Recently, Governor Ayodele Fayose made headline news with a
statement which signalled his intention to seek for a tenure
elongation or re-election for a compensatory tenure to make up for
the unexhausted part of his truncated first tenure.
It would be recalled that in 2006, Fayose, then in his first
tenure as Governor of Ekiti State, was removed from office in a
questionable manner through an impeachment process which was later
declared unlawful by the Supreme Court1- the harm having already
been done to him after he had lost about seven months of his
tenure.
As expected, the said statement has thrown up a heated debate
amongst legal luminaries, political pundits, and a cross section of
the Nigerian society, with the main thrust of the argument anchored
on what constitutional fate awaits Governor Fayose. Interestingly,
on one side of the divide are those in support of Governor Fayose’s
alleged ambition and on the other end are those who view same as
untenable.
Whilst we await the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this
issue, hoping that Governor Fayose makes good his promise to first
approach the Apex Court for interpretation of Section 180(2) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),
(the Constitution)- with respect to the constitutionality of a
tenure extension/re-election of an illegally impeached Governor –
before throwing his hat into the ring, it appears that this issue
has hitherto been addressed by the Apex Court in its previous
decisions, albeit not so expressly highlighted. This article thus
seeks as its major objective, to unearth the position of the law on
the issue at hand through a holistic interpretation and proper
application of relevant statutory/decided authorities.
For reference purpose, the said section 180(2) of the
Constitution which is the subject of interpretative contest, states
as follows:
“180(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this
section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of
period of four years commencing from the date when –
(a) in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this
Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office;
and
(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of
Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have
taken such oaths.”
Points Identified
The following points are apparent from the provision of section
180(2) of the Constitution and the controversy now raised by the
statement credited to Governor Ayodele Fayose:
Whether the duration of the four-year tenure of a state governor
as constitutionally envisaged, ought to be uninterrupted.
Whether an unexhausted part of a four-year tenure of a state
governor illegally impeached in the course of his/her term, ought
to be discountenanced in the computation of his/her full
tenure.
iii. Whether the tenure of office of Governor of a State can be
extended to compensate for period out of office due to unlawful
impeachment.
We shall now proceed in this discourse to examine briefly the
points raised above before arriving at a conclusion on whether the
position now sought to be taken by Governor Fayose would find
support in law.
Whether the duration of the four year tenure of a state governor
as constitutionally envisaged, ought to be uninterrupted
It is clear, that Section 180 (2) of the
Constitution makes provision for a four-year period as a
single tenure for a governor in office. However, the Constitution
does not expressly state whether or not such duration ought to be
uninterrupted. This prompted the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on
this point in LADOJA V. INEC & Ors. Per
Aderemi, J.S.C., where the Court faced with a similar circumstance
as applicable in the case of Governor Fayose, stated as
follows:
“… he (1st respondent/cross-appellant) took his oath of
allegiance and oath of offices as Governor of Oyo State on the 29th
of May, 2003. The wordings of section 180(2)(a) and (b) are very
clear and unambiguous. Being a person first elected as Governor,
his four-year tenure would start to run from the 29th of May, 2003.
It is true that by the impeachment foisted on him by the State
House of Assembly whose impeachment was later declared null and
void by court, he was kept out of office for a period of eleven
months that he is praying the court to declare that he is entitled
to a term of four uninterrupted years in office as Governor of Oyo
State commencing from the 29th of May, 2003 and consequently, to
hold that by virtue of the provisions of section 180(2)(a) of the
Constitution applicable, he is entitled to remain in office until
29th April, 2008 when, according to him, what he described as his
term of four uninterrupted years as Governor of Oyo State would
expire. I have again carefully read the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitution; the word uninterrupted was not used to qualify the
four-year tenure to which the plaintiff/appellant was entitled as
Governor of Oyo State (underlining mine)”.
By virtue of the above dictum, the Supreme Court passed the
message that the Constitution does not give room for any
interruption in the computation of the four-year duration of a
Governor’s tenure. The law therefore requires that once a Governor
takes the oath of office, the clock of his/her tenure mandatorily
programmed by the Constitution to function for four years, starts
ticking and not even an illegal impeachment can pause its
functioning, nor hold its hands from ticking.
