REMOVAL OF THE SPEAKER OF CROSS RIVER STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (CRHA) AND IT IRREVERSIBILITY BY EXECUTIVE FIAT – Hilary Nyiam Bisong, Esq.
INTRODUCTION:
I have read various opinions on the burning issue concerning the removal of the Speaker of Cross River State House of Assembly (CRHA), Rt. Hon. Elvert Ayambem by seventeen (17) out of the twenty-five (25) members of the State House of Assembly which represents a two-third majority. I have also read the opinions of a few asking for forgiveness on him and reinstatement into office.
The law with respect to the removal of a Speaker of a State House of Assembly is very clear. It is what it is on the face of it bastardisation. Statutory and case laws abound and are handy on the removal of a Speaker. I will endeavour to be brief.
ALSO READ: Rt. Hon. Elvert Ayambem replies to Impeachment report.
In the general sense, “impeachment” denotes the removal of a public officer from office by the legislature before the expiration of his official term. This is the sense in which the terms are mostly used and understood, although the constitution used the term, \”removal\” in sections 143, 188, 50 (c) and 92 (2) (c) with regards to the removal of the political heads of the executive and the legislature respectively. The terms are therefore used interchangeably.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE IMPEACHMENT/ REMOVAL OF A SPEAKER AND THE QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
The conditions precedent for the impeachment of the Speaker of a State House of Assembly is provided in section 92 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The second conditions precedent is the provisions of the Rules of the House of Assembly in question. The reading public should endeavour to understand the dichotomy between the removal of the heads of the executive arm with that of the legislative arm provided in sections 143, 188 and sections 50 and 92 respectively.
ALSO READ: Elvert Ayambem removal wasn’t a plot, House Members release funds embezzled by Ayambem
It was as a result of the dichotomy that the Conference of Speakers of State Houses of Assembly in May, 2015 stated that, \”the removal of a governor is rigorous, that of the Speaker is not close to that. We should strengthen the law\”. They went on to state that, \”lawmakers would continue to be seen as rubber-stamps if we make it difficult for governors to be removed and easy to remove Speakers\”. This position is very true and clear to Nigerians in the midst of the gale of impeachments and removal of Speakers and Deputy Speakers of the State Houses of Assembly
.
THE GALE OF IMPEACHMENTS, REMOVAL AND REINSTATEMENTS OF THE SPEAKERS OF SOME STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY IN NIGERIA
Cases of impeachment, removal and reinstatement of the Speakers of some State Houses of Assembly by the court abound. In order not to bore you much, let\’s examine a few recent cases beginning with Ekiti State. In that State, Rt. Hon. Gboyega Aribisogan who was elected Speaker on 15th November 2022 was impeached/removed as Speaker just after six (6) days by seventeen (17) out of the twenty-five members of the State House of Assembly representating two-thirds majority. He contended that he remained the Speaker as Order 11, Rule 9 of the House Rules prescribes that, before the Speaker can be impeached/removed from office, he must be served with a formal notice of the allegations and given seventy-two (72) hours to respond. According to him, \”the Rules further states that, such response will be reviewed by an Adhoc Committee set-up by the House for that purpose before a vote on impeachment of the Speaker can be taken on the floor of the House and that, a gathering for such a purpose must be convened in accordance with Order V, Rule 18 (1) of the House Rules. The members on the other hand contended that all the due process of law were complied to the letter. Whatever side we tilt to in this case, all I can say is that, only Mr. Speaker can say the reason why he did not challenge his impeachment/removal in court.
In Plateau State, the Speaker Hon. Abok Ayuba was impeached on October, 2021. The impeachment/removal was presided over by his Deputy Speaker, Saleh Yipmong and eight others who named Rt. Hon. Yakubu Sanda as the new Speaker. Ayuba sued praying the Court to declare his removal other than by sixteen (16) out of twenty-five (25) members representing two-third majority in line with section 92 (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution and Order 7, Rule 14 of the Plateau State House of Assembly Rules 2021 (as amended) is null and void. The Court harkened to his prayers and reinstated him to his position as Speaker of Plateau State House of Assembly.
