Govs want Jonathan to end Rivers crisis

By Jimitota Onoyume & Wole Mosadomi

PORTHARCOURT—Governors of Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Nasarawa, Imo and Zamfara states, yesterday, condemned the current crisis in Rivers State and called for President Goodluck Jonathan’s intervention. They also urged all actors in the crisis to sheathe their swords.

The governors' call came as former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who handed over to a democratically elected government in May 1999, yesterday, expressed sadness over the current crises in Rivers State, and warned the political gladiators to tread softly so as not to truncate the nation's democracy.

Governors Babatunde Fashola (Lagos), Dr Kayode Fayemi (Ekiti), Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo), Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (Osun) and Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun) condemned the crisis in Rivers when they paid a solidarity visit to their Rivers State counterpart and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi in Government House, Port Harcourt. The Governors of Imo, Nasarawa and Zamfara states were represented by their deputies.

[caption id="attachment_404623" align="alignnone" width="412"] SOLIDARITY—From left: Imo State Deputy Governor; Prince Eze Madumere; Nasarawa State Deputy Governor; Dameshi Mama Luka; Governors Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo); Babatunde Fashola (Lagos); Kayode Fayemi (Ekiti); the host,Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers);Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun); Zamfara State Deputy Governor, Alhaji Muktar Anka and Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola, during a solidarity visit to the Rivers State Governor, yesterday, at the Rivers State Government House, Port Harcourt. Photo: Nwankpa Chijioke.[/caption]

Fayemi speaks for govs
The Governor of Ekiti State, Dr Fayemi, who first spoke for the governors said: “We are here in solidarity with the governor, the government and people of Rivers State in this very challenging time. We are concerned as fellow governors representing our governments and people of our states. You may not know the deputies who are here.

Nasarawa, Imo and Zamfara governors are represented by their deputies here.  I take it that you know the rest of us governors who are here in the delegation. You are also aware that some of our colleagues were here a couple of days ago.

“We are here because we think security for us is far more of a major concern to the people of Nigeria. You may be aware that today is National Economic Council meeting; all of us ought to be in Abuja attending the meeting. Our being here is not a denigration of that meeting in anyway, just to stress the importance of our concern for the security of the citizens of Rivers State. We have met with our brother and Chairman of our forum, Governor Amaechi. We had exhaustive discussions.

[caption id="attachment_404768" align="alignnone" width="412"] Fayemi addressing the press on behalf of his colleagues[/caption]

“He has briefed us on the situation on ground here. We do feel strongly, having listened to him, that it would be quite important for him to actually go and brief Mr President who is our leader and the Chief Security officer of the country on the very challenging security situation here in Rivers State. We believe that our chairman and brother will give serious consideration to that particular concern. We have expressed to him that it is important as Chief Security Officer of the state to take the opportunity to go and brief Mr President on the security situation."

IGP should restore people's confidence

The governors further enjoined the Inspector General of Police to take steps to restore confidence of the government and people of Rivers State in the Police command in the state.

According to him: “We also in our decision with our brother thought it will be important for the hierarchy of our Police authority, the Inspector General of Police to help in restoring the confidence of the people of Rivers State that have greatly been diminished in the Police service and the Command here in the state. We believe that the IG is very well placed to help take the necessary step to restore the confidence of the government, the governor and the people in the police in the state”.

While reaffirming their loyalty to President Goodluck Jonathan, the governors urged the President to wield his moral authority in ensuring that enduring peace returns to Rivers State.

[caption id="attachment_318394" align="alignright" width="250"] Police IG, MD Abubakar[/caption]

“We believe that the remarks really require the moral authority of Mr President and Governor Amaechi. The state of security in the entire country is also of concern to him. We believe that Mr President, being our leader, we are all Presidents men, we are all Presidents governors;.we believe that he actually occupies a very critical position that necessitates his wielding his moral authority ensuring that peace reigns here.”

Amaechi in high spirit — Zamfara deputy gov

On his part, the deputy governor of Zamfara State, Muktar Anka, confirmed that it was resolved at the meeting they had with Governor Amaechi that he should meet with President Jonathan on how to end the crisis in the state, adding that the crisis was avoidable.

He further described governor Amaechi as one accepted by his people.

"We being progressive governors, we met with our Chairman of Governors' Forum, the Rivers State Governor. We were very happy that we met him in high spirit. It shows that he is so popular. We are very happy with that. We resolved and we advised him that he should meet with the President to discuss with him so that we can find way out of this crisis which is avoidable and we believe that by his meeting with the President actually we will find a way of resolving the crisis in Rivers State. That is all I can say after what my brother and boss, Ekiti State Governor has said.”

This would be the second solidarity visit this week by state governors to their Rivers State counterpart. Those on the first solidarity visit to him included Jigawa, Kano, Adamawa and Niger State governors.

