Tag: ALGON

  • LG Allocation: S/Court judgement Nationally Applicable – Ozekhome

    LG Allocation: S/Court judgement Nationally Applicable – Ozekhome

    ... no ambiguity in the judgement to warrant delay in implementation

     

    Constitutional lawyer, Professor Mike Ozekhome has again insisted that the judgment of the Supreme Court which ordered allocations of funds directly to the 774 local governments in Nigeria is enforceable in all parts of the country.

     

    Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and human rights activist said that there was no ambiguity in the judgment to warrant any delay in its implementation.

     

    In a fresh statement issued on Thursday in Abuja, the senior lawyer maintained that section 162 of the 1999 Constitution upon which the judgment was predicated, was rightly interpreted by the 7-man panel of Justices of the apex court.

     

    Ozekhome asserts “Many Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike have repeatedly asked me if the Supreme Court was not wrong in its interpretation of section 162(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution and what happens to the allegedly wrong judgement.

     

    “They want to know if the judgment is superior to the said “clear” provisions of the Constitution and if it is enforceable or capable of being enforced.

     

    “They also want to know how, in the event that I say it is enforceable. My simple answers to both questions are yes, yes and yes.

     

    “Let’s take them one after the other, the judgment of the Supreme Court is superior to the provisions of the Constitution.

    .

    “A law is only what the courts interpret it to be, not what it says on bare paper. That was why Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr, a very influential civil rights Jurist, Brevet Colonel during the American Civil War and longest serving Justice of the US Supreme Court (1902-1932), who retired from the US Supreme Court at 90, once famously declared;

     

    “The prophesies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law”. In other words, the law, whether constitutional, substantive, statutory, or adjectival, remains what it is-inanimate and dead on paper-until the life and the oxygen of interpretation are breathed into it by a court of law.

     

    “Consequently, it is thus the interpretation which was given by the Supreme Court to the entire section 162 of the Constitution on the sharing procedure between the Federal government, states and the LGs, and not the bare provisions of the Constitution that prevails.

     

    “On the enforceable of the judgment, the answer is also in the affirmative. Section 287 (1) of the 1999 Constitution comes to our rescue by providing that “the decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced by in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons and by courts of subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court”.

     

    “Even if the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of section 162 dealing with the State Joint Local Government Account, the judgement remains binding on all and for all times.

     

    “It is only an amendment of the Constitution under section 9 thereof that can override the decision. No person or authority can decide, whimsically and arbitrarily to disobey the judgement or pick and choose what portions of the judgment to obey or which to discard.

     

    “In Rt Hon Michael Balonwu & Ors V Governor of Anambra State& Ors (2007) 5 NWLR ( Pt 1028) 488, the intermediate court held that “an order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside.

     

    “An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or lightly placed in the society. This is what the rule of law is all about, hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience to court orders”.

     

    “It therefore does not matter that the judgment is downright stupid, illogical or not well researched; or that parties affected do not like it.

     

    “Right or wrong therefore, court judgements must be obeyed until set aside by a higher court, or a challenged section is amended by the Legislature.

     

    “Since no court is higher than the Supreme Court of Nigeria, only an amendment to the Constitution by the NASS under section 9 can override the judgment.

     

    “That was why the same Supreme Court, acutely aware that it is susceptible to mistakes and errors being constituted by mere mortals and not almighty God or angels, once famously declared through late venerable Socrates of the Nigerian Bench, Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, in the causa celebre of Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) NWLR ( Pt 109) 250, that “the Supreme Court is final not because it is infallible, it is infallible because it is final”.

     

    “On how the Supreme Court judgment is implementable, yhe answer is equally simple. The FG, states and LGs should now meet (and I am told they have been meeting) at FAAC and decide on modalities and procedures of opening up accounts for LGs so that their allocation under section 162 is paid directly to them and not to the joint state LG account that is oftentimes waylaid by state Governors and fleeced without the helpless and hamstrung LGs being able to raise a finger.

     

    “This is not rocket science.That refusal by state governors to remit to the LGs was the ugly mischief the Apex Court judgment sought to cure; and it did so perfectly, loud and clear, in my own humble opinion.

     

    “Inter alia, the Apex Court had declared emphatically that, “by virtue of section 162(3) and (5) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, the amount standing to the credit of LGs in the Federation Account shall be distributed to them and be paid directly to them”; that “a state, either by itself or Governor or other agencies, has no power to keep, control, manage, or disburse in any manner, allocations from the Federation Account to LGs”.

