₦airaland Forum

barcanista: Excerpt from the Court ruling in Kaduna
[b]The plaintiffs had also sought for an order to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), joined as defendant, from fielding Jonathan as its presidential candidate in 2015.

In her ruling Justice Evlyn Enya-Dike, said the plaintiffs had failed to convince the court in all the prayers they sought, and struck out the case.

She said that Jonathan was yet to obtain or declared formally his intention to contest, adding that the suit was ``at best hypothetical, preemptive, speculative and mere conjunctures’’.

Enya-Dike also said that Section 308 of the Constitution insulated the President from civil and criminal actions until he vacates office, adding that the plaintiffs also lacked locus-standi to institute the case.

``The plaintiffs,’’ she said, ``had failed to show that they would suffer any special damage more than any member of the public if the president contests in 2015.’’

The judge, however, did not make any declaration on whether the suit was an abuse of court process.

See more http://m.dailytimes.com.ng/article/2015-court-strikes-out-eligibility-suit-against-president-jonathan[/b]

Note the judge said "Jonathan was yet to declare" among others. This was basically why the case was struck. However, should Jonathan declare, there will be litigations against him.

Ok, thanks for the excerpt. Still waiting for that of Boni Haruna

barcanista: pls see these commentaries

http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=16479

http://newsdor.bushhousenigeria.com/2013/01/what-law-tends-to-say-on-president_6732.html?m=1

What's in the links u provided are the author's explanation of the Supreme Court's ruling on Boni Haruna's case. I need the exact ruling itself. Let me make the deductions myself.

barcarnista: @Obinoscopy please analyse carefully the ruling on Boni Haruna's case. The supreme court heldd that Boni Haruna was an Associate to Atiku and was validly elected Governor because his Associate for elevation is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the office of Governor being the Vice President.

Where's the ruling? I need to see it to make my deductions. I'm still searching for it.

And for your information, Jonathan's reelection bid had been contest in court a long time ago. The most recent info I have is that the case had been struck out. However the plaintiff might still seek an appeal and it might linger till it gets to the Supreme Court.

barcanista: According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, it is assumed that the President and Vice are elected for a fixed term, should there be eventuality at any stage after the election, the Vice carry on with the term(As in the case of Haruna Boni pre-swearing in, and ofcourse Jonathan-when death took Umaru).

I want excerpts of the Supreme Court's interpretation. Can you give me the excerpts or the links/source where I can get it?

The constitution/supreme court ruling assumes that the Vice was elected President but CAN only function should anything happen to the President(that is why they are joint).

I agree with everything you said here except the bolded unless of course if this statement is EXACTLY the words of the Supreme Court. I need the excerpts of the Supreme Court's judgement in Boni Haruns's case .

Should nothing happen before the end of the Term, the Vice is entitled to run for the President along with his own Vice and start a Fresh term(If elected).

I agree

But should eventualities happen to the Principal and ofcourse the Vice will take over, it is assumed that the Vice is continuing "the tenure that he was duly elected(Going by Boni Haruna's case).

Yes the Vice is continuing the tenure of the elected (who, in this case, is the deceased/impeached Principal and not the Vice). It's only when the Vice contests an election and wins and takes oath of office that HIS TENURE starts.

Remember you can't occupy such office except you are duly elected.

I beg to disagree. We've seen Vices, Deputies, Speakers occupy such office. It's even possible in principle for someone who never contested for anything to become a Governor. Let's use this hypothetical example: Let's assume that Jonathan was impeached in 2010 immediately after when he succeeded Yar Adua. Who takes over? Sambo abi? Was Sambo elected into the presidency? No! He was appointed. So you see, your statement is false.

Also remember that there's no provision for election into the Office of Vice on the ballot separate from the Presidential.

