Omehia: How Supreme Court’s Verdict on Ngige Voids Wike’s Action

Alex Enumah writes on the implications of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the validity of Dr. Chris Ngige’s tenure as governor of Anambra State on the recent derecognition of  Mr. Celestine Omehia as former Governor of Rivers State by Governor Nyesom Wike

Reactions have continued to trail the signing of the legal instrument activating the resolution passed by the House of Assembly derecognising Mr. Celestine Omehia as a former Governor of Rivers State by Governor Nyesom Wike.

The rubber-stamp members of the Rivers State House of Assembly had penultimate Thursday, passed a resolution derecognising Omehia as a former governor of the state based on the prompting of Governor Nyesom Wike. In a shameful volte-face, the lawmakers claimed that they acted in error in 2015 by recognising Omehia as governor, having functioned in that capacity for five months before his sack in late 2015 by the Supreme Court. The lawmakers claimed that their action was aimed at correcting the mistakes of the last seven years.

Governor Wike, on the next day, swiftly assented to the resolution of the lawmakers, insisting that the recognition given to Omehia was made in error. As if the state just woke up from slumber, the governor urged the people of the state to get a copy of the Supreme Court’s judgment and understand that the state government was right in the eye of the law.

Omehia was elected on April 14, 2007, as governor of Rivers but only stayed in office for five months — May 29 to October 25 — before he was sacked by the Supreme Court.

Given his short tenure, former governor Rotimi Amaechi failed to recognise Omehia as a governor of the state. When he signed the state Governor and Deputy Governor Pensions and Fringe Benefits Bill, 2012, into law a few years after, he clearly omitted Omehia’s name among the beneficiaries even though he was democratically elected.

However, as soon as Wike was sworn in as governor in 2015, one of the actions he took to spite his predecessor, Amaechi, was to restore all the rights and privileges legally due to Omehia. He also hung his portrait in the Executive Chambers of the Government House, Port Harcourt to reflect his tenure, a privilege which Amaechi refused to accord him.

He said at the time: “Even if Omehia served the state for just one day, he deserves to be recognised as one that has governed the state. I believe that even if it’s a single day, he acted on behalf of the state. As a governor, he did a lot of things on behalf of Rivers State: he awarded road contracts and so on. Why will anybody say he was not a governor of the state? I will not accept such! I hereby put back his photograph and restore all his entitlements as a former governor of Rivers State,” Wike declared.

It is believed that Wike’s latest action was due to Omehia’s loyalty to the presidential candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar. Wike and Atiku have been at loggerheads since the party held its national convention.

However, the action of the state to derecognise Omehia had generated reactions from a few Nigerians with many wondering whether the sack of an elected governor by the Supreme Court legitimises his tenure or not.

Also, there were questions as to whether a state government can derecognise a governor who proclaimed the state assembly; signed bills; awarded contracts since the law does not abhor vacuum.

Speaking on the issue, some senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) were of the view that the lawmakers whether in 2015 or now acted within their competence. For instance, Mr. Ejembi Eko (SAN) said the state assembly only acted in line with a judgment of the Supreme Court, which held that Omehia was never supposed to have been governor.

He said: “You cannot put something on top of nothing. The action goes to the root of his governorship which is the root of the title to which he had ascended to that office.”

Eko argued that going by the Supreme Court’s judgment, Omehia’s tenure as governor was illegal as he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

On whether the state has powers to derecognise a governor as in the instant case, the senior lawyer pointed out that laws can be amended and revoked, adding that the same lawmakers who passed the resolution to recognise Omehia as a former governor in another resolution are the same people who resolved that he should be removed completely from the archives of people who have ever been in that office.

For Ahmed Raji (SAN), the state assembly reserves the right and power to amend, vary or abrogate any law or resolution made by it.

“That is why it is often said that no parliament can fetter or bind its successor. If the supreme law being the Constitution can be amended, how much less an ordinary statute or a mere resolution? I am unable to fault the legality of what the Rivers House of Assembly has done.” 

Raji further argued that if “anyone is aggrieved, the best thing is to approach the appropriate court. After all it is a testable legal hypothesis which has no direct precedent on all fours to the best of my knowledge”.

On his part, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja (SAN) noted that it is the prerogative of the legislature to pass laws and that of the governor to give assent.

