Too Early To Do An Objective, Fair, Dispassionate Evaluation Of A Fresh Government - Obono-Obla
In this exclusive interview with our correspondent, Hannah Arikpo, a constitutional lawyer and chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Obla Obla, Esq, bared his mind on some pressing national and local issues including the belated conduct of local government election in Cross River state and more.
Excerpts...
There has been a clamour for local government area election in Cross River state. As a Chieftain of the Ruling Party, what is your take considering the role of the third tier of government in our political system?
I agree with you that there have been clamour for Local Government Councils election to hold in the state even though whispered as hushed tones in the dark recesses of beer parlours and private homes. I don't think time has been auspicious to hold such an election, taking into account that the tenure of the previous elected officials of the local government expired in June, 2023, less than five days after the incumbent Governor, Senator Bassey Edet Otu took the oath of office and allegiance on May 29, 2023.
By virtue of the local government administration, the Law of Cross River state elections into local government councils are supposed to take place ninety days before the tenure of the incumbent elected officials expired. Local government council tenure expired on June 4, 2023. Therefore, elections would have taken place on March 4, 2023, and this was impossible because the Presidential and National Assembly elections took place on February 18, 2023, while that of the governorship and state assembly took place on March 18, 2023. In other words, the period that would have been used to conduct local government council elections clashed with the period that the general elections took place.
The political parties were just coming out of a long electioneering campaign that started in September 2022 and terminated on March 16, 2023 and were already fatigued and tired after the general elections. So, it was not feasible to hold a local government council election that would be fair, transparent, and orderly conducted. You must bear in mind that the responsibility for the conduct of local government councils election constitutionally rests on the Cross River state Independent Electoral Commission, (CROSIEC), but the Voters Register that would be used to conduct such an election belongs to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). After the general elections, a lot of aggrieved candidates challenged the results of the presidential, governorship, national and state assembly elections in the various Petition Tribunals across the country.
Therefore, it would not have been feasible for INEC to release these registers to CROSIEC to be used to conduct local government council elections when Petitioners and the Respondents in the election petitions filed in the various tribunals need these registers to prosecute their petitions and the Respondents need them also to defend their cases or petitions filed against them. The election tribunals also need them to appraise the cases they are hearing. The conclusion of election petitions took place just in January 11, 2024, when the Supreme Court delivered judgment in seven governorship cases across the country including Cross River state.
I therefore submit that the conduct of the local government council election was impossible under the circumstances that everybody found himself. Even the political parties that are supposed to conduct primary elections to nominate those that would fly the flags of their political parties were also involved in the election petition cases as litigants and parties.
The National Assembly recently passed a resolution that states which do not have democratically elected administration should forfeit monthly allocations of such councils, do you subscribe to that?
The resolution of the Senate that no allocation should be given to undemocratically elected local government councils in the country is not binding and is against the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the positions of the Attorney General of Lagos state and Attorney General of the Federation, but it is a welcome development.
However, it is unconstitutional and against the decision in the celebrated cases of the Attorney General of Lagos State versus the Attorney General of the Federation (2004). The dispute arose from a circular letter addressed to all the governors of the states and all the local government chairmen in the states by the minister of state in the Federal ministry of finance. The circular was issued in compliance with the directive of the President of the Republic of Nigeria concerning the allocations of local government areas from the Federation Account. The President, in a letter addressed to the minister, raised some constitutional issues arising from the creation of new local government areas in some states and the subsequent conduct of elections in the new local governments. The President observed that though the constitution had empowered the state houses of assembly to create new local government areas, the National Assembly was yet to make the provision, he therefore ordered the minister of finance to withhold funds accruable to the local government councils until the creation of the new local government areas were reversed. The plaintiff instituted this action and sought among others the determination on whether the President has the power to suspend or withhold statutory allocations due and payable to Lagos state government and an Order of Injunction restraining the defendant from suspending or withholding any monies payable to Lagos state. The defendant, on the other hand, filed a counter-claim praying among others; a declaration that the plaintiff has no power to create new local government areas without recourse to the National Assembly and that any of such action by the defendant is illegal and unconstitutional. Significantly, the Supreme Court later held that the President has no power vested in him (by executive or administrative action) to suspend or withhold for any period whatsoever the statutory allocation due and payable to the Lagos state government under the provision of Section 162(5) of the 1999 constitution but in respect of the 20 local government areas for the time being provided by Section 3 subsection (6) of the constitution and not the new local government areas created which are not yet operative.
Secondly, the Senate of the National Assembly is just advisory. It is not binding on the executive branch of the federal government. The only thing that can be done by the National Assembly that can be binding is a Bill that has been passed and sent to the President, and the President signs it into law; only then will it be binding on the Executive and it becomes law. Nevertheless, when a bill is passed and sent to the President, he vetoes it, then it is returned to the House, and they pass it with a two-thirds majority which becomes binding. Those are the only two things. But, an ordinary resolution is not binding; it is an advice.
But, don't you think there is a lacuna at the local government councils due to the absence of a democratically elected grassroot administration in Cross River state? If yes, how?
I am a democrat, a constitutionalist as well as public Interest lawyer of many years standing. I am also one of those that fought for the end of military dictatorship as a young lawyer in the 1990s; I believe democracy is the best form of government even though it has its challenges and hiccups. The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria prescribed that there must be democratically elected local government councils at every given time.
Therefore, where there are no elected local government councils, it amounts to a departure from the constitution. However, I have given reasons earlier why it was not possible to conduct local government elections in the state. These reasons are weighty enough to justify the absence of local government officials for now. In criminal and constitutional law, there is a principle known as doctrine of necessity which is normally invoked during time of crisis, such as war or natural disaster or emergency to justify departure from normal legal procedures where it hinders effective recovery efforts. The doctrine of necessity refers to a legal doctrine that allows for the suspension or relaxation of certain laws or constitutional provisions in emergency or exceptional circumstances where the strict application of those laws would be impractical or impossible. It is based on this principle that in such situations, the preservation of order, safety, and public welfare justifies the temporary departure from established legal norms. It allows for executive authorities or government officials to take action that would normally be deemed illegal or unconstitutional if they can demonstrate that such actions were necessary to preserve order and protect the common good.
The incumbent governor of Cross River state, Prince Bassey Otu's Government is seven (7) month old in Office, what is your access?
Yes, it is seven months. It is too early for anybody to use seven months to do an objective, fair and dispassionate evaluation or appraisals of the performance of a fresh government that inherited a dysfunctional system riddled with debts incurred by the previous administrations. To make matters worse, the withdrawal of petrol subsidy by the federal government plunged the entire country into a national crisis which made the economy floundered ceaselessly.
Take into account the challenges inherited by the government of Senator Bassey Edet Otu, he has miraculously and shrewdly steered the ship of the state to safely avoid a wreck. I believe from the budget he has laid a good foundation for the state to be resuscitated and revamped in many sectors, including Agriculture , Education, Healthcare, etc. Therefore, everyone should be patient and wait until the first anniversary of this administration comes before one can fairly, justly, and dispassionately assess it.
Some Cross Riverians are alleging marginalisation in the Prince Otu's led administration in terms of appointments. What is your assessment on this?
I will disagree with that assertion. It is unfair, misconceived, an exaggeration, and generalization calculated by fifth columnists and armchair critics to cause bad blood and discord among the various components of the state in order to distract the administration. The present administration as constituted for now is inclusive and reflects the state character in such a way that every local government council is represented in the state executive council as instructed by the constitution. The people chasing appointments are not happy that appointments have not reached them; they are the ones peddling such blackmail.