The constitution, which is the highest law of the land, has already told us that one can be elected as Vice-President (section 142, subsection 1) so I'm less concerned about what's written on a ballot paper.

barcanista: @ Obinoscopy
The decision in Boni Haruna’s case is consistent with the provision of Section 187 of the constitution which is similar to section 142 dealing with the establishment of the office of the Vice President which stipulates as follows: -

“…a candidate for the office of Governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor…”

This scenario also applies in the case of President Jonathan, who was sworn-in as the substantive President (not acting) for one year twenty-two days in their first term in office after the demise of President Yar’adua. He formed his own cabinet and run his own and not Ya’adua’s Government thereby completing their joint mandate first, as Vice President and then he finished as President with Mohammed Namadi Sambo as his Vice President. It was at this point that the umbilical cord which joined Jonathan and Yar’adua was cut thereby separating the administration of the former from that of the latter. It therefore means that it does not matter how many months or years a President or Governor spent in completing a term of office or how much time he lost in his fixed term of four (4) years provided that the period he served is within the four-year term certain as specified by the constitution. This is because the Supreme Court with a note of finality said: -

“It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states”
If the pronouncements of the Supreme Court are any guide, it is clear that President Jonathan is in his second and final term as President of Nigeria and is therefore not eligible to contest the presidential election in 2015.
This ruling also applies to whoever wins Adamawa byelection. It may be one of the reasons that is delaying the President's declaration. Honestly, I see Vacancy in Aso Rock

I want you to look at section 142 (1) once more. Note the part which says:

"...that candidate shall be deemed to have been elected to the office of Vice-President..."

This means Jonathan was elected as Vice-President, not President, in 2007. The only time Jonathan was elected as President was in May 29, 2011.

Yes, Jonathan had taken an Oath of Office twice thus far but he has only been elected as President once. Thus this means that Jonathan has only taken one Oath of Office preceding an election.

Now, drawing inference from Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who was the lead Supreme Court Judge in the Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako case (see my previous post for excerpts), Jonathan's tenure started counting as at May 29, 2011.

And just as the Supreme Court stated that "the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states”. This means that Jonathan cannot go beyond 2019 (except of course there's a need to extend it in multiples of 6 months max as stated by the constitution section 135, subsection 3) since his time started counting in 2011 the very moment he took an Oath if Office preceding a Presidential election of which he won.

Modhream and Saintneo, please let's focus on the main topic of discuss

@@Barcanista, I just saw the Supreme Court's verdict on the case of Brigadier-General Mohamed Buba Marwa Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako and others on tenure elongation delivered on 27th January, 2012. I will quote excerpts below:

“From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 constitution, it is very clear that the constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight ( years under the 1999 constitution”.

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, who delivered the lead judgment, went further to state as follows:-

“I have also found and held that from the totality of the relevant provisions of the constitution including section 180(1) & (3) and Section 182 (1) (b), a person first elected as governor of a State shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date he took the Oath of Allegiance and of Office though he could be re-elected for another term of four years giving him a maximum two tenures of eight years. It is very clear from the relevant provisions that no person elected under the 1999 constitution can remain in that office for a day longer than as provided otherwise the intention of the framers of the constitution would be defeated”.

Sorry, I had to bolden and enlarge some keywords here to buttress my observations. You can see that the keywords there are "elected as governor" and "oath of office". The 4/8 years maximum tenure starts counting once the two keywords occurs.

Now, as regards Boni Haruna's, I'm still searching for the exact Supreme Court's verdict. The Supreme Courts verdict, just like the constitution, need to be interpreted carefully lest we make mistakes. The fact that Boni Haruna won doesn't mean he was deemed "elected as governor". I think he won based on the fact that he's the deputy-elect and thus should naturally take up the duties of a governor-elect once there appears to be a vacuum.

This is my opinion.........I may be wrong.

barcanista: you made a lot ot us remain on this thread. I foresee someone preparing to take the President to court too arguing that he's ineligible to contest.
Another brewing case is that of Taraba State Acting Governor Umar. He has been acting since 2012(if guess so) with the substanstive still sick.he's most likely clinching the ticket, the question is,
1. Will 2015 be his FIRST term? According to the law he is still a Dep. Governor
2. Some will argue that he has been performing the function since 2012.
3. Will the ruling on Haruna have effect? Some may argue that the joint ticket of Dambaba Suntai and Umar come into play. In this case Jonathan's tenure will be counted from Feb 2010 when he swore as acting rather than May 6, 2010 when he was made substanstive.
4. Can he perform in the same office for 13years?

