Stakeholders seek constitutional amendment to avert Jonathan’s scenerio after 2015 presidential election

 Will the National Assembly amend the Constitution to forestall any candidate spending more than eight years as President or wait upon the Supreme Court to make pronouncement? Writes Peter Fowoyo.

But for the former President, Goodluck Jonathan’s loss at the March 2015 general elections, the Supreme Court would have had to make pronouncement on whether he was qualified or not to contest the elections.

Jonathan was sworn in as President after the death of his principal, the late Umaru Musa Yar’adua on May 6, 2010. He became the substantive head-of-state and as such completed the late Yar’Adua’s term of office which expired in May 2011.

In 2011, Jonathan sought the mandates of Nigerians at the polls under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) platform and won the elections.

Thereafter, he served four years term and in 2015, again, he contested elections.

However, few weeks to the elections, four Nigerians, namely: Prof. Tunde Samuel, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, Mr. Rasaq Adeosun and Yahaya Ezemoo, approached the court,

asking for an order restraining Jonathan from contesting, putting himself forward and or accepting to contest for the office of President.

They asserted that should Jonathan be allowed to contest and he is sworn-in as President, he would be spending 10 years in office contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Constitution.

Relying on sections 135 to146 of the Constitution (as amended), the plaintiffs averred that Jonathan cannot take the oath of office more than twice as President.

Under the constitution, no President can be in office beyond eight years of two terms.

However, lawyers who spoke in an exclusive interview with Daily Times yesterday disagreed on the eligibility or otherwise of Jonathan in the 2015 elections.

For instance, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs, Mr. Yusuf Ali SAN, said that:”During Jonathan’s time, we went to court to say that Jonathan was not qualified to contest. That is still my position.

Although the matter died naturally because Jonathan was defeated at the polls so, no judgment was passed.

Our position in that case, was that the constitution does not envisage anybody spending more than eight years in any of the elective positions.

That is, President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor and that a proper interpretation of the constitution will lead one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter the device, you cannot spend more than eight years in the service.

If you recall, during the time of former governors of Kogi, Ibrahim Idris, Adamawa, Murtala Nyako and others, that their elections were nullified and the courts said that they should hold another elections,

and after those elections they still won, their arguments then in court was that their new tenure would start afresh notwithstanding the time they’ve spent before conducting the elections and the court said no, it is part of the time they’ve spent.

The court held that no circumstances should warrant anyone to hold an elective office beyond eight years. We were trying to buy into that argument.

Of course, I’m aware of a case, Cyriacus Njoku vs. President Jonathan, where the Court of Appeal said anybody who inherited his position like former president Jonathan did, the time spent out of that person’s tenure would not count.

There is also this judgment on Yobe State where the Supreme Court now also said the governor of Yobe State then was qualified to contest the second term even though he inherited part of the executive for two years or so when he was the Deputy Governor and the governor died and he was not disqualified by that.

It appears the Supreme Court has set its own position in that case. That is, whoever inherited part of the tenure of another person like Jonathan did, it means he would be right to contest on his own right twice so, that appears to be the position as at today and of course, I’m bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. I cannot have a contrary view.”

Ali, like other senior lawyers who spoke, agreed that there’s need for amendment to the constitution.

“There’s the need for the lawmakers to look at the constitution again like they did during the cases of former governors Nyako, Idris and others.

Also corroborating Ali SAN is a professor of law, Paul Ananaba SAN, who opined that: “the constitution is very clear.

It does not allows a president to spend more than eight years so, anything that will give a person more than eight years in office would be unconstitutional.

“If former president Jonathan had won, we would have had constitutional issues as to whether he could spend 10 years.

He was sworn-in as a president, the constitution does not talk about ticket, the constitution talks about the date of taking the oath of office, the constitution envisages that he was a president, he was not Vice President again.

He was not a President on a ticket of a person. A President of this country is a President of this country so those arguments remain arguments but,

the constitutional facts and law is that he has spent six years already and he cannot spend 10years whether on a private ticket, or on a public ticket, or on a borrowed ticket.

“There’s need to amend the constitution now because what happened during former President Jonathan wasn’t envisaged that the President would die mid way and the Vice President would take over as the President.

Constitutions are evolutionary, constitution continues to evolve. A people’ constitution is a product of their experience and their legal development.

It is expected that the National Assembly should have effected an amendment to take care of such unplanned situation.”

But a former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Benin, Professor Itsey Sagay SAN, disagreed with the duo of Ali SAN and Ananaba SAN.

According to Sagay SAN, who was appointed by the President Muhammadu Buhari, led All Progressive Congress (APC) party as the Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption (PACAC), the former President Jonathan: “would have been constitutionally elected if he had won because he has only contested elections twice.

He contested elections once in 2011 and contested the second elections in 2015. He could have stayed on if he had won for another four years.

“That is the criterion for the purpose of contesting elective positions, not that of succeeding the principal who happens to die mid way, that is not relevant in the constitutional calculation of number of terms.

Two of those six years Jonathan spent was actually concluding another person’s tenure. “You cannot rule without taking oath of office, otherwise, you owe nobody any obligations.

Jonathan was just stepping in as a Vice President who is completing the tenure of his President, that cannot be counted in terms of the number of terms the person is serving. That is not his tenure, he is just completing another person’s tenure.”

It is however not clear whether the National Assembly will look at the lacuna in the constitution with a view to effecting the necessary amendment or allow the Supreme Court to make pronouncement on it.