By Simbo Olorunfemi
There has to be a greater chance that the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly complex might actually have something to do with failure of integrity test, as has been put out by the demolition squad, than that the kerfuffle in the state could possibly have anything to do with the good and welfare of the people. It simply does not have anything to do with it.
Indeed, it is the lack of pretence that the Rivers drama has little or nothing to do with the people that stands it out as one of the most brazen and absurd confrontations between godfather and godson that has been witnessed. It has to be in the same league, if not a higher one, with the Okija fiasco between Chris Uba and Chris Ngige in Anambra, and to a lesser extent, the one between Rasheed Ladoja and Lamidi Adedibu in Oyo.
Yet, even with the absurdity of it, one would think that the only surprise we have with the case is the speed and ferocity with which Mr Wike’s house of cards has collapsed. For one who fancies himself as some sort of maverick, with the swagger of a total and complete handle on politics of the state, it is shocking to see how poorly he has managed his successor, especially one who he singularly handpicked, saw to office and set up the structure of governance for.
But in another sense, given the totalitarian, winner-takes-all regime in which the Governor becomes the state as has been the hallmark of governance in the state, particularly in the last 8 years, with the jostle for power only a little different from a prolonged battle among militants over a conquered territory, it is not shocking to see that things have finally and rapidly boiled over.
But just as there are laws and conventions that govern war (armed conflict), there are laws in place, which must eventually decide the direction that the pendulum in Rivers will swing, irrespective of the current situation, no matter the gains/losses either sides might have made.
As the theatre of war has been the House of Assembly, and it is the place that will eventually determine the winner in this battle, the task here then, is simply that of finding where what has been done sits strictly in the face of the law and where the law might eventually lead the combatants to.
Listening to Lawyers, there is hardly any dissent, none that I have heard or read, that by virtue of the defection by 25 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from the PDP to APC, given that there is no division in the PDP, obvious to everyone, that can serve as justification for defection on grounds of division within the PDP. Fair enough.
Nevertheless, I have a few questions:
- What constitutes a defection from one party to the other in the eye of the law? An announcement to that effect by a member, irrespective of location, or that has to be on the floor of the house, as has been the convention?
- What constitutes evidence of defection that can be deemed satisfactory by the House in giving effect to the provision that can make a member lose his seat as provided for in Section 109(g) of the Constitution?
- There is Edison Ehie, who claims to be the Speaker of the House of Assembly in Rivers. At the time the House was one, he was the Majority Leader, and subsequently said to have been suspended at the last meeting of the House, only to lay claim to having emerged as Speaker of the 5-member faction. The question then is – How did he emerge Speaker? Could he have been legitimately elected by 5 members, when the Constitution provides for a quorum of one-third of all members, and this was even before any reported defection?
- If Edison Ehie was not validly elected as Speaker, could he be said to have acted in accordance with the law in declaring seats of members vacant? In what capacity would he have been acting?
- Was the man who declared the seats vacant in Rivers a properly elected Speaker in the eye of the law? Was the meeting he presided over properly conveyed constituted in the eye of the law? If that is not the case, can the decisions arrived there then have the force of law?
- Some have argued that the law has an expectation on what constitutes the proper place of conducting legislative business. If that is the case, which of the meeting places meets the requirement? If the 5-man faction, which has declared the seats of 25 members vacant is not conducting its business in the right place, will a pronouncement from such a sitting receive the blessing of the law?
- If the expectation or convention is that defection has to be announced on the floor of the house, and the place the announcement was does not stand as a legitimate floor of the house, in the eye of the law, could it still be said that defection had been properly announced?
- If legitimacy resides with the 5-man faction of the House of Assembly and not with the 25-man faction, it is then to be assumed that the gathering of the 25 is not recognised in the eye of the law. If the legislative session is not recognised in the eye of the law, would decisions arrived at there enjoy the force of law?
- Can the members of the House of Assembly said to have actually defected, in the eye of the law, if the place where they convoked and announced their defection, is not one that is recognised in law as the legitimate place for the conduct of legislative business?
- Can ‘defections’ announced at a place that might just have been another roadside beer parlour or peppersoup joint have the force of law that it will serve as basis for the seats of these members to be declared vacant?
- Can the ‘Speaker’ whose legitimacy is in doubt, presiding over a 5-man meeting of uncertain standing in law, be said to have acted in consonance with the law in declaring vacant seats of members who did not announce their defection to his face or at a legislative gathering recognised by him? Can you assume a meeting illegal, yet at the same time, regard the proceedings or decisions taken there as legal?
These questions, along with others, have led me to the conclusion that deciding on which of the two factions in the House of Assembly is the legitimate one will be left to the court and the shenanigans that always surround interpretation/implementation, especially how the use of force is applied, which would also then suggest, to me, that the argument that the 25 members who had announced defection from one party to the other had automatically lost their seats is yet to be settled.
The most crucial decision in this regard is who eventually receives the nod as the legitimate Speaker of the House, as only he can give effect to the provision of Section 109(g) by declaring the seat of one who has defected vacant.
It will also be up to the faction and the Speaker who ultimately receives the endorsement of the court will be the one to decide the fate of godfather and godson, except a political solution is found to the crisis.
As I have argued elsewhere, neither Wike nor Fubara can tell, with certainty, how this will end. What is clear to me, however, is that in whatever way it ends, both men will emerge as losers in the absurd drama. Of course, with the people of Rivers again losing out, as the gladiators and their footsoldiers prioritise politics over governance.