Pls your opinion

The case of Suntai and Umar is a bit straightforward, I think. Suntai is still the governor while Garba Umar is Acting (section 190 of the 1999 constitution as amended allows it).

Suntai had wanted to take power back by transmitting a written declaration that he's fully fit to resume duties but refrained from it because, in truth, he wasn't fully fit. If he had tried to forcefully take back power from Umar then it means he's looking for trouble and section 189 subsections (1), ((2), (3), and (4) would be invoked.

Thus Suntai had to settle for a gentleman agreement with Umar to allow Umar continue as the Acting Governor while he remains the Substantive Governor (whatever that means).

Umar wasn't elected as Governor, he was elected as Deputy. The time counting isn't his but that of Suntai. Umar's time will start counting the very moment he wins the next gubernatorial elections and takes an oath of office.

noblezone: will there will be election in 2015 in Adamawa?

Won't the person who win this present election do four years?

Yes there will be election in Adamawa come 2015. I recommend you click on the thread link below to see where it was well discussed:

https://www.nairaland.com/1889229/adamawa-gubernatorial-election-im-confused

iceberylin: i suggest you make me A Mod

Ok we'll look into your suggestion

barcanista: I have gone back to read the provisions you stated, I was wrong on the reelection. Thanks for the education but I see Lawyers goint to court to argue that the governor has not enjoyed 8years frm swearing an oathe on the first day. I'm a Public Relations Practitioner and political/constitutional observer not a legal person. I am glad for your input.

Thanks obinoscopy and arewa

Thanks for your sportmanship in this argument. Your posts display maturity and intelligence. I joined this forum because of people like you.

I've also learned a few things from you during the course of this argument. The Boni Haruna's case really got me thinking wrt Jonathan's reelection bid. I think we really need to discuss this further when we're a bit free. I'll also like to get Modhream's view, along other nler's views, on this matter.

Once again, weldone sir. I doff my hat.

arewanationz: My Oga Barcanista, you should give up on this argument.... You wan do like Jmain ba!

Section 182, 1(b) states that one cannot contest for a gubernatorial election if he had contested and won two previous gubernatorial elections.

Is there any part of the constitution that says a candidate MUST complete a 4 year term?

Thanks for making section 182, 1(b) bold for him to read and understand. Perhaps I should have bolded mine earlier, a mistake on my part. Who knows, maybe this argument would have ended a long time ago

He keeps on dodging that section of our 1999 constitution (as amended).

And @Barcanista, if, by some magic wand, you were able to establish that one cannot take oath of office more than twice then you've unfortunately succeeded in confusing yourself and shooting yourself in the foot concerning our main argument which concerns Adamawa.

Whoever wins this bye-election in Adamawa would take oath of office this year. So it inevitably means that if he contests and wins the 2015 main elections as well, he would have taken oath of office twice and thus will be ineligible to contest for 2019 elections.

I used your premise (which is wrong by the way) to prove my argument (which is right based on my own premise) .

barcanista: By the provisions of Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, no President can take the Oath of Office more than twice

Pardon my inability to comprehend but can you quote the exact part of that section 135 (1) and (2) where it was specifically stated that no president can take oath of office MORE THAN TWICE?

barcanista: it goeas beyond seeking election two times for same office. Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) says: "Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when - in any other case, the person last elected to that office under this constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths". Of course, the phrase "in any other case" refers to various situations where a Nigerian citizen gets sworn-in as President without contesting and winning an election. Dr. Jonathan was sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 without contesting and winning an election.
Like I said this matter will be dragged in the courts and I see some amendments to our laws(my opinion and several legal luminaries hold this view)

Jike like modhream said, you're muddling up issues.

Now let me try and elucidate my point to you:

Section 182, 1(b) states that one cannot contest for a gubernatorial election if he had contested and won two previous gubernatorial elections.

Now if the person wins, section 180 (135 for presidency) subsection 2 spells out 4 years as his tenure

However that 4 years should be interpreted correctly.

The four years starts counting after the winner of the election takes the oath of office. Even if he dies and his deputy takes over, the time is still counting (180, 2b). Now because the deputy didn't contest an election for governor, that time isn't counting for him but for the former governor (who was elected).

