coast for President Goodluck Jonathan to seek for a re-election on
March 28.
In an unanimous judgment Tuesday, a 5-man panel of Justices of the
appellate court held that Jonathan is legally qualified to run for a
second term in office.
Jonathan
The appellate court panel said the raging contention that under
section 135(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, President
Jonathan is not eligible to partake in the forthcoming presidential
election having already taken the oath of office and oath of
allegiance for the office of the presidency twice, was not founded in
law.
It maintained that the first oath Jonathan took on May 6, 2010, was
only to enable him to complete the un-expired tenure of late
President Umaru Musa Yar'adua as stipulated in Section 146(1) of the
constitution, saying his first tenure as substantive President of
Nigeria commenced on May 29, 2011, when he was administered the second
oath of office.
Justice Abubakar Yahaya who delivered the lead judgment Tuesday,
stressed that Jonathan has only been elected as President once, adding
that for him to be disqualified from the impending poll, it must be
proved that the initial oath he took in 2010 was a fallout out of an
election.
Consequently, the appellate court, while dismissing the appeal that
was lodged against President Jonathan by a chieftain of the Peoples
Democratic Party, PDP, Mr Cyriacus Njoku, affirmed a previous verdict
that was delivered by trial Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi of the FCT
High Court on March 1, 2013.
The panel held that Njoku's appeal lacked in merit, even as it
directed him to pay a cost of N50, 000, to both President Jonathan and
the PDP, who he had cited as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit.
According to Justice Yahaya, "Our constitution is the grand norm and
it is sacrosanct. The 1999 constitution is the foundation upon which
the democracy we practice is anchored. It is therefore a document that
must be respected, appreciated and obeyed by all of us.
"The words of the constitution best conveys the mind of the framers. A
court of law is bound to consider in its entirety, the relevant
portions of the constitution in order to arrive at a logical
conclusion.
"When relevant provisions are read together, the words used, if plain
and unambiguous, must be given their clear meaning.
"In the instant appeal, it is not controverted that the oath the 1st
Respondent took in 2007 as a result of the joint election he had with
late President Yar'adua, was the oath for an elected Vice President as
it was Yar'adua that took oath of presidency.
"On May 6, 2010 the 1st Respondent who was then the Vice President,
took oath of presidency by virtue of section 146(1) of the
constitution to complete the un-expired tenure of Yar'adua.
"Section 137(1)(b) disqualifies a person from standing for election
for office of president if he had been elected into the office for two
previous elections. So the operative word is election. The
disqualification is to stop the person from participating in election
again if he has been so elected twice.
"So the word election used in section 137(1) (b) of the 1999
constitution when given its ordinary grammatical meaning, connote a
process where voting is employed to choose a person for the post of
presidency.
"Primary election , nomination, voting, collating and announcement of
result must of necessity take place. That is the mode prescribed in
the constitution for the election of a president into office. This did
not take place when the 1st Respondent took oath in 2010.
"Stepping in of the Vice President after the death of the President
cannot be deemed an election, especially for the purpose of taking
away a right that has been constitutionally vested.
"All the aforementioned processes, starting with party primaries, can
be challenged in the court of law and if it succeed the outcome of an
election annulled. However, if the Vice President succeeds a President
that has died, such cannot be challenged in court as it is a
constitutional requirement.
"The process that produced the 1st Respondent as President in 2010,
was not an election as no single vote was cast.
This was dramatically different from what happened in 2011 when he was
nominated, elected and declared winner. That was the first election he
took and his first election as a President", the court held.
The court said the case of Jonathan's tenure was different from that
of Marwa vs Nyako and the 5 Governors that were sacked by the Supreme
Court, as the governors emerged through elections.
Read more at Vanguard:
t.co/naC9PpaGX0
No comments:
Post a Comment