Last Thursday, in a quite impolitic commando style, the impeached Speaker of Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, literally chaperoned by a coterie of security operatives and thugs, bulldozed his way into the hallowed chambers of the Assembly about 46 days after he was impeached.
He went ahead to complete the charade of an ‘invasion’ by holding a legislative sitting with just four members of the 40-member House. Of course, that was his own way of announcing to the immediate, bewildered spectators and the entire world watching the show on their television sets, that he was back as speaker! Obasa told Assembly correspondents that his security details had been restored and that he was back to his position as speaker.
Presaging this tailwind of the ludicrous, a desecration of the legislative sanctum, was the sudden removal of the security details, part of the appurtenances of office of the new Speaker, Mrs Mojisola Meranda, from Apapa Constituency, who succeeded Obasa, and the simultaneous restoration of those of the impeached speaker.
All the security personnel keeping the peace at the Assembly Complex were also allegedly removed as Obasa was invading the House, obviously for him to gain an unimpeded access. This, indeed, indicates that a higher level of political authority is pulling the levers of the melodrama from the shadows. The elders say the squirrel dancing on the road has its drummer hidden in the bush.
This is a despicable travesty of the judicial and legislative processes, because not only is the matter before the court of law for adjucation, the sanctity of the legislature is being utterly debased by Obasa’s extra-judicial ‘invasion’ of the House, no matter his level of self- justification.
Of course, the former speaker was removed in like manner. His impeachment on January 13, this year, was hatched and delivered with all the imprint of an impetuous coup, amounting to outright legislative ‘gangsterism’.
Although the constitution is silent on whether or not a speaker has to be physically present before he could be removed, we posit that impeaching Obasa in absentia violated fair hearing, which is a trite principle in law. He was away on holidays to the United States when his colleagues pulled the rug off his feet.
Section 92 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended)created the offices of the “Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of a House of Assembly who shall be elected by the members of the House from among themselves.”
Section 92 (2)(C) states that the speaker or the deputy shall vacate his seat “if he is removed from office by a resolution of the House of Assembly by the votes of not less than two-third majority of the members of the House.”
Generally speaking, the universal principle of justice and fairness demands the observance of the trite dictum of ‘Audi alteram partem,’ which means ‘listen to the other side,’ or ‘let the other side be heard as well.’
This process was glaringly violated by the Lagos lawmakers in their shocking haste to get Obasa out of the way. He was removed for alleged misconduct and financial impropriety by over two-third majority of the 40-member House.
Pray, why were Obasa’s traducers so much in a hurry to get rid of him? Why were they not patient enough to await his return and observe the process of fairness by allowing him to defend himself? Why was he impeached in absentia without giving him the benefit of responding to the quite weighty allegation of misconduct and financial impropriety levelled against him?
Of course, this was his own main bone of contention in his response to his impeachment: that his removal did not follow due process. He was quoted as saying: “I have resumed and I remain the speaker of the Assembly. I was never removed. Impeachment or removal is democratic and constitutional but in doing that, you must follow the due process.
“I am not against my removal. I am a democrat but if the process had been fair, then I would not have gone against it”. When asked why he was returning to the Assembly when he had filed a suit challenging his removal in court, Obasa said there was no such suit in court.
Obasa said he was back at the Assembly not to take revenge or victimise any lawmaker. He described Lagos lawmakers as great colleagues, committed to the progress of the state.
Like we said earlier, even though the constitution does not say categorically that the speaker has to be physically present before he could be impeached, it would have been better if the impeached speaker had been allowed to defend himself for the lawmakers to pass the test of fairness.
Perhaps, Obasa decided to resort to the extra-judicial ‘invasion’ as an ill-bred game of tit-tat. He might have attempted to retake the throne, employing the same implausible legislative ‘gangsterism’ used against him, perhaps to pay his colleagues back in their own coin. If that was his intention, it is so pellucid that he, too, is wrong. Two wrongs, they say, do not make a right.
We view the turn of the legislative crisis besetting the state as a big slur on the posh stature and socio-political sophistication of the ‘center of excellence,’ which otherwise sets the pace for other states as a mini-Nigeria. This infernal descent into the abyss of legislative infamy should bother all lovers of democracy.
We, therefore, admonish that Lagos should be saved from descending into the Thomas Hobbesean disorderly state, where life becomes “nasty, short, brutish” and is “a survival of the fittest.” What started like a spark on January 13 is fast developing into an inferno threatening to consume the state’s fabric of peace.
Already, the rest 36 lawmakers have roundly rejected Obasa’s attempted comeback, insisting that Meranda remains their speaker. Meranda herself, emboldened by her colleagues’ support, condemned Obasa’s action, which she described as “a show of shame.”