In Ogun State, eighteen (18) out of the twenty-six representing two third majority of the State Assembly impeached/removed Hon. Olakunle Oluomo in January, 2024 when the Speaker was reportedly at the June 12 Cultural Centre, Abeokuta attending the swearing in of Magistrates of the Customary Courts a few meters away from the Assembly Complex. The House immediately elected Rt. Hon. Oluwadaisi Elemide as the new Speaker. The erstwhile Speaker was impeached/removed for, \”gross misconduct which includes: high handedness, lack of focus and transparency, arrogance and lack of respect to his colleagues, poor leadership style, financial misappropriation among others.
There are many other cases of impeachment and removal of Speakers of the State Houses of Assembly. The cases which have been submitted to the court for determination, the question always revolved around compliance with section 92 (2) (c) and the provisions of the Rules of the State House of Assembly in question. This two-step-process is like a double edge sword which must be utilised to the letter.
THE CASE OF THE IMPEACHED/REMOVED SPEAKER OF THE CROSS RIVER STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (CRHA)
On Wednesday, 22nd May 2023, the member representating Calabar South State Constituency at the floor of the House presided over by the Speaker, moved a motion for the impeachment/removal of Mr. Speaker. The motion was seconded by the member representing Bekwarra State Constituency. The motion of impeachment served on the Speaker was signed by seventeen (17) out of twenty-five (25) members representing two-third majority in tandem with section 92 (2) (c) of the Constitution. While this phase is clear to the blind and audible to the deaf, majority of Cross Riverians home and abroad are still at a lost with the House Rules.
The allegations levelled against the Speaker are huge for \”a son of nobody\” who threw away his mantra and suddenly became, an untouchable (so he thinks) son of somebody. The allegations are so humongous, such that can be said to be the highest corruption case by a Speaker since the creation of Cross River State. The question again to be asked is, were the Rules complied with, to the letter for the impeachment and/or removal of the Speaker?
THE AVAILABLE AND UNAVAILABLE OPTIONS TO THE IMPEACHED SPEAKER OF CRHA
Flowing from statutory and case laws, the options available to the impeached Speaker, Rt. Hon. Elvert Ayambem are: to accept his impeachment and removal as Speaker of CRHA in good faith or challenge it before the Court on the strength of section 36 of the 1999 constitution.
The unavailable options are: reinstatement by his honourable colleagues suo moto, or by the leadership of the APC to status quo ante bellum, as it is being championed by a section of Cross Riverians.
SUMMARY
The impeachment and removal of the Speaker of a State House of Assembly is a serious issue that nobody no matter how highly placed can vitiate except the court. See, mutatis mutandis, the case of Inakoju & Ors. V. Adeleke & Ors. (2007) LPELR-1510 (SC.), APC V. PDP & Ors. (2015) LPELR 24587 (SC.). In Inakoju\’s case, the Supreme Court held that, an ouster clause in a statute or the constitution (like section 92 (2) (c) supra) does not prevent the court from investigating if the conditions prescribed in such a statute or the constitution are fulfilled prior to the act purported to be done under the constitution, because, if the conditions have not been fulfilled to the letter, then, the act purported to be done would be ultra vires and declared null and void, as not being done under the said statute or constitutional provisions. This was also the basis upon which the court reinstated the impeached Speaker of the Plateau State House of Assembly.
For the impeached/removed Speaker of the CRHA, it will be interesting to table our legion of analysis before the court whose restatement of the grundnorm in ages past rest on the breastplate of mi Lords and no one else\’s.
CONCLUSION
Justice in the words of Chukwudifu Oputa, J.S.C. (as he then was) is not a one-way traffic. It is not a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic. Mutatis mutandis, justice for the impeached Speaker of CRHA accused of misconduct; justice for the seventeen (17) members of the CRHA for their efforts to checkmate absolute and arbitrary powers of the Speaker; and justice for the generality of Cross Riverians – the burden bearers whose wealth is frittered away daily by supposed leaders.
Cross Riverians yearn to see justice roll down like waters before the court devoid of executive or party interference, else, we be seen as paying lip service to the rule of law in Cross River State.
Lastly again, no man, no matter how highly placed can by fiat undo the act of removal of a Speaker of the State House of Assembly except the court.
