deprecated by all lovers of democracy and adherents of the rule of law.

Without much ado, let me say clearly that the futile impeachment proceedings initiated against Mr. Achuba by the Kogi State House of Assembly ended by operation of law (automatically) the moment the House received the Report of the 7-man Investigation Panel dated the 18th day of October, 2019 which completely exonerated Mr. Achuba of (all) the 5 allegations of gross misconduct brought against him by the House.

Impeachment is not, and not never be deployed as a malignant weapon for insatiable political vendetta. It was not the intention of the framers of the 1999 Constitution to give a House of Assembly omnipotent powers in the process of removing elected governors and deputy governors. This is apparent from the role ascribed to the Chief Judge of a State and the institutional independence given to the 7-man Investigation Panel under Section 188 of the Constitution.

There are only two definitive conclusions that the Panel is mandated to reach under the Constitution, and they have variant implications. The Panel must arrive at one of the two conclusions without ambiguity.

First, the panel can report to the House that the allegations of gross misconduct against a governor or deputy governor as the case may be, have been proved. In that case, the House “within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the House of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.”. See Section 188 (9) of the Constitution.

Second, “Where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter.” See Section 188 ( of the Constitution.

I have perused the Report submitted by the 7-man Investigation Panel constituted by the Chief Judge of Kogi State on the 26th of August, 2019 to investigate the Allegations of Gross Misconduct brought against the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr. Achuba. The Report was signed and endorsed by the Chairman, Mr. John Baiyeshea, SAN, and by all the six members of the Panel. In its conclusion, the Panel stated and reported to the Kogi State House of Assembly as follows:

“In line with Section 188 ( of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) quoted herein before, we hereby report to the Kogi State House of Assembly that the allegations contained in the Notice of Allegations admitted in evidence by this Panel as Exhibit C7 have NOT BEEN PROVED.”

It is a settled principle of constitutional interpretation that when the words used in the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain, literal, ordinary and grammatical meaning and interpretation. See the case of DANGANA & ANOR v. USMAN & ORS (2012) LPELR-25012(SC) where the Supreme Court opined thus:

“In the literal rule of interpretation, Courts must interpret words in the Constitution in accordance with the intendment and certainly, not in a way opposed to the purpose intended for the enactment. There should be no divergence but a strict confinement within the ordinary meaning of the words used in the Constitution unless it is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be gathered from the words used or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance. Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 665) pg. 481. Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51.” Per ADEKEYE, J.S.C (Pp. 32-33, paras. F-B).

From the relevant constitutional provisions reproduced above, it is beyond disputation that the Kogi State House of Assembly is barred by Section 188 ( of the Constitution from deliberating, vetting, supervising or in any manner reviewing the conclusion of the Investigation Panel. Indeed, the House is not in a position to express any opinion on the report.

The Constitution has expressly determined the destiny of the impeachment proceedings upon the exoneration of the subject of the investigation by the Investigation Panel. There is no ambiguity as to what should happen where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly, as in the instant case, that the allegations have not been proved. The Constitution states that “no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter”.

However, the course of action would have differed if the Panel were to report that the allegations against Mr. Achuba have been proved. Since the opposite conclusion was reached, the only permissible consequence is that no further proceedings can be taken in respect of the matter.

To avoid any mischievous argument in favour of the constitutional delinquents in Kogi State, one point should be clarified. Section 188 (10) of the Constitution states that “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.” This ouster clause on the face value suggest that steps taken by the House of Assembly in relation to the impeachment proceedings cannot be questioned in court.

READ MORE: https://thebelltimesng.com/2019/10/20/the-constitutional-vandalism-in-kogi-state-must-end-now/