PRESS STATEMENT ON THE REPORTED DEATH OF PRINCE
ABUBAKAR AUDU AND THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.
The reported death today, Sunday, November 22nd, 2015, of the
APC candidate in the Kogi State Governorship elections, Prince
Abubakar Audu, is extremely shocking and sad. I would like to
express my condolences to the entire family of Audu and to the
people of Kogi State.
However, the real question agitating the minds of everybody is the
legal implication regarding the inconclusive Governorship elections
at the time of his demise. To state it correctly he was said to have
died AFTER the announcement of the results by INEC and after
INEC had declared the elections inconclusive. Admittedly, this is a
strange and novel constitutional scenario. It has never happened in
our constitutional history to the extent that when an election has
been partially conducted (and not before or after the elections) a
candidate dies. What then happens?
This is a hybrid situation between what happened in the case of
Atiku Abubakar/Boni Haruna in 1999 and the provision of section
33 of the Electoral Act, 2010.
In the case of Atiku Abubakar/Boni Haruna [which is now a clear
constitutional provision of section 181(1) of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended)] the Supreme Court held, in effect, that “if a person
duly elected as Governor dies before taking and subscribing the
Oath of Allegiance and oath of office, or is unable for any reason
whatsoever to be sworn in, the person elected with him as Deputy
governor shall be sworn in as Governor and he shall nominate a
new Deputy-Governor who shall be appointed by the Governor with
the approval of a simple majority of the house of Assembly of the
State”.
In the case of section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010 it provides, in
effect, that if a person has been duly nominated as a candidate of
his party and he dies before the election then the political party has
the right to replace him with another candidate and not necessarily
the Deputy Governorship candidate.
Now, does the Kogi situation fit into section 181(1) of the
Constitution as quoted above or section 33 of the Electoral Act
mentioned above?
My simple position is that the Kogi situation fits more into section
181(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and as such James
Abiodun Faleke automatically becomes the governorship candidate
of the APC. This is because even though the election in
inconclusive, votes have been counted and allocated to Parties and
candidates. As a result the joint ticket of Audu/Faleke has acquired
some votes already. James Abiodun Faleke is as much entitled to
those votes already counted as much as the late Abubakar Audu.
He has a right to cling to those votes going into the supplementary
election.
There is only one problem, though. Who nominates Faleke’s
Deputy? Unlike section 181(1) of the 1999 Constitution, he cannot
approach the House of Assembly of the State to approve a
nomination by him of a Deputy. This is because, in reality, he is not
duly elected yet. Therefore it is only reasonable to conclude that it
is APC (Faleke’s political party) that should submit the name of a
fresh Deputy Governorship candidate to INEC for the
supplementary election.
This is the only position in this situation that accords with reason
and good sense.
FESTUS KEYAMO, ESQ.
London, 9:40pm
Sunday, November 22, 2015.
https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=467142280158544&id=100005883271622&refid=8&_ft_=qid.6220237296066566667%3Amf_story_key.-3377261569595714234&__tn__=%2As
ABUBAKAR AUDU AND THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.
The reported death today, Sunday, November 22nd, 2015, of the
APC candidate in the Kogi State Governorship elections, Prince
Abubakar Audu, is extremely shocking and sad. I would like to
express my condolences to the entire family of Audu and to the
people of Kogi State.
However, the real question agitating the minds of everybody is the
legal implication regarding the inconclusive Governorship elections
at the time of his demise. To state it correctly he was said to have
died AFTER the announcement of the results by INEC and after
INEC had declared the elections inconclusive. Admittedly, this is a
strange and novel constitutional scenario. It has never happened in
our constitutional history to the extent that when an election has
been partially conducted (and not before or after the elections) a
candidate dies. What then happens?
This is a hybrid situation between what happened in the case of
Atiku Abubakar/Boni Haruna in 1999 and the provision of section
33 of the Electoral Act, 2010.
In the case of Atiku Abubakar/Boni Haruna [which is now a clear
constitutional provision of section 181(1) of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended)] the Supreme Court held, in effect, that “if a person
duly elected as Governor dies before taking and subscribing the
Oath of Allegiance and oath of office, or is unable for any reason
whatsoever to be sworn in, the person elected with him as Deputy
governor shall be sworn in as Governor and he shall nominate a
new Deputy-Governor who shall be appointed by the Governor with
the approval of a simple majority of the house of Assembly of the
State”.
In the case of section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010 it provides, in
effect, that if a person has been duly nominated as a candidate of
his party and he dies before the election then the political party has
the right to replace him with another candidate and not necessarily
the Deputy Governorship candidate.
Now, does the Kogi situation fit into section 181(1) of the
Constitution as quoted above or section 33 of the Electoral Act
mentioned above?
My simple position is that the Kogi situation fits more into section
181(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and as such James
Abiodun Faleke automatically becomes the governorship candidate
of the APC. This is because even though the election in
inconclusive, votes have been counted and allocated to Parties and
candidates. As a result the joint ticket of Audu/Faleke has acquired
some votes already. James Abiodun Faleke is as much entitled to
those votes already counted as much as the late Abubakar Audu.
He has a right to cling to those votes going into the supplementary
election.
There is only one problem, though. Who nominates Faleke’s
Deputy? Unlike section 181(1) of the 1999 Constitution, he cannot
approach the House of Assembly of the State to approve a
nomination by him of a Deputy. This is because, in reality, he is not
duly elected yet. Therefore it is only reasonable to conclude that it
is APC (Faleke’s political party) that should submit the name of a
fresh Deputy Governorship candidate to INEC for the
supplementary election.
This is the only position in this situation that accords with reason
and good sense.
FESTUS KEYAMO, ESQ.
London, 9:40pm
Sunday, November 22, 2015.
https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=467142280158544&id=100005883271622&refid=8&_ft_=qid.6220237296066566667%3Amf_story_key.-3377261569595714234&__tn__=%2As
No comments:
Post a Comment