Alamieyeseigha: A Flashback!
By Obiora Akabogu

Obiora Akabogu

President Obasanjo came to power in 1999 and wanted to show the comity of nations that it is no longer business as usual in Nigeria. Therefore, he reinvigorated the process of “Due Process” both in public procurements and private civil rights and obligations. The president delights in drawing a parallel between his Pro-Due Process Government and his Anti-Due Process Predecessors. He finally rubs-in this point by quoting copiously from the Revised Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and a plethora of international legal instruments. This conservative stance may really not be a surprise since the president has sworn to uphold, protect and defend the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, through which he came to power, together with other elected representatives of the people, including, but not limited to governors.
One of such governors is DSP Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa State, who is currently in the eye of the storm for alleged unsavory wrong doings, financial improprieties bothering on betrayal and abuse of public trust and office. The details of the sordid affairs and how he jumped bail in London have come into public domain. Suffice it to say that Alamieyeseigha’s defence ranged from what a philosopher aptly referred to as, “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous”.
Nigeria is a country of half-measures. It puts on the toga of due process when it suits her, and in the next moment, it is discarded when it is no longer serving the desired purpose. Herein lies the danger for our nation and the much-cherished democracy. A lot of political “Hawks” have been luring the president to intervene physically and remove the embattled governor of Bayelsa State, either through orchestrated impeachment, or even overthrowing the governor violently in a state-sponsored coup d'etat. The statement credited to President Obasanjo in the front page of the Sun Newspaper of November 29, 2005 is quite alarming. I wish and I pray that he is misquoted. The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the organic law of the land. It proclaims the much-taunted supremacy of the constitution. It goes further to state that acquiring power through means other than the constitution is illegal. If the governor must be removed, why can't we do it legally, democratically and constitutionally? What will it cost Nigeria to abide by the constitution? Indeed nothing. Conversely, what will it cost Nigeria to remove the beleaguered governor extra-constitutionally? A lot, really. I have been under the illusion until now that we are trying to do away with a culture of impunity. But I am now wiser. Relying on extra- legal variables only create dangerous precedents. A precedent once it is set, is difficult to alter. It hangs like the proverbial sword of Damocles around our neck. It becomes a reference point for good and for ill.
The fact that the governor allegedly misappropriated money kept under his watch is morally reprehensive. The fact that he jumped bail is legally untenable. What do we do in these harrowing circumstances? Do we cut off our nose to spite our face? No, certainly. The situation on the ground is that he is here in Nigeria – in Yenagoa where he has reclaimed his mandate in a de-facto manner. What does the constitution say about him? Section 308 confers absolute immunity on him. Except through constitutional process of impeachment, there is no other way of removing him, except through voluntary resignation, death or ill-health.
Nigeria has never won the enviable title of a country in a hurry! Otherwise, she would have caught up with the Asian Tigers technologically. 2007 is around the corner. We can wait. The patient dog, they say, eats the fattest bones. We can prosecute him in Nigeria in 2007 or send him to London for continuation and conclusion of his trial. In this way, we would be killing two birds with one stone -upholding the constitution, and abiding by due process of law. If on the other hand, federal might is brought to bear in Bayelsa State, it would be like the Biblical case of young David fighting a Goliath, and nature has a way of aiding and abetting the oppressed.
Apart from temporary euphoria, the wrong signal would have been sent to the international community that, this is a lawless country. By waiting up to 2007 to achieve a 1- egally defensible anti-corruption crusade in Bayelsa, Nigeria would have laid a solid foundation for sustainable democracy. Anything other than this is persecution, not prosecution.
What happens in Nigeria has a ripple effect on the rest of Africa. If we remove the governor extra-constitutionally, we would have violated the provisions of the African charter on Human and people’s right, otherwise known as the Banjul charter. Nigeria signed, ratified and domesticated the precepts, tenets, principles and objectives of this hallowed document. Culture of the jungle (if at all the jungle has a culture), would have been tolerated under the defunct organisation of African Unity, O.A.U. But the scenario has long changed. The African Union in its constitutive Act erected the principles of democracy, rule of law and accountability. The use of raw force to change a constitutionally elected government is morally, politically and legally wrong. Apart from the doctrine of non-recognition attaching to such acts, it offends the Briand-Kellog pact, which the whole world has been trying fervently to embrace. Our conduct too, in that event, would have offended and done incalculable harm to the International Charter on Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.), which is an initiative of the United Nations. A country that is intent on assuming a permanent chair on the exalted floor of the U.N. must be seen to be a stickler for due process of law, democracy, self-restraint and moderation. Otherwise, how would the outside world view us – a country without a history of mature political culture? How long will it take us to grow into a mature democracy when at the slightest provocation or excuse we truncate what it took us decades to build. This is how Nigeria has acquired the near-perpetual status of “arrested development” syndrome.
