NigerianNews

Editorial Opinion

NigerianNews

NigerianNews
Editorial

The Exit of Agag the Amalekite

The Exit of Agag the Amalekite
NigerianNews Editorial

When the Israeli asked for a King, God spelt out the hazard of having a King, but they insisted they wanted one, so they got King Saul! King Saul went to war with the Amalekite with the instruction from God not to keep any booty of war but to destroy it, the instruction which King Saul flouted.

So, Agag basking in King Saul's defiance of God, quickly proclaimed: The bitterness of death is now past.. However, Samuel, the servant of God who installs Kings, told Saul in clear message to Agag's premature joys; not so fast King Saul! For obedience is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of ram. So King Agag and his cohorts were ordered destroyed in compliance with God's will.

Why do we take pain to go through all these narrations? We do so because the equivalence of King Agag in Ekiti hid under the cloak of King Saul, in this case, the imperfect Nigerian Constitution to profane the name of the living God by so many fake prayers in the days before he was thrown out. King Saul's reasons for sparing Agag's life was because he wanted to sacrifice all the booties of war to God as a burnt offering, and that was why Samuel reminded him that he must obey God first, then, God would listen to Saul's prayers.

Did we not hear in the recent days the arrogance of our modern day Agag - King Fayose who boasted No one can impeach me, because God installed me? Has he not now learnt a lesson that you must obey God first, then He can be your God? So long King Agag!!

Rather than specify a name of a person as King Saul, we would say King Saul this time are those who would want the "constitution" be obeyed so that Caesar can be satisfied with utter disregards for the Law of God. And what does Caesar say in the suspension of the Chief Judge of Ekiti? Does Caesar specify mutual exclusivity in the suspension of a Chief judge? Of course not, and for a simple explanation of what mutual exclusivity means: two events are said to be mutually exclusive when the out come of either event have nothing in common with each other. The intent of this Caesar in the Nigerian constitution is for mutual inclusiveness, in which case the outcome of suspending a Chief Judge is not only the prerogative of the Governor. Governor must suspend a Chief Judge only after 2/3 of the Assembly has passed a resolution for that purpose. In this instance, the 2/3 was available, but Belgore expected the accused Governor who will suffer the adverse effect of suspension to suspend the Chief Judge. Did this part of the constitution anticipate that a Governor will be asked to commit a political Hara-kiri? If we answer in the negative, who then must step in? We are afraid to say Belgore rather than asking that a cat should watch over the chicken coop should have invoked the power vested in the Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC) to ask Bamisile to recuse himself or be suspended by NJC once those other half of the mutual inclusiveness raise doubt about the Chief Judge. What did Belgore say? He declared the Ekiti Assembly as acting illegally. The man Belgore, has the power through the Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC) to regularize the anomaly of asking an accused to suspend a favorable judge, but he failed. The constitution does not say a Governor can suspend a Chief Judge by himself, he must do it with the consent of 2/3 of the House. This 2/3 was available (24 of 26 is 92% if you define humans in integer term - sorry 12 2/3 of an integer!!!), but there was no un-accused Governor, since in this case, he cannot be intellectually asked to sit in unbiased judgment of himself. So Caesar's law failed in Ekiti because all actors are either dishonest or just fail to remember that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

Was the constitution obeyed? We think so, or it must be tested in court. We know that there are other parts of any natural law which says you must not sit to judge a case in which you are an accused/respondent. It might be said that Bamisile is not Fayose, however, events after the protest by the lawfully constituted Ekiti Assembly showed that Bamisile himself is a dishonest man who packed the 7-man panel he appointed with Fayose's men. Was that the way the constitution wanted it? We say NO. The constitution did not anticipate a Governor or his cohort (Bamisile) who would be grossly dishonest as not allowing the truth to be known. Some of Fayose's problems, though not in the impeachment notice include allegation of murder, we wonder what Caesar says about an accused murderer who is allowed to select his own judge or panel of enquiry. Bamisile's panel though required a guideline from the House of Assembly before it can proceed, just simply ignored that part of the constitution and proclaimed their man innocent.

We believe those who jumped to make judgment about not following the law jumped too soon. They failed to look closely at the intent of the constitution, and they also failed to recognize that Bamisile has taken his case to court, to be heard this Thursday. If a part of the constitution is not clear-cut, a court must interpret it. We say this part of the constitution is not clear-cut because we refuse to believe that the intention of the constitution is to allow a dishonest Chief Judge to pick a panel that requires honesty. If he is not dishonest, he ought to have removed himself once those House of assembly members raised objections to the appointments he made. The result of his panel speaks a bundle.

And what about Belgore? Will this man be decent enough to recuse himself if this case ever get to the Supreme Court? We hope so, because the intent of this part of the constitution ought to be ascertained if we must have an enduring system. It is true the Governor is one half of the constitutional requirement to suspend the Chief Judge, but does the constitution intend that this accused Governor must also be a judge in a case in which he is the principal accused, with his integrity and humanity impugned? Does the constitution provide a way out? Yes, but the Chairman of that way out, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chairman of the Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC) is the man one would expect to broker a deal, in this case of conflict of interest involving Fayose and his hand picked Chief Judge. He should have asked the Chief Judge Bamisile to step aside for a man acceptable to both parties even if he has to suspend him, but he failed woefully in this regard, instead he violated the rule every officer of the law must obey - avoid discussing a case known to be subjudiced.

"And what about Belgore? Will this man be decent enough to recuse himself if this case ever get to the Supreme Court? We hope so, because the intent of this part of the constitution ought to be ascertained if we must have an enduring system. It is true the Governor is one half of the constitutional requirement to suspend the Chief Judge, but does the constitution intend that this accused Governor must also be a judge in a case in which he is the principal accused, with his integrity and humanity impugned? Does the constitution provide a way out? Yes, but the Chairman of that way out, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chairman of the Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC) is the man one would expect to broker a deal, in this case of conflict of interest involving Fayose and his hand picked Chief Judge. He should have asked the Chief Judge Bamisile to step aside for a man acceptable to both parties even if he has to suspend him, but he failed woefully in this regard, instead he violated the rule every officer of the law must obey - avoid discussing a case known to be subjudiced."