NigerianNews - GUEST COLUMN - AMAECHI’S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTION OF MR. TELE IKURU AS DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF RIVERS

Press Release

NigerianNews

Chief Gani Fawehinmi,
LLD, SAN

Chief Fawehinmi's website

Since Omehia’s Governorship of Rivers State has been voided by the Supreme Court, the Deputy Governorship is equally tainted by that order.

In a governorship election under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor have a joint ticket. A gubernatorial candidacy is not valid without a deputy gubernatorial candidacy. That is obvious from the provision of Section 187 of the Constitution

AMAECHI’S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTION OF

MR. TELE IKURU AS DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE
by Chief Gani Fawehinmi, LLD, SAN

Another controversy has been thrown up by the decision of the Supreme Court on Thursday, 25th October, 2007 declaring Rotimi Amaechi as the Governor of Rivers State.

The controversy is on the Deputy Governor, Mr. Tele Ikuru. On Friday, 26th October, 2007 Mr. Rotimi Amaechi adopted Mr. Tele Ikuru as his Deputy Governor. Mr. Ikuru was elected Deputy Governor on a joint ticket with Governor Celestine Omehia both of whom were sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party.

Mr. Omehia and Mr. Ikuru were jointly elected Governor and Deputy Governor on Saturday, 14th April, 2007.

The Supreme Court made an order on Thursday, 25th October, 2007 voiding the election of Celestine Omehia as Governor of Rivers State, however that court was silent on the legal fate of his deputy, Mr. Tele Ikuru. No specific order was made by the Supreme Court on the Deputy Governor. The silence of the Supreme Court in that respect must have encouraged Rotimi Amaechi to adopt Mr. Ikuru, Omehia’s deputy as his own Deputy Governor. The issue is that “Can Ikuru separate himself from Governor Omehia whose election was voided by the Supreme Court?” The answer is obvious, direct, simple and logical. He cannot.

Since Omehia’s Governorship of Rivers State has been voided by the Supreme Court, the Deputy Governorship is equally tainted by that order.

In a governorship election under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor have a joint ticket. A gubernatorial candidacy is not valid without a deputy gubernatorial candidacy. That is obvious from the provision of Section 187 of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

“187. (1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.

(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.”

The above provision of the Constitution relating to the joint ticket of both the Governor and Deputy Governor is similar to Section 142 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 relating to the joint ticket of the President and Vice President of Nigeria. For ease of reference, I refer to Section 142 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which provides as follows:-

“142. (1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Chapter relate, a candidate for an election to the office of President shall not be deemed to be validly nominated unless he nominates another candidate as his associate from the same political party for his running for the office of President, who is to occupy the office of Vice-President and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Vice-President if the candidate for an election to the office of President who nominated him as such associate is duly elected as President in accordance with the provisions aforesaid.

(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualification, declaration of assets and liabilities and oaths of President shall apply in relation to the office of Vice-President as if references to President were references to Vice-President.”

The section has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation & 2 ors v. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar & 4 ors. decided on Friday, 20th April, 2007 and now reported in (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1 SC at pages 123 – 124, paras. H-B, where Onnoghen, JSC said as follows:-

“There is no doubt that the provisions of the 1999 Constitution relating to the Presidency envisages a united presidency between the President and the Vice President hence the description of the Vice President as an associate of the President for the electoral contest to the Presidency. From the tone and tenor of the 1999 Constitution it is also clear that it is envisaged that the united presidency is to last throughout the tenure ascribed in the Constitution subject of course to the provisions relevant to their removal from that office as provided for principally in sections 143 and 144 of the said 1999 Constitution ...”

At page 156, paras. C-E, I. T. Muhammad, JSC also said as follows:-

“I agree generally with the submission of the leading Senior Counsel for the respective appellants in their various submissions that the unity contemplated between the President and his Vice is that the Vice President should be inseparable from the President and should stand or fall with him both at the polls and while in office. He is joined to him in a constitutional union based on the absolute loyalty of the one to the other. The Vice President is conceived in the role of the President’s right-hand man.”

Similarly, Akintan, JSC in the leading judgment at page 85, paras. F-H, stated thus:-

“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 a 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.”

From the decision of the Supreme Court in the Atiku’s case cited above, it is clear:

(a) That both Governor Omehia and his Deputy, Deputy-Governor Ikuru have inseparable ticket.

(b) That what affects one, affects the other.

(c) Consequently, if the election of Governor Omehia is voided, the election of his Deputy, Mr. Ikuru is equally voided.

(d) The silence of the Supreme Court on the Deputy Governor, Mr. Ikuru cannot alter the legal position established in Atiku Abubakar’s case.

(e) Therefore, if Governor Omehia fell by the order of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Governor Ikuru also fell.

(f) In straight language, if the Governorship of Omehia is incurably tainted with illegality, the Deputy Governorship of Ikuru is equally incurably tainted with illegality.

In the eyes of the law since Governor Omehia was removed by the judicial fiat of the Supreme Court the Deputy Governor Ikuru is also affected by the same judicial fiat.

It is my considered view, that Rotimi Amaechi cannot appoint, re-appoint or adopt Mr. Tele Ikuru as his Deputy Governor. Is it not curious to observe that an unelected Governor Rotimi Amaechi could have as a Deputy Governor an elected Deputy Governor Tele Ikuru whose Governor (Celestine Omehia) with whom he shared an inseparable and joint union had been removed from office by the Order of the Supreme Court? This is a strange constitutional and political conundrum never before witnessed in the annals of Nigerian democracy at various times since Independence in 1960.

As the constitutional position stands today, Rivers State has no Deputy Governor in the eyes of the law through the judgment of the highest court of Nigeria – the Supreme Court.