“In that way, both have not done anything unusual. However, the Constitution has imbued the judiciary with the prerogative of determining whether or not a law of the legislative arm is constitutional, ultra vires, null and void. 

“In the instant situation, it is near certain if not absolutely certain that Omehia will turn to the judiciary for intervention and redress. A number of questions have been thrown up by the rather novel scenario on hand.”

To Omehia’s sympathisers, Amaechi who first derecognised Omehia took the action based on malice. They argued l that if the argument of the Amaechi’s government was predicated on the fact that Omehia was sacked from office, then the likes of Chief Ernest Shonekan who governed the country for four months as Head of the Interim National Government (ING) and whose tenure was declared illegal by Justice Akinsanya of the Lagos High Court on November 10, 1993, before he was sacked by the late General Sani Abacha should not have been entitled to pensions and other entitlements. He should not have been allowed to attend the National Council of State meeting till he died.

Till he passed on January 11, 2022, Shonekan benefitted from pensions and other entitlements as former presidents Shehu Shagari, Olusegun Obasanjo and others.

It is important to recall that the ING was a contraption that was hurriedly put in place and foisted on Nigerians by the former military president, General Babangida who did not want to hand over to the acclaimed winner of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, Chief MKO Abiola. It was based on the decision of the court that Abacha overthrew the government on November 17, 1993.

Omehia’s supporters also argued that if Shonekan could be entitled to pensions and other emoluments, and equally attended the National Council of State meeting till he died with others who were democratically elected and those who seized power through coups d’etat, Omehia should also be accorded the same rights and privileges.

They cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the suit brought by some former members of the Anambra State House of Assembly against the then Governor Peter Obi, asking it to declare the three years of Dr. Chris Ngige as governor null and void because his victory was nullified by the court.

To demonstrate that the law does not abhor vacuum, the court in a unanimous verdict delivered in 2009 by Justice Mahmud Mohammed (former Chief Justice of Nigeria) on behalf of four other justices such as Katsina-Alu, Walter Onnoghen (also former CJNs),  Chukwuma Eneh and Muntaka Coomassie, did not only dismiss the suit but held that Ngige’s actions while in office, including the proclamation of state House of Assembly on June 5, 2003, in his capacity as Governor of Anambra State was valid.

The court disagreed with the submissions of the counsel to the legislators that official acts performed by Ngige as former governor were null and void by the mere fact that his election was subsequently nullified by the Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. It submitted that such elected officials even though their elections were subsequently nullified, their official actions or functions are saved by the operation of law in the interest of the public, adding that nullifying the acts of these officers while in office will cause chaos in the society. 

Justice Mohammed who delivered the lead judgment, while commending the lower court for their decisions in dismissing the suit, held that the actions of Ngige while in office as former governor were valid in law being the serving governor state at the time the actions were taken.

The judge further stated that the litigation which lasted for over 35 months was not enough to declare Ngige’s stay in office as null and void because it was effectively covered by the law. He submitted that since the power exercised and functions by Governor Ngige and even Andy Uba who spent less than 15 days in office, have been saved by the law, the arguments of the appellants were not convincing and of no effect.

Just like the other justices on the panel, Justice Onnoghen, in his own judgment concurred with Mohammed’s ruling.

According to him, “was Ngige the elected and sworn in governor of Anambra State at the time he issued the proclamation which inaugurated the Anambra State House of Assembly in 2003? The answer is clearly in the positive. No one has denied that fact. Not even the appellants. What the appellants are contending is the consequences of the nullification of the election of Governor Ngige on his official acts including the proclamation which they argue is null and void.”

It then follows that if the apex court recognises a former democratically-elected governor who was later sacked from office, such as a person deserves every recognition from his state.

 However, those in support of Wike’s action have argued that Omehia’s case and Ngige’s case were not similar.  According to them, Ngige was the valid governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who contested and lost but was erroneously declared the winner. According to them, Omehia was never the candidate of the PDP or any other political party  but was declared the winner in an election he did not even contest in the eyes of the law. They insisted that Omehia should not benefit from the apex’s court’s verdict on Ngige because he was a mere usurper or impostor.  They agreed that since the law abhors a vacuum, all actions performed by Omehia as governor should remain valid, insisting  however that Omehia should not be rewarded with the rights and privileges of a former governor to serve as deterrent to others who might wish to usurp the office of the governor under similar circumstances.

With these divergent views, Omehia may have to return to the apex court for a fresh interpretation of the judgement on his case.