An Abuja Division of the Federal
High Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by a senator, Dino Melaye,
against his planned recall.
Mr. Melaye had approached the
court in July to challenge a decision of Nigeria’s electoral body, the
Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to commence a process for his
recall, following petitions filed by members of the Kogi West senatorial
constituency where the lawmaker represents.
The court had ordered a
suspension of the recall process, following Mr. Melaye’s application, but
directed on Tuesday that the process should continue, after deciding that the
application lacked merit.
The presiding judge, Nnamdi
Dimgba, ruled that the electorate whose petition resulted in the recall had a
right to request the removal of their senator from office since they are the
ones who “gifted the position of the said office” to Mr. Melaye.
“The electorate voted the senator
into office, they gifted him the office and they have the right to take back
what they gifted.
“It is also important to know
that going by the electoral laws, the members of the constituency do not owe
the senator any right to inform him of their lack of confidence in him. All
they owe is to inform the body, which will inform the senator in a manner
deemed appropriate for him to prepare to defend himself,” Mr Dimgba said.
Citing electoral laws of the
United States, the judge added that the law does mandate the electorate to
exhibit its right of franchise, “only in good fate.”
“The electorate can vote for any
reason, good or bad, the same rule applies for a recall process. Electoral
constituents can act in a way they deem fit. It is beyond the powers of the
court to determine how they (the constituency) can exhibit that right.”
The court also decided that INEC
was not under any obligation to inform Mr Melaye of its decision to recall him.
“I do not believe that an agency
seeking to recall the senator has a duty to inform him, before commencing the
process, these are clear cut procedures. The duty of the commission is to
access the petitions and verify that the signatories are authentic.”
Mr. Dimgba said the allegation of
fraud and fictitious signatures had already been settled by “the constitutional
provision of INEC to verify the signatories.”
“I, therefore, hold that the
complaint brought before the court were hasty, premature and presumptuous,”
said Mr Dimgba.
He added that the makers of the
constitution included the provision for the removal of a senator, despite
“inherent dangers.” He said that in developed countries like the United States,
such a provision is not included in the constitution so that it could be
misused by certain political actors.
Mr. Dimgba noted that “the court
only has the powers to interpret the laws as they are.”
According to the judge, Mr
Melaye’s allegation of lack of fair hearing cannot be treated in the court
because the constitution has already provided an internal process inherent in
INEC’s recall procedure for Mr. Melaye to determine whether he would be granted
a fair hearing on not.
He added that unless Mr. Melaye
exhausts the internal mechanism provided by law, he cannot complain of being
denied a fair hearing.
Mr. Dimbga further said that the
188,588 voters who reportedly signed the petitions against the lawmaker were in
conformity with the constitutional requirement for over half of the registered
360,100 voters who registered for the election in Kogi-west constituency.
The judge also noted that the
recall timetable provided in court had indicated clearly that Mr. Melaye would
be given a chance to defend himself during the process.
He added that any further right
of hearing, required by Mr. Melaye would be “between himself and his voters
whom he has a right to explain himself to.”
Justice Dimbga, however, noted
that the complaint brought by INEC against Mr Melaye’s motion was invalid,
stressing that “the motion was duly filed according to the rules of court.”
He added that although the
constitution does not specify that INEC must provide Mr. Melaye with the
details of the recall before commencing with the process, it also did not state
that it should inform the Senator ‘at all.’
“The defendant, however, informed
the senator and rightly so, because it is in conformity with the natural law of
justice,” said Mr. Dimgba.
The judge also queried the
failure of INEC to include the details of the petition, when it eventually
informed Mr. Melaye about the recall, wondering how the electoral body “expects
Mr Melaye to defend himself.”
The judge subsequently ordered
that a copy of the petition, the signatories to the said petition, as well as
the supporters of the recall process be made available to the applicant within
two weeks before the next amended date of commencement’ of the recall.
The court decided that the 90-day
benchmark for the referendum on Mr. Melaye’s removal from office would continue
from Monday, September 11.
Mr. Melaye known for his
outspoken nature on and out of the floor of the National Assembly on critical
national issues is currently fighting the battle of his life to retain his seat
after 188,588 reportedly signed a petition seeking his recall.
He has been known to take on
political figures including a national leader of the All Progressive Congress,
APC, Bola Tinubu and his state governor, Yahaya Bello.
He was recently enmeshed in a
messy academic certificate forgery scandal which put him in an unhealthy
spotlight until the authorities of the school concerned, the Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, came to his rescue to confirm that he indeed graduated from
the institution.
Mr. Melaye has blamed the Kogi
State Governor for being behind his present ordeal.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayAdvertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
This is good for Democracy. So they it will save sa lesson to other.
ReplyDeleteMr Melaye should exercise patience and allow the law to take it's cause please
ReplyDelete"The court decided that the 90-day benchmark for the referendum on Mr. Melaye’s removal from office would continue from Monday, September 11."
ReplyDeleteWith this statement, does it mean the 90 day start from on the 11 of sept?
Time is not on INEC side to quickly finish the process before the expiration of the 90 day
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete