ABUJA—IMO and Rivers States have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a request by the Federal Government, asking it to remove Governor Chris Ngige from office on account that he was unconstitutionally sworn into office in the year 2003 by the then Chief Judge, Justice Joseph Chuka Okoli, whose term as the state chief judge had then expired. They cited, as reasons, want of original jurisdiction to entertain the application even as they maintained that the request was hypothetical and academic in nature. The two states are also asking the apex court to dismiss a separate request by Anambra State Government seeking a declaration, among others, that President Olusegun Obasanjo has no constitutional powers to remove police protection of Gov. Ngige or any other state governor of the federation. According to them, the suit upon which the prayer is based, is an abuse of court process since Anambra State is now before the Court of Appeal over similar request.
Their requests are contained in two separate preliminary objections just lodged at the registry of the Supreme Court. It is trite that when preliminary objection is filed, it takes precedence over other applications before the court including the substantive suit. If the objection succeeds, the substantive suit terminates automatically. But if it fails, the court will hear out, on merit, both parties, on the live issues brought before it for determination.
The Supreme Court justices sitting on the case are already aware of the objections and have slated January 20, 2005 for their hearing. A team of legal practitioners led by Rivers State Attorney-General, Chief Odein Ajumogobia (SAN), will move Rivers’ six-page objection while the Attorney-General of Imo State, J T U Nnodum (SAN), will lead a team of crack legal practitioners to canvass arguments on the necessity to dismiss the pending requests by both the Federal Government and Anambra State before the apex court.
But should their objections collapse, both states are holding different opinions as to how the Supreme Court should determine the reliefs sought by both the Federal and Anambra State governments in the case. Imo State, for instance, wants the Supreme Court to resolve in favour of Anambra State government all the fundamental questions posed by it and grant consequently all its prayers.
But Rivers State is of the view that even if its objection collapses, it urged the apex court not to grant any of the prayers by Anambra State government except one on the grounds that some of them are not justiceable while others are merely advisory and speculative
It would be recalled that Anambra State invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court seeking for an interpretation of the 1999 constitution as it affects the power of the president and the National Assembly to remove a governor from office. The state is also seeking a declaration among others that President Obasanjo has no constitutional right to remove police protection from the governor of Anambra State or any other state governor.
In the suit in which all the 35 states were joined as defendants, Anambra State is asking the apex court to declare that neither the president nor the Inspector-General of Police has the right to withdraw the security apparatus of any state governor. The state is also asking the court to declare that the state governor, Dr. Chris Ngige, cannot be removed by the president through a proclamation of a state of emergency.
The state said the president “covertly condoned various suits at the Federal High Court in a bid to obtain a judicial pronouncement that the governor had resigned so as to enable Mr. President removed the state governor from office.” It was further contended that the April 10, 2003 attempt to remove Gov. Ngige from office was a decision of the president.
According to the state, after the first botched attempt to remove Gov. Ngige from office, the governor made representations to President Obasanjo, asking him to exercise his presidential authority by giving lawful instruction to the IGP. “The president remained taciturn, nonchalant and indifferent,” the state added.
“As a last desperate measure, the president in collaboration with the Government of Enugu State contrived an order from Honourable Justice S.C. Nnaji of the High Court of Enugu State, directing the IGP to remove the governor from office,” the state continued.
Other declarations being sought by the state are:
•A declaration that the High Court of any state in Nigeria including the High Court of Enugu State of Nigeria or the Federal High Court has no constitutional power or jurisdiction to entertain any suit and to make any order therein for the removal of a governor of any state having regard to Section 184 of the Constitution of Nigeria.
•A declaration that having regard to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the High Courts of the various states have no extra territorial jurisdiction outside their states and law establishing them so as to entertain a proceeding and to make any order for the removal of the governor of any other state such as Anambra State.
•A declaration that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot declare a state of emergency in Anambra State or any other state when the events contemplated under Section 305(3), (4)& (5) had not taken place.
•A declaration that the President of Nigeria has no constitutional authority to interfere with the authority of the Governor of Anambra State or the authority of any other governor of any state in Nigeria to issue any lawful order to the Commissioner of Police in Anambra State or in any other state with respect to maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state, particularly as it concerns the maintenance of public security and protection for the governor of the state and the government of the state.
•A declaration that the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the president of Nigeria or any of the agencies or agents of the government of the Federation of Nigeria have no constitutional authority to withhold any part of the share of any state government including Anambra State government from the Federal Account except towards payment of any sum that is due from the state to the federation in respect of any loan made by the federation to that state in this case, Anambra.
•An order directing the president and the National Assembly to direct the Inspector-General of Police forthwith to restore to the governor of Anambra State police protection and all security apparatus of state power in accordance with the spirit and intendment of the constitution of Nigeria.
•An order of the Supreme Court aside any order of any state High Court including the order made on the 2nd day of January 2004 by the High Court of Enugu State whereby that High Court purported to direct the Inspector-General of Police to remove the Governor of Anambra State.
•Any other consequential order or orders as the Supreme Court may consider just and appropriate to make in the circumstances of the case.
But the Federal Government was of the opinion that the entire suit by the Anambra State has no live issue that the court could pronounce upon. It consequently, wanted the entire suit struck out.
But in the alternative, the Federal Government wanted the Supreme Court to declare among others:
•That the oath of office and oath of allegiance purportedly administered on Dr Chris Ngige on May 29, 2003 is unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect;
•That Dr Chris Ngige cannot constitutionally assume the functions of Governor of Anambra State not having taken the oath of office and the oath of allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and
•That Dr Ngige ceased to be governor of Anambra on July 10, 2003 following his letter of resignation and the receipt thereof by the Speaker of the Anambra State House of Assembly.
According to the Federal Government, the purported state Chief Judge, Justice C J Okoli who swore Dr Ngige into office was from official records ought to have ceased to hold the office of the state chief judge of the state by June 15, 2002 in accordance with the provisions of section 291( 2) of the 1999constitution. Justice Okoli, according to an official record from the Honourable Society of Middle Temple in England and the Council of Legal Education, Bwari Abuja, was born on June 15, 1937 and ought to have retired from service on June 15, 2002.
The Federal Government was, therefore, of the opinion that all the acts of Justice Okoli while clinging to office of the chief judge from June 15, 2002 including but not limited to the administration of the oaths of office and allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Dr Ngige are unconstitutional and, therefore, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