But if both governor and deputy are impeached/removed or dies when the house of assembly has been inaugurated. Or if both governor and deputy dies before the inauguration of the house of assembly. In both scenario, elections will be conducted, a bye-election for the former (190, 2) and a general election for the later (180, 2). Now the 4 years will still be counting since someone who had won an election earlier took an oath of office or would have if not for his death (and the absence of an inaugurated house of assembly) see section 180, 2b. The only difference between the counting in this paragraph and the one in the preceding paragraph is that it will be against the newly elected governor and not the removed governor.

barcanista: What will happen is Þhat the winner IF he/she seek for a 2nd term in 2019, he will occupy the office for 3 yrs and 8 months(same with Jonathan). Nobody will stay a day longer than 8years in office of President or Governor and nobody shall be denied less than 8years. I foresee constitutional amendment and legal tussle. Because the same constitution said...
1. 8years in office maximum
2. It still said a person shall not seek for reelection after winning two elections for the seat of governor or president(the byelection may be argued)

The governor that wins the byelection assuming he wins 2015 may argue that denying him 2019 contravenes his fundamental right and the constitution. But should he be allowed and win 2019, it means he will hold office for 8years and 4months which is against the constitution.
From what I see, I believe the 4months will be included as part of the the 8years maximum for the eventual winner.

I see Jonathan's tenure and 2015 eligibility challeneged in court(but he will win the case in part)

Jonathan's case is different because he only contested for president once (in 2011). He didn't contest for any presidential election after Yar Adua's death.

Barcanista, let me disabuse that 4/8 years from your mind. Let's use Fayose as a case study. He contested in the 2003 election and won but didn't complete his 4 years before he was deposed. Now he contested in 2014 and won. How many years (total years) will he have ruled as governor after the expiration of this tenure?

barcanista: it literally means A governor Tenure cease after 4 years. In the case of Death/impeachment/resignation, his Deputy takes over to complete the term. Should both vacate office as it was the Adamawa case, a BYELECTION(that means auxillary election) is held to fill the gap and complete the term.

The purpose of by-election is to "fill the gap" and not to start a fresh term(ie 4years)

So where in the constitution did it say that a governor's term must be 4 years? Also show me where it says 2 tenures must be 8 years? Do you even know that a tenure can be 4 years and 6 months in some special circumstances?

You've also not interpreted section 182, subsection 1(b) for us.

The constitution is very clear, you cannot contest in a gubernatorial election if you've won the two previous gubernatorial elections.

DecemberIV: FRONT PAGE! Seun, Obinoscopy, Mynd44 the education sector is at risk.

Stale news. Was published on July 22

barcanista: Section180.

(1) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a Tenure of office
person shall hold the office of Governor of a State until - Governor.

(a) When his successor in office takes the oath of that office; or
(b) he dies whilst holding such office; or

(c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or

(d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when -

(a) in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office; and
(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

And what about this? Where's the 8 years?

barcanista: You are wrong Sir. The case btw Inec and Silva/Wammako/Nyako does not apply here but the case btw Inec vs Peter Obi in 2007.
Meanwhile a bye-election is different from re-run/runoff (the constitution is the guide).
Timpire Sylva etal assumed office in 2007, INEC erred by not holding election for the respective 5 states in 2011 with excuse that they were resworn in in 2008. According to constitution, A term starts fromm the 1st day of assuming office. Bye-election/deputy succeeding boss etc doesn't count

Bye-election, re-run election, run-off election are all elections. What differs is the circumstances preceding it. Please I need you to answer my question. Interpret section 182, 1(b) for us, with emphasis on what the word ELECTION as used there means.

You keep on saying the constitution is your guide but you've not quoted any.

modhream: It's you who actually missed mine.This is not a question of the Electoral Act,it is n has always been a Constitutional question.Section 191(2) has not been amended at any time

I never said section 191 constitution was amended. I only said electoral laws (Electoral Act inclusive) were amended to ensure that handover date wasn't skewed. I can't remember the particular section but I know that some governors whose elections were annulled and re-conducted based on orders from election tribunal couldn't enjoy tenure elongation because a section of the constitution was amended to prevent such.

barcanista: Obinoscopy you are so wrong. A term signifies 4 years starting from the day the Governor took oath of office. A Candidate is eligible for not more than 2 terms ie 8 FULL years either c consecutively of 4years per time. The bye-election DO NOT COUNT. The Bye-election is to complete the Term of Nyako's government.