Crisis, threat to democracy — Abdulsalami
Meanwhile, General Abubakar who spoke in an interview with newsmen in Minna, Niger State, stressed that, having been involved in peace efforts in Sudan and Southern Sudan, Nigerians should do everything within their power to prevent crisis because of the devastating effects of unrest in any country.

“I must tell you that the happenings in Rivers State are quite sad. I hope the politicians will try to put a brake and reflect on what they are doing in order not to truncate the democracy we are all enjoying now. Its quite sad.

“In a democracy, there are limits to what freedom is all about. Your freedom of speech and freedom of action stops where you start infringing on others’ freedom and I hope they will take note of that and then check themselves. I must tell you again that certainly what is happening in Rivers state is very sad,” he further added.

Abubakar who voluntarily handed over power to civilians as the military Head of State after about nine months in office on May 29, 1999,  reminded politicians of limitations to their freedom of speech and actions.

He also warned politicians not to misuse the freedom they now enjoy by annoying other Nigerians to avoid any trouble that could lead to insecurity and violence in the country.

According to him, politicians across the country must tread softly as the unfolding events in the country, especially, the Rivers State crises could torpedo the nation’s democracy.

On his role in peace keeping missions globally especially in Sudan, Gen. Abubakar described the outcome as encouraging and promised not to relent until total peace returned to the affected countries.

Abubakar further said that Southern Sudan was now enjoying relative peace which had enabled it to celebrate her second year of independence few days ago.

He then urged Nigerians, no matter their position, to make peace their watch word in order to give room for the sustenance of democracy and pave way for rapid development in the country.

Police investigation into Rivers crisis one-sided — ACN

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) has however urged the police to be more circumspect and avoid being partisan in their ongoing investigation into the crisis in Rivers State, if the outcome of the investigation is to be acceptable to Nigerians.

In a statement issued in Oro, Kwara State, yesterday by its National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party said the fact that only the security aides of Gov. Chibuike Amaechi have been invited to Abuja for questioning by the police hierarchy, and also the fact that only the majority leader of the State House of Assembly, Chidi Lloyd, has been declared wanted, have provided an insight into the thinking of the police on the issue.

It wondered why Rivers Police Commissioner Mbu Joseph Mbu, who provided cover for the five renegade lawmakers to attack the House while failing to provide security for the House to sit, and the leader of the renegade lawmakers Evans Bipi, who allegedly started the crisis in the House by punching Lloyd and the Speaker of the House on the face, were not invited along with the others..

‘’As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Definitely there are two sides to every issue, including the crisis that rocked the House of Assembly last week. It therefore amounts to a warped investigation to focus only on one side, as the police appear to be doing. This kind of investigation can only lead to jungle justice, and further erode the credibility of the police, who have now descended into the arena instead of staying above the fray.

"This is why we warned, in our earlier statement, that the police should go beyond addressing the symptoms in its efforts to unravel the role played by the security agency in the festering crisis. We hate to say that the action of the police hierarchy has vindicated us,’’ ACN said.

The party said the fact that the police hierarchy appears to be shielding the glaringly-partisan Police Commissioner in Rivers (despite the shabby treatment he has meted out to the state’s chief executive) and the five renegade members has made it hard for Nigerians to believe in the neutrality of the police in this matter.

‘’Equally worrisome is the unilateral deployment of new security aides to the Rivers Government House without the usual practice of giving the Governor a say in who his security aides are. It is therefore not surprising that the Governor has raised the alarm about his personal security. After all, he does not know what instructions these new aides have, especially since the untouchable Commissioner of Police remains in the saddle!"

Meanwhile, the ACN has said the root cause of the Rivers crisis appears to have come to the fore, going by the statement credited to the First Lady on Wednesday, that it started four years ago when Gov. Amaechi apparently defied Her Excellency’s appeal not to demolish a part of Okrika.

"This revelation is a mortal blow to all those who have been struggling to distance the President and the First Lady from the Rivers crisis."

Politicising appointment of Service Chiefs won’t work - Gen. Ikponmwen

By  SIMON EBEGBULEM, BENIN CITY
Brig. General Don Idada Ikponmwen is the ex-Provost Marshal of the Nigerian Army and also its former Director, Legal Services.

Idada, who has been involved in several legal battles in the Army, including the prosecution of three Admirals over the missing MP Africa ship in 2003, expressed shock over the Federal High Court’s recent declaration which stripped the President of the sole power to appoint Service Chiefs in the Armed Forces.

As an expert on the nation’s constitution and military laws, Idada noted that the declaration would not stand the test of time, just as he projected that if applied, it would politicise the Armed Forces and threaten the security of the nation.
Excerpts:
What is your take  on the recent judgment by the Federal High Court that stripped the President of the power to appoint Service Chiefs?

I was completely dismayed with such a declaration because  it tends to turn the constitution upside down.

