Without prejudice the matter in court, my take simply is that our democracy is preserved if it is practised robustly within the sacred confines of rule of law and constutionalism.
Rule of law is better than rule of man. Rule of law abhors arbitrariness.
Rule of law is strict obedience to law and not whims and caprices of private persons or public authorities.
We run a constitutional democracy which delimits the powers of the NASS when it is set to take over the powers of a State legislature.
We are not running a moral code or partisan creed hence, the conditions precedent for the take over of a State Legislature by the NASS as set down under the Constitution must be met otherwise it will amount to illegality and unconstitutional act.
By the dry letters of the law as embedded in the Constitution, in no circumstance can a Governor of State be forced to reissue a proclamation he has validly made.
The Constitution does not contemplate issuance of multiple proclamations by the Governor for the convoking or inauguration of the Legislature.
It is argued that even when a Governor makes a proclamation, he may not overrule himself unless he shows good cause especially where the proclamation has been acted upon by the legislative arm of government.
If the proclamation made by the Governor is mismanaged (as is alleged in this Edo House of Assembly case) by the arm of Government to which it is directed, being the legislature, the remedy is no longer with the issuance of a fresh proclamation by the Governor.
The Governor, having issued a proclamation, is strictly speaking *functus officio, meaning that the matter is now out of his hands.*
It is common knowledge that the proclamation issued by the EDO State Governor has been acted upon by the relevant official being the Clerk of the EDO House of Assembly as a result of which some Members were sworn in and a Speaker elected.
It is also not in contention that some members-elect are yet to show up to be inaugurated and sworn in as Members of the EDO House of Assembly.
The time and circumstances of the inauguration are also being disputed by the members elect who were ill-affected in the swearing in exercise conducted by the Clerk of the EDO House of Assembly.
Therefore, the key questions here include but are not limited to-
(1)whether the procedure adopted in the swearing in ceremony complied with the law considering the time of the exercise and the way and manner of giving notice to the Members-elect entitled to attend and participate?
(2) Was there quorum on the inauguration and if yes, what do you now do with with those who are already sworn in as House Members and the Speaker they elected?
There is no pretending that whether what has played out in the Edo House of Assembly saga is legal or lawful or procedurally correct is a huge constitutional issue.
Certainly, the avoidable impasse has left the realm of political tintinnabulation and “one corner dance” by party political leaders.
It is in the public domain that issues arising from this vexatious matter is pending in court for judicial determination.
The legislature, being the NASS, must therefore be careful not to embark on naked usurpation of judicial powers even in the exercise of its powers in this regard.
We opine clearly that the courts exist to place proper interpretation on situations like this Edo House of Assembly imbroglio.
If the matter is resolved politically fine but experience shows that political resolution of constitutional crises or conflicts leaves no durable precedence for democratic sustainability.
The fear is that the that prickly heat and political rashes in this Edo House of Assembly logjam will play out sooner than later in any other State of the Federation if the main issues and collateral circumstances surrounding it are not comprehensively rested via profound judicial decisions and pronouncements.
We need legal precedence on this constitutional matter and absent the accident of litigation, there can be no judicial precedence!
We submit that at this stage of the crisis, it takes only the court of competent jurisdiction and not the NASS (that is clearly on a constitutional overdrive by its precipitate orders and directives to the Governor) to overrule what has been done in Edo State House Assembly.
Let the rule of law prevail.
A new normal is possible!
Business1 week ago
Sports3 days ago
Business1 week ago
Latest6 days ago
Health1 week ago
Business7 days ago
Football1 week ago
Crime7 days ago