Decency seems to have taken flight.
When grievances run riot, there is always the possibility that deliberate mistakes would be made. And when they are made, other further attempts would be made to paper over the mistakes by equally making other further mistakes.
As was written about Napoleon III, that he learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones, the travails of Joshua Dariye, suspended Plateau State governor in the hands of his senior patner in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, is all about politics, its viciousness, wickedness and the extent to which politicians would go in not just destroying other politicians, but doing collateral damage of gargantuan proportions.
The entire Emergency Rule declaration by President Matthew Okikiolakan Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo, the Balogun of Owu, and the Ekerin of Egba, within the context of the provisions of Section 305 of the Nigerian constitution was premised on an assumption which made the president believe that he was standing on a strong platform. And for a president who once told the nation that he would interpret the law the way he understands it and not the way it was and is intended to be interpreted, the ingredients for misinterpretation was all but ready. Obasanjo not only poured cold water on the principle of ejusdem generis, a principle which states that you do not unnecessarily stretch the interpretation of a provision of law beyond what was intended by its drafters. The president not only did that in justifying the declaration, he went on to feed the provisions of Section 188 of the same constitution to the shredding machine by removing the governor from office, just as he disbanded the state house of assembly.
Political observers, nationalists, federalists, legal luminaries, the clergy, traditionalists and some traditional rulers have come out to say that the dismantling of democratic structures in Plateau State can not be justified by President Obasanjo.
One way or the other, the fresh incident into which Dariye has involved himself would allow an Obasanjo to claim glory for suspending him.
But before Mr. President and his fellow travelers in the corridors of emergency rule relish in that euphoria, they should be told that the 1999 Constitution which President Obasanjo so much likes to make Nigerians believe he would protect did not make any provision for a presidential suspension of a governor, neither did it make same for the dissolution of a state House of Assembly is such a whimsical manner. And although Ibrahim Mantu, the Deputy Senate President, a man whose presence in the Senate today he owes to Dariye’s manipulation of the electoral process last year has consistently said he has nothing to do with the travails of the suspended governor, events on ground put a lie to his claim. He is not the only politician in Plateau State but the market place secret is that he can not extricate himself from the dirty politics which has enveloped Plateau State. Mantu had said in an interview that he can be seen as the ultimate political leader in the state. That is easy now that Dariye is in trouble.
But before the issue is personalised, Section 188 of the constitution spells out the conditions under which a governor can be removed viz:
1. The Governor or Deputy Governor of a state may be removed from office in accordance with the provision of this section.
2. Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signal by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly —
a) is presented to the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the state;
b) stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified, the Speaker of the House of Assembly shall, within seven days of the receipt of the notice, cause a copy of the notice to be served on the holder of the office and on each member of the House of Assembly, and shall also cause any statement made in reply to the allegation by the holder of the office, to be served on each member of the House of Assembly.
3. Within fourteen days of the presentation of the notice on the Speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice), the House of Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated.
4. A motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of the House of Assembly.
5. Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief Judge of the state shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, appoint a panel of seven persons who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provided in this section.
6. The holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person or be represented before the panel by a legal practitioner of his own choice.
7. A panel appointed under this section shall —
a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedures as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly; and
b) within three months of its appointment, reports its finding to the House of Assembly.
8. 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.
9. Where the report of the panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then 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.
10. No proceedings or determination of the panel or the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.
11. In this section —
“gross misconduct” means a grave violation of breach of provisions of the Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct.”
The tragedy in this is that it is Dariye today.
Another governor may suffer the same fate.
And yet, there is a Constitution.