On Friday, the Lagos Assembly and adjoining surroundings were bristling with a constellation of security operatives, holding forte menacingly. Activities have ebbed at the complex as all the legislative staff have been asked to stay away from office and instead work at home till further notice. The lawmakers are still in recess.
Along the line, it came to light that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu actually was oblivious of the the impeached speaker’s fate until the deed was done, contrary to the earlier impression that the president ordered his removal. Tinubu was, in fact, reportedly peeved by the failure of the Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and the members of the Governing Advisory Council(GAC), made up of APC elders in the state, to brief him ahead of Obasa’s sack.
The president was said to have promptly intervened, giving Sanwo-Olu and the party elders the marching order to resolve the impasse. Party statesmen like Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Olusegun Osoba were also believed to have, at a point, been drafted into the trouble-shooting efforts.
And the impression being given is that President Tinubu wants Obasa to be restored as speaker. This is why the president’s imprimatur is suspected to be noticeable in the former speaker’s impudent, extra-judicial ‘invasion’ last Thursday as well as his intrepid and audacious posturing on his removal since he returned from the United States.
If it becomes irrefutable that the president is actually angling for Obasa’s comeback, it may not totally be unexpected. Analysts hinted that no matter the ‘sins’ of the impeached speaker, he is an electoral material that he(president), being a political master strategist, cannot dispense with just like that.
Apart from the fact that Obasa has been an ardent Tinubu follower since his secondary school days, he normally delivers his Agege constituency to the ruling party in any major election. And Agege is said to be a largish treasure as far as electoral asset is concerned.
Like a source hinted, “While you are counting the infractions, Tinubu is counting the electoral value. That doesn’t mean he condones corruption or malfeasance, but somehow, he does not easily abandon his own like that. Even if you offend him, he forgives easily, especially if you are remorseful. That is why he wins most of his elections.”
The source added: “When we talk about political structure, we are not talking abstract. It’s actually about positioning dependable and solid political strategists at various levels in strategic places. We are talking about people who will always deliver their constituencies. And Tinubu has invested in people and built a solid political structure. So, if you conduct election ten times, he will always win.”
That appears to be the correct reading of President Tinubu’s mind for angling for Obasa’s comeback, in spite of the bravado and intransigence of the G36 lawmakers who have continued to reject the impeached speaker for Meranda, the new speaker.
However, we admonish that the president and the party elders as well as statesmen apply caution concerning the Obasa agenda and let the due process take its course for the sake of peace.
In this case, it is important to await the verdict of the court in the matter filed by Obasa himself to challenge his impeachment. He should jettison the idea of withdrawing the suit.
Let the court decide whether or not his removal was in order. Particularly, the court needs to interpret the lacuna in Section 92(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for the removal of a speaker and the deputy. The provision is uncomfortably silent on whether or not they(speaker or deputy) must be present or even defend themselves before they are constitutionally and validly presumed to have been impeached.
This is in view of a legal practitioner’s contention that Obasa’s removal was in order.
According to him, the Lagos State lawmakers followed every necessary step provided by the Constitution in the removal of the former Speaker.
His argument: “By reason of Section 92 Subsection 2 Paragraph C, if they deem fit by resolution of the House, supported by two-third members to remove the said speaker, they don’t have to give anybody any reason.
“You don’t have to be present to be removed; you can be there; you might not be there. If you look at all the gamut of the law, there is nowhere that states that there must be a reason to remove a speaker; I have not heard any, and the former speaker also didn’t cite any constitutional provision. So, as it stands today, legally speaking, the former speaker ceases to hold office as the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly.”
Let the judicial process run its full course. The case particularly promises to elicit interesting fireworks from now, as two prominent lawyers, who are also Senior Advocates of Nigeria(SANs), Femi Falana and Tayo Oyetibo, have joined the legal fray. They are defending Meranda and the G36 lawmakers, who have applied to be joined in the suit. They were in court on Friday to tie the loose ends to commence the legal battle.
The law is bound to be enriched by the SANs’ involvement. If the court pronounces that Obasa’s impeachment is in order and the possible appeals validate this position, we recommend that the verdict be respected. In that case, let the G36 lawmakers have their way and Obasa can then be ‘settled’ with a federal appointment.
However, if Obasa eventually wins; if the court voids his impeachment and the likely appeals also validate that position, then let the G36 legislators respect the verdict and allow the ousted speaker regain his position, for the sake of peace.
At least, in a fair game, you gain some and lose some. That is the beauty of democracy: The minority will have their say, but the majority will have their way.
Copyright @NewsClick Nigeria Media. No part of this piece or whole should be copied, used or shared without due credit to NewsClick Nigeria – www.newsclickng.com