Really? So where in the constitution is it said that a bye-election doesn't count as an election? Also can you interprete the1999 Constitution as amended section 182, subsection 1(b) which states:

"No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a state if he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections"

Please emphasis should be placed on explaining what ELECTED as used in the bolded mean.

Regards

modhream: You are so wrong.There was/had been no modification of Electoral laws,it has been so constitutionally since the advent of this republic.The Speaker is expected to hold the office of Acting Governor of a state for 3 months,if the office becomes vacant by reason of death,resignation,incapacitation,impeachment or any other reason,of the office holder,at a period when the office of the Deputy Governor is also vacant.Elections are expected to hold within that 3 months to fill said vacant posts n winners of said election serve out what remains of the term of the previous office holder.Same thing holds true for the office of the President if it becomes vacant during a period when the office of the Vice President is also vacant.
Busy now,but will post relevant sections of the Constitution that laid these out.
@HNosegbe,I thought u are a lawyer.U ought to have known all this.

You missed my point. We're essentially saying the same thing.

And you're wrong about the electoral act, it has been amended several times.

HNosegbe: Thanks.

A further question: Will anyone who emerges as governor for the six-month period up to 2015 be eligible for two more terms in office or just one?

No he won't be eligible for two more terms. He may only seek re-election one more time. This is based on Section 182 subsection 1(b) of the 1999 constitution as amended. See my reply to egift above for more clarity.

egift: The winner will be eligible. That is what Jonathan is muscling through in the various court cases that went to his favour. Our constitution is actually silent on that. So the court are left to interpret it. So after President Jonathan completed his tenure for President Yar'Adua, he now have eligibility to two additional tenure.

But going by the news, PDP are trying to have an internal Party arrangement that will discourage those PDP candidates that contest now not contest in 2015. But the constitution empowers the Governor to proceed if he choose to ignore the agreement like Jonathan did.

@the bold: I also thought so too but according to the 1999 Constitution as amended section 182, subsection 1(b) which states:

"No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a state if he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections"

Thus if the winner of this 2014 bye-election contests and wins the 2015 general elections, he will be ineligible for the 2019 general elections since he has been elected as Governor on two previous elections.

Jonathan's case is different because he has only been ELECTED once.

penquin: waiting til it get to fp.

Me too

saintneo: Hello Political Analysts of Nairaland.

I got the news about the recent stepdown of Ribadu and many other contestants for the Adamawa gubernatorial elections, and I am really confused about the reason why there will be another election in Adamawa next year 2015 instead of in four years time 2018.

The governor was impeached, the deputy resigned; thus continuation of their joint mandate has been terminated. The acting governor also the Speaker of Adamawa HA can only stay in office for three months; consequently, the need for the elections in 2014. Constitutionally, an elected Governor must govern for four years unless he/she is impeached, he/she resigns, or he/she dies in office.

Based on the news, I understand that there will be another election next year for the same position.

1. I wish to know why there will be elections for Adamawa governorship position twice in less than one year without any impeachment, resignation or death of the governor?
2. Is this supported by our constitution?
3. Is this not a waste of monetary and human resources by INEC?
4. Would the governor elected in 2014 not claim that his/her mandate is being violated if another election holds next year?


I'm really confused. Please guys let's discuss this issue.

Our Electoral Laws has been modified. When a governor and deputy are impeached, a Bye Election (and not main election) is conducted. Thus since it's a bye election, whoever wins only completes the tenure of the impeached governor. When the tenure expires, a fresh election is conducted.

This modification was done to prevent further skewing of the handover date (May 29) for the winners of gubernatorial elections.

So to answer your questions:

Qxn 1: Yes

Qxn 2: Yes, the Electoral Act was modified to ensure this

Qxn 3: It's double expenses quite alright but it needs to be done to ensure the handover date is not further skewed

Qxn 4: Whoever that is elected is aware that he's only completing the tenure of the impeached governor. Thus he won't claim anything.

UjSizzle: .....and here is the beginning of flirting season

But I was only whistling