• To be continued
Recently, Governor Ayodele Fayose made headline news with a
statement which signalled his intention to seek for a tenure
elongation or re-election for a compensatory tenure to make up for
the unexhausted part of his truncated first tenure.
It would be recalled that in 2006, Fayose, then in his first
tenure as Governor of Ekiti State, was removed from office in a
questionable manner through an impeachment process which was later
declared unlawful by the Supreme Court1- the harm having already
been done to him after he had lost about seven months of his
tenure.
As expected, the said statement has thrown up a heated debate
amongst legal luminaries, political pundits, and a cross section of
the Nigerian society, with the main thrust of the argument anchored
on what constitutional fate awaits Governor Fayose. Interestingly,
on one side of the divide are those in support of Governor Fayose’s
alleged ambition and on the other end are those who view same as
untenable.
Whilst we await the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this
issue, hoping that Governor Fayose makes good his promise to first
approach the Apex Court for interpretation of Section 180(2) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),
(the Constitution)- with respect to the constitutionality of a
tenure extension/re-election of an illegally impeached Governor –
before throwing his hat into the ring, it appears that this issue
has hitherto been addressed by the Apex Court in its previous
decisions, albeit not so expressly highlighted. This article thus
seeks as its major objective, to unearth the position of the law on
the issue at hand through a holistic interpretation and proper
application of relevant statutory/decided authorities.
For reference purpose, the said section 180(2) of the
Constitution which is the subject of interpretative contest, states
as follows:
“180(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this
section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of
period of four years commencing from the date when –
(a) in the case of a person first elected as Governor under this
Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office;
and
(b) the person last elected to that office took the Oath of
Allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have
taken such oaths.”
Points Identified
The following points are apparent from the provision of section
180(2) of the Constitution and the controversy now raised by the
statement credited to Governor Ayodele Fayose:
Whether the duration of the four-year tenure of a state governor
as constitutionally envisaged, ought to be uninterrupted.
Whether an unexhausted part of a four-year tenure of a state
governor illegally impeached in the course of his/her term, ought
to be discountenanced in the computation of his/her full
tenure.
iii. Whether the tenure of office of Governor of a State can be
extended to compensate for period out of office due to unlawful
impeachment.
We shall now proceed in this discourse to examine briefly the
points raised above before arriving at a conclusion on whether the
position now sought to be taken by Governor Fayose would find
support in law.
Whether the duration of the four year tenure of a state governor
as constitutionally envisaged, ought to be uninterrupted
It is clear, that Section 180 (2) of the
Constitution makes provision for a four-year period as a
single tenure for a governor in office. However, the Constitution
does not expressly state whether or not such duration ought to be
uninterrupted. This prompted the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on
this point in LADOJA V. INEC & Ors. Per
Aderemi, J.S.C., where the Court faced with a similar circumstance
as applicable in the case of Governor Fayose, stated as
follows:
“… he (1st respondent/cross-appellant) took his oath of
allegiance and oath of offices as Governor of Oyo State on the 29th
of May, 2003. The wordings of section 180(2)(a) and (b) are very
clear and unambiguous. Being a person first elected as Governor,
his four-year tenure would start to run from the 29th of May, 2003.
It is true that by the impeachment foisted on him by the State
House of Assembly whose impeachment was later declared null and
void by court, he was kept out of office for a period of eleven
months that he is praying the court to declare that he is entitled
to a term of four uninterrupted years in office as Governor of Oyo
State commencing from the 29th of May, 2003 and consequently, to
hold that by virtue of the provisions of section 180(2)(a) of the
Constitution applicable, he is entitled to remain in office until
29th April, 2008 when, according to him, what he described as his
term of four uninterrupted years as Governor of Oyo State would
expire. I have again carefully read the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitution; the word uninterrupted was not used to qualify the
four-year tenure to which the plaintiff/appellant was entitled as
Governor of Oyo State (underlining mine)”.
By virtue of the above dictum, the Supreme Court passed the
message that the Constitution does not give room for any
interruption in the computation of the four-year duration of a
Governor’s tenure. The law therefore requires that once a Governor
takes the oath of office, the clock of his/her tenure mandatorily
programmed by the Constitution to function for four years, starts
ticking and not even an illegal impeachment can pause its
functioning, nor hold its hands from ticking.
• To be continued
Read more https://nairalaw.com/can-interruption-of-a-governors-tenure-be-compensated/