[caption id="attachment_206348" align="alignright" width="300"] Gen. Ikponmwen[/caption]

It was even more shocking that the court agreed with the argument that the Armed Forces Act, which was first enacted during the military administration of General Abdulsalami Abubakar and was a replica of the 1993 Armed Forces Decree, was declared to be a law not in the category of the existing laws in Nigeria. I think these are shocking declarations, and the least I can say is that I found it very disappointing and the decision cannot stand the test of time.

I don’t think we have seen the end of the matter. My worry is that many people, especially those who would not take the pain to read the constitution in all its ramifications - both those living in Nigeria and outside - may just get the impression that it is the position of our constitution.

I feel very disappointed about that judgment, and I think this is one of the reasons some people believe there is so much corruption, lack of thoroughness, lack of expertise amongst some of our Judges.

But what makes you feel  the court was wrong in its judgment?

The provisions of our constitution with regard to the powers of the President in terms of appointments to high public offices including that of the service chiefs are very clear. Wherever the constitution intended  to have conditions placed on the President like the need to consult, have a nomination from certain existing bodies or the need for confirmation from the Senate, it is very clear on those points.

Even a casual look at the provisions of Section 147 dealing with the appointment of Ministers, the provision of Sections 230 and 238 will show that the constitution is not silent on the conditions necessary to appoint high officials to Federal executive positions. Section 147 in particular, which deals with the appointment of Ministers, made it clear that confirmation by the Senate is a pre-requisite.

Nobody becomes a Minister unless the Senate has approved the nomination. The same way with the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Federation. Section 230, sub section 1 requires not only that there will be a nomination from the Judicial Service Commission, but also that the nomination made by the President must be sent to the Senate for approval and confirmation. Same applies to the appointment of the President of the Court of Appeal.

On the nature of our Presidency,  Section 130(1) says “There shall be for the Federation a President” and proceeds to add in 130(2) that “The President shall be the Head of State, The Chief Executive of the Federation and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation.” On the strength of these provisions, it is clear that the President is not a mere figure-head or ceremonial President.

Added to this is the fact that he is elected from all the constituencies of the Federation and is thereby vested with grassroots support, which is greater than the mandate of all legislators put together.

Sections 133 and 134 of the Constitution explain the power exercisable by the President and Commander-In-Chief. Section 218(1) says “The Power of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation shall include power to determine the operational use of the Armed Forces of the Federation” The provision that is directly relevant to the question of appointment of the Service Chiefs is Section 218(2) which says “The power conferred on the President by subsection (1) of this section shall include power to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, The Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of Air Staff and Heads of any other branches of the Armed Forces of the Federation as may be established by an Act of the National Assembly.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that the power vested in the President to appoint Service Chiefs is in no way fettered.

If the Constitution had intended to place any restriction or condition, it would have said so unequivocally as it has done with regard to other positions created by the Constitution; for example Sections 230(1) relating to the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of the Federation and the President of the Court of Appeal.

In all these sections, the Constitution, in no uncertain terms, spells out when either consultation with Council of States or nomination from some other bodies or confirmation of the Senate is required.

Section 218(2) is therefore unambiguous and does not lend itself open to any unwarranted debate or academic exercise.

Section 154(1) provides, in general terms, that the appointment to the above listed positions shall need the confirmation of the Senate in deserving and specific positions; whereas section 154(2) proceeds to specify where confirmation shall not be required.

Such positions not needing the confirmation of the Senate include: the Council of State, National Defense Council or the National Security Council.  Section 154(3) states clearly that in the appointment of persons to the position of chairman/members of the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission and the National Population Commission, the President shall be required to consult the Council of State and no more.

From these provisions and others earlier cited, it becomes obvious, on invocation of the doctrine of expressio unius exclusio alterius, that it is improper to drag in the requirement of confirmation from the Senate or even consultation with any other body for the appointment of Service Chiefs in the Federation of Nigeria. Having come this far, it becomes  necessary to take a look  at the existing laws to see whether, indeed, the relevant portions of the AFA are in consonance with the Constitution.

What about the issue of existing laws?

In its ordinary meaning, the concept of existing law carries the meaning of any law, any enactment or instrument whatsoever which was in force before the promulgation of the Constitution.

The Armed Forces Act, which was first enacted as Armed Forces Decree (1993) during the military era, existed before the promulgation of the 1999 Constitution. The fact that CAP A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (2004) altered the name of that law with little or no modification does not take that law outside the scope of existing Laws under the 1999 Constitution.

It is noteworthy that unlike the NYSC Decree 1993, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the National Security Agency Act and the Land Use Act, the Armed forces Decree/Act was not listed as one of the laws to be carried over in 1999 so as to enjoy the status of Constitutional provisions.

