Why President Jonathan is not eligible to contest in 2015 (1) - Nigerian Newspaper In a seminal thought-provoking analysis, Okoi Obono-Obla, a lawyer and chieftain of the APC who was Deputy National Secretary of the defunct CPC, makes a case against President Jonathan’s re-election bid in 2015… It is a notorious fact that on the 6th May, 2010, in a solemn but sober ceremony in the Office of the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu administered the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance as enjoined by the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, on the then Acting-President Goodluck Jonathan as the 5th President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria following the death of then President Umaru Musa Yar’adua. It is well settled that by virtue the provisions of Section 146 (1) of the Constitution the Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the office of the President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation or impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from office for any reason in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 of the Constitution. It was obvious that it was Section 146 (1) of the Constitution that was invoked to give legitimacy and constitutionality to President Jonathan’s swearing in as President on the 6th May, 2010. On the 29th May, 2011, President Jonathan was sworn in as the 6th President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria after he was declared the winner of the Presidential Election held on the 16th April, 2011, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Accordingly, President Jonathan took the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance as enjoined by the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) for the second time. It goes without saying that President Jonathan has taken the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance twice, thus: on the 6/5/2010 & 29/5/2011 respectively. The pertinent question is: What is the constitutional implication or consequences of the taking of the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance twice by President Jonathan? 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. President Jonathan first took the Oath of Office on the 6th May, 2010, as President after the death of late President Umaru Musa Yaradua. President Jonathan then took another Oath of Office on the 29th May, 2011, after INEC had declared him the winner of the Presidential Election held on the 16th April, 2011. Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution provide thus: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of President until – (a) his successor in office takes the oath of office; (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 President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when – (a) in the case of a person first elected as President under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of office; and (b) in any case, the person last elected to that office under this Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of office but for his death, have taken such oaths”. President Jonathan was elected Vice-President in 2007. However became President on the 6th May, 2010, to complete the tenure of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua which would have expired on the 28th May, 2011. It goes without saying that President Jonathan inherited the tenure of President Yaradua. After President Jonathan became President on the 6th May, 2010, he is deemed to have been “First elected” to come under the contemplation of Section 135 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Ordinarily President Jonathan would have been deemed “First elected” on the 29th May, 2011, if he had not become President on the 6th May, 2010. President Jonathan did not become Vice President by selection. He was elected Vice President. He contested the Presidential Election of 2007 alongside the then President Yar’adua. He was then regarded as an associate of President Yar’adua. He cannot extricate himself from President Yaradua’s tenure. After he took over as President on the 6th May, 2010 he was deemed to have continued with the term or tenure of President Yaradua. That tenure ended on the 29th May, 2011. The relevant provisions of the Constitution especially Sections 130, 132, 134, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 146 thereof must be interpreted or construed holistically not in isolation from one another. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION vs. ATIKU ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1, Sunday Akinola Akintan, J.S.C. (reading the Lead Judgment) said thus: “ … As I have already stated above, the office of the Vice President is created by the Constitution. His appointment and removal from office are also provided for in the Constitution. Although the President had to nominate him as at the time he wanted to contest for the office of the President, and the Constitution also requires that the person nominated should be from the same political party as the President, I believe that the Constitution assumes that the President and the Vice President should maintain the same relationship throughout their term in office. The Nigeria Constitution, like the American Presidential System, envisages single executive power for which the President is the head and in whom the executive powers are vested. Article 11 of the Constitution of the United States, just like section 5(1) of our Constitution, provides that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United State.” The principle implies the preclusion of a current vesting of the executive powers in two or more persons of equal authority. The Principle also has the effect that the legislative organ cannot take away from the President or confer on others, functions of a strictly executive nature: See Myers v. United States 272. US 52; Nowak And Rotunde, Constitutional Law, 6th edition paragraph 7.14, page 298; and Nwabueze, Constitutional Democracy in Africa, (Vol. 4) Forms of Government, page 76. One of the implications of the principles of a single executive, as relates to the Vice President, is that although the office of Vice President is, unlike that of a minister under the system, an elective one, he is not voted in a separate election, but by the very same votes by which the President is elected. This is because, as already shown above, a Presidential candidate is required to nominate another candidate to run with him on the same ticket as mate or associate” for the office of Vice President. I believe that the unity contemplated by the arrangement transcends the election. I also believe and hold that their relationship should be throughout their joint term. The position is as aptly described by Prof. Nwabueze at pages 78 to 79 of his book, cited supra, where he stated as follows:“It is not intended to suggest that the union (between the President and Vice President) demands of the Vice that he should be a slave to the President, with no will or opinion of his own. It does not submerge his personality or individuality in that of the President or make them two-in-one …. As the President’s chief adviser, it is his prerogative and duty to discuss freely with him the policies and actions of the government, to point out any defects or errors in them, and the dangers to which they may expose the government. Nevertheless, having done this, the principle of collective responsibility binds him to all government decisions or actions, whether they emanated from the President alone or from the Executive Council. So long as he remains in office as Vice President, he is not free to oppose in public decisions or actions of the President or of the Executive Council, no matter that he personally disagrees with them. His freedom to disagree and to criticize can only be exercised privately in a meeting with the President alone or in the Executive Council. Freedom on the part of a Vice President to criticize his President publicly for mismanagement or corruption is certainly not consistent with the loyalty required of him as a member of the President’s team. It is worse still that a Vice President should make mismanagement or corruption by the President a reason for seeking openly to contest the office against him. Continued faith in the President should be the only reason for continuing to serve under him. More importantly, it is the only explanation for an interpretation of a Vice President’s continued stay that the electorate can grasp and identify with…” Post Your Comment Why President Jonathan is not eligible to contest in 2015 (1) - Nigerian Newspaper - Latest news from nigeria dailyindependentnig/2013/08/why-president-jonathan-is-not-eligible-to-contest-in-2015-1/
Posted on: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:09:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015