     

    “The Apex Court also granted injunctive orders restraining “Governors and their agents, officials or privies from tampering with funds meant for the LGs in the Federation Account” ; and further ordered “immediate compliance by the states, through their appointed officials and public officers with the terms of the judgment and orders”.

     

    “The apex court further ordered the “Federation or Federal Government of Nigeria through its relevant officials, to forthwith commence the direct payment to each LG of the amount standing to the credit of each of them in the Federation Account”.

     

    “The content, terms and directives contained in this judgement, are in my humble opinion, very straight forward, unambiguous and are as clear and clean as a whistle.

     

    “All parties concerned, – FG, states and LGs- must therefore obey and enforce this judgement immediately. There is no option.I had earlier made public this same opinion of mine.

     

    “I had written and stated on several fora that in my humble understanding of the principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court was right in the interpretation it gave to section 162 of the Constitution, so as to prevent continuation of years of wanton abuse of the provisions of section 162 by state governors.

     

    .”I still stand very firmly by this my earlier opinion.God bless Nigeria as we collectively seek true fiscal federalism and not the present unitary system of government that we are currently operating under the thin guise of federalism”, Ozekhome said.

  • Court decides ALGON’s authentic Nat’l Chairman, April 30

    Court decides ALGON’s authentic Nat’l Chairman, April 30

    Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja, will on April 30, decide the case seeking a declaration that Akolade David Alabi is not qualified to be national chairman of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON).

    Petitioners in the suit are the Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), Honorable Abubakar Abdullahi and Honorable Shaban Oyinoyi Shuabu.

    Specifically, they maintained that Alabi, who was chairman of Bariga Local Council Development Area in Lagos State at the time, cannot be president of the association as Bariga is not among the country’s 774 Local Government Areas.

    The Federal Ministry of Finance, Accountant General of the Federation and Governor of Central Bank(first to third respondent), the Attorney-General of the Federation, Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Inspector General of Police, State Security Services(SSS) and Honorable Alabi Akolade David( fourth to eight respondents) are the Respondents.

    In their originating summons filed by Barrister Bartholomew Opara, they maintained that Alabi is not eligible to be ALGON chairman as he was not a local government chairman as contemplated by the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution of ALGON and a Supreme Court decision which had touched on the disput.

    He argued that Alabi had been removed by ALGON’s National Executive Council in 2019 but he keeps parading himself as chairman.

    Therefore, he prayed urged the court to affirm the removal of Alabi by NEC and perpetually restrain him from further parading as such.

    Responding, Counsel to Alabi, Wahab Shittu, in a counter affidavit and preliminary objection, urged the court to decline jurisdiction on the matter.

    At the resumed hearing on Friday, Okpara, adopted his originating summons and response to the eight defendant’s counter affidavit, asking the court to grant his prayers in the interest of justice.

    But Shittu told the court to strike out the case and dismiss the entire suit for lack of jurisdiction and for being incompetent.

    He added that the entire case rests on the constitution of ALGON and the only person that can be sued is the national president but the person sued is the national chairman.

    The court did not attend to the party seeking to be joined because of the issue of jurisdiction raised by Shittu.

    Part of his reliefs sought read,”
    “A Declaration that all the findings and resolutions of the 1st Claimant’s General Assembly convened on 30th May 2020 remain extant and binding
    on all and sundry; particularly, the resolution affirming its National
    Executive Council’s decision which removed the 8th Defendant
    as 1st Claimants National Chairman on 6th September 20I9; and the inauguration of an Interim Management Committee (IMC)
    mandated to set up an electoral committee for the conduct of a
    substantive Chairmanship election for the 1st Claimant.

    “An Order annulling or setting aside the purported General Assembly convened at the 8th Defendant’s instance on 24th March 2021, including all the activities carried out on the said date, to wit: purported resolutions arrived at, amendment of the ALGON Constitution, election /appointment of the 6th & 8th Defendants, alongside their cronies, to different offices.

    “An Order for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th Defendants to forthwith recognise, deal and or relate with the National Chairman of the 1st Claimant, and other persons, who emerged from the election conducted by the electoral committee set up by the Interim Management Committee (IMC) as occasioned by the resolution of the general assembly convened on May 30, 2020.”

    After listening to their argument, the case was adjourned to April 30th for judgement.