Forcibly removing the governor in a fist of anger is unwarranted, as two wrongs do not make a right. At the end of the day, we may not even remember the main issue. Searching for what the law says and acting accordingly, is the best antidote to political instability and economic retardation. President Obasanjo is the chairperson of the African Union and symbolically, he ioCTOBER 24, 2005 s the embodiment of all that comes from Africa. If he agrees to be drawn into the Bayelsa fiasco in an unconstitutional way, he would be doing grievous harm to African Union’s Peer Review Mechanism and the underlying principles of new partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD.
Before the ink could dry from the pen of this writer, the embattled governor had allegedly been impeached. This curious development further complicates the problem and raises a number of thorny legal issues. One, his constitutionally guaranteed rights to fair hearing and dignity of his person were violently infracted. These rights are inherent in natural laws. They supercede every man-made constitution, and they are said to be in alienable, especially in a democracy. The panel set up to deliberate on the serious allegations against him was given three months within which to forward their report. Instead of the Honourable Members of the Assembly applying themselves diligently to this national assignment, what we got from them was a fait accompli. Less than four days later, they threw in their report in a manner suggestive of preconceived vendetta and malice. Honourable Justice Fortesque had rightly observed in the celebrated Dr. Bentleys case (R vs University of Cambridge 1723 1 Str. 557) thus, “I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defencer. Adam, says God, where are thou? Has thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou should not eat? 'And the same question was put to Eve also” The above position also accords with Igbo Justice system where even a man that is on death row is afforded every necessary facility to have his say, before his execution. What the Bayelsa House of Assembly did amounted to a legislative absurdity, a sham, a mockery and a caricature of the legislative process. Such an oddity in the long run is capable of creating a political Tsunami. Handcuffing a Governor that has just been removed like a common criminal, when the courts of law have not said so, is an unnecessary playing to the gallery. By so doing, his constitutionally entrenched presumption of innocence has been violated, as already he had been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Chris Uche, SAN and Mike Ozekhome argued, rightly in my view, that what happened in Bayelsa was one of the shortest trials, fit only for the Guinness Book of records. No further evidence of extraneous consideration or influence should be looked for. Since both Nigerian courts and the courts in the U.K. have concurrent jurisdiction over the crimes allegedly committed, why the gratuitous and unsolicited readiness to procure international passport for him to go to the U.K? Again, the unwillingness of the Bayelsa House of Assembly to allow the apex court in the land, the Supreme Court to pronounce on the suit instituted by the Governor only goes to show a deliberate attempt to arrest the anticipated judgment of the supreme court which is not likely to favour constitutional breaches and contempt for the rule of law. The Venezuelan recent political fiasco gave a lot of food for thought to American security experts. The consensus at the end of the day, was that problems of democracy must be resolved within the constitutional framework of the country involved. I concur entirely with this position. Dr. Goodluck Jonathan may not be lucky after all. The unfolding drama in Nigerias political firmament is a veritable road map to Sir Thomas Moores Utopia. This man has not only been denied his fundamental human rights, he has been tried and convicted, not only in the court of public opinion, but strangely, by the watchdogs of the society, sections of the media-all in a bid to join the bandwagon. Nigeria has been reduced to a society suffering from Dr. Frederick Handel’s Messiah Chorus Syndrome.

Editor's Note: Akabogu, a Barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, is a frequent contributor to national discourse. But, perhaps, of much more signifance is the fact that in the above article published under the title “ Alamieyeseigha: A Postscript,” Akabogu had posited that the removal of Alamieyeseigha from office through legislative absurdity is "such an oddity (which) in the long run is capable of creating a political Tsunami."