On the strength of both section 315(2) and 1(3) of the Constitution which is the supremacy clause, the aforementioned provisions of the Armed Forces Act, in so far as they are not consistent with the provision of section 218(2), must be null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Section 1(3) provides that “If any other law is inconsistent  with the provisions of the constitution, the constitution shall prevail and that other law, shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”. Whereas section 218(2) empowers the President to appoint his Service Chiefs at his discretion, the Armed Forces Act, which, on the contrary, places restrictions on the exercise of the same power vide section 18(1) and (2) of the AFA, makes the latter clearly inconsistent with the Constitution.

I am not aware of the provision of section 218(4) (a) and (b) which provides that the National Assembly shall make laws for the regulation of the powers exercisable by the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and for the appointment and disciplinary control of members of the Armed Forces of the Federation.

It is seriously contended that the provisions in section 218(4) (a) and (b) are general provisions aimed at ensuring that laws are made to guide against arbitrariness and abuse of power.

While pointing out that even the National Assembly has never made any such regulatory laws, it must be emphasised that the general provisions in section 218(4) cannot override the specific power granted the President in the same Section to appoint Service Chiefs without any restraint.

We practised the presidential system from 1979, then there was a military administration again. If you add Shagari’s regime to the regimes we have had after Abdulsalami handed over to civilians, you have a total of 18 years that we have practised the presidential system wherein the National Assembly is expected to pass laws to regulate the powers of the president in his exercise of powers as Commander of the Armed Forces. But there has never been such a law.

So the discretion of the President is the law as far as appointment is concerned. However, because the president is a politician, his powers need to be regulated in terms of the use of the Armed Forces. That is the area that should be of concern to the National Assembly.

But the National Assembly has not even passed a single law in all these years. From the foregoing analysis, the provisions of sections 218(4) (a), (b) and 219 cannot constitute any justification to deny the President the discretion availed him by the same Constitution with regard to the appointment of Service Chiefs.

What about politicising the appointment of Service Chiefs ?

The declaration to the effect that the President cannot appoint his Service Chiefs without the confirmation of the Senate is manifestly wrong and dangerous for our nation as it will, inevitably, lead to negation of discipline, coherence in command and control of the Armed Forces which are predicated upon the existence of a unified Command.

The issue of Command of the  Armed Forces is a very serious ,professional military issue which has very serious implications for the efficiency, efficacy and virility of the Armed Forces. Let me  emphasise that the efficiency of the Armed Forces thrives on what we call Unity of Command.

Discipline, promotion, deployment, everything that has to do with the Armed forces must come under a unified Command where there can be no ambiguities, no conflicts as to responsibility, and this must be so because of strategic reasons.

The moment you divide Command in the Armed Forces, you divide loyalty and loyalty is supposed to be 100 per cent to the Command of the Armed Forces. The Command of the Armed Forces revolves around the Commander in Chief and officers commissioned into the Armed Forces that hold positions from time to time.

The moment you break or negate this unity of Command, you don’t have an army. You will have a bunch of people who, for selfish reasons, are running from pillar to post, from senator to senator, trying to butter their own bread.

Therefore, you cannot afford to make appointments in the Armed Forces an all- comers affair, and when I say ‘all comers’ in this respect it includes the National Assembly. The duty of the National Assembly is to make laws, conduct their oversight  functions and regulate.

An attempt has also been made to highlight that a substantial part of the reason for the collapse of the First Republic was the absence of a powerful and clearly discernable leader, and that this phenomenon accounted for the choice of a Presidential system.

In the same breath, the point has been emphasised that the Command and control of the Armed Forces must not be allowed to be compromised on the altar of politics. This compromise would inevitably arise when the Command of the Armed Forces, particularly in terms of appointment, becomes an issue for the National Assembly.

But don’t you think this will make the President dictatorial?

Very good question. Let me tell you that where we are today, by virtue of the type of constitution or the system we are running, is not by accident.

This country was used to a parliamentary system of government for many years - both before and after Independence, particularly after Independence. We were running a Westminster type of government for five years before the military struck and pulled down the first Republic. What was the reason?

I want to emphasise that one of the reasons why the parliamentary system was dumped in this country is because it was too amorphous, cumbersome, it lacked an identifiable leader who commanded the followership and support of the generality of Nigerians. It lacked grassroot support. It was bedevilled by the concept of collective responsibility.

That is why Nigeria opted in 1979 for a President that will be powerful, who can make quick decisions, consult when it is necessary. So the President is deliberately a powerful man by our structure.

But that is not the end of the story. That is why you find Section 218, sub section 4 talking about powers to regulate that of the President. The National Assembly is supposed to use its laws to regulate such powers, but like I said before, no such regulations have been made.

In other words, the President, by default of the National Assembly, remains a man whose executive powers are not restricted to just the appointment of Service Chiefs, but the entire Armed Forces are at his discretion.