IS THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST LADY OF NIGERIA CONSTITUTIONAL?

The office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has  recently aroused and enmeshed in controversy  thus:

1.   when it was reported in the media that the Federal Government of Nigeria bought 200 exotic vehicles for the hosting of a Steering Committee of First Ladies of Africa by the First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan, under the aegis of the African Ladies Peace Mission scheduled for Friday, 27^th July, 2012;

2.   There was also controversy concerning the office when Dame Patience Jonathan was appointed a Permanent Secretary in the Public Service of Bayelsa State by the Governor of Bayelsa State, Honourable Seriake Dickson. Dame Jonathan had since been sworn in as a Permanent Secretary.

3.   There was also controversy following the recommendation of the scrapping of the Office of the First Lady by the Presidential Committee on the Review under the Chairmanship of Justice Alfa Belgore. The operation and funding both in kind and cash of the office at all levels of government should be discouraged and abolished forthwith.

It is a notorious fact that none of the country’s Constitution from 1960-1999 has ever created the Office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. However funds have always been allocated to the office of the First Lady by successive administrations in the country since independence. The First Lady is addressed by the title “Her Excellency”.

Nigeria became a Republic on the 1^st October, 1963, with the coming into force of the 1963 Constitution which replaced the Independence Constitution of the Nigeria, 1960. The First President was Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. At that time the system of government that was in force was the West Minster variant of the Parliamentary System of Government. Under the Parliamentary system of government the President is the Head of State but does not possess any executive authority. The President is only a titular Head of State. He is not the Head of Government. The Head of Government was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is usually chosen from a member of the House of Parliament from the Party that commands majority of seats in the Parliament.

The Military took over the reins of government on the 15^th January, 1966. From 15^th January, 1966 to the 1^st October, 1979, when the military held the levers of power in the country the concept of First Lady did not assume larger than life image. It later did under the subsequent military dictatorships of Generals: Babangida, Abacha and Abdul Salami Abubukar.

The military handed over power to a democratically elected President on the 1^st October, 1979. The First democratically elected President was Alhaji Shehu Usman Shagari. Between 1^st October, 1979 to 31^st December, 1983, when President Shagari was in office there was no designated First Lady. President Shagari had three wives. None of them was designated the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Country had several First Ladies since she became a Republic on 1^st October, 1963. Thus Country’s First, First Lady was Mrs. Flora Azikiwe (1^st October, 1963 - 15^th January, 1966); the Second First Lady was Mrs. Victoria Aguiyi Ironsi (15^th January, 1966 - 29^th July, 1966); the Third First Lady was Mrs. Victoria Gowon (21^st August, 1966 - 29^th July, 1975); the Fourth First Lady was Mrs Ajoke Mohammed (29^th July, 1975 - 13^th February, 1976); the Fifth First Lady was Mrs. Esther Oluremi Obasanjo (13^th February, 1976 - 1^st October, 1979); the Sixth First Lady should have been the wife of General Muhammadu Buhari (1^st January, 1984 - 27^th August, 1985), however, Mrs. Sinfatu Buhari was not officially designed a First Lady of the Country. The Sixth First Lady thus became Mrs. Maryam Babangida (27^th August, 1985 - 26^th August, 1993). The Seventh First Lady was Mrs. Margaret Shonekan (26^th August, 1993 - 17^th November, 1993); the Eighth First Lady was Mrs. Maryam Abacha (17^th November, 1993 - 8^th June, 1998). The Ninth First Lady was Mrs. Fati Lami Abubukar (8^th June, 1998 - 29^th May, 1998); the Tenth First Lady was Mrs. Stella Obasanjo (29^th May 1999 – 23^rd October, 2005. After the death of Stella Obasanjo there was no First Lady from 23^rd October, 2005, till the 29^th May, 2007. The Eleventh First Lady was Mrs. Turai Yar’Adua (29^th May, 2007 - 6^th May, 2010). The Twelfth First Lady is Dame Patience Jonathan, the incumbent First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

It is pertinent to state that all the First Ladies before Mrs. Maryam Babangida had always maintained very low profile. However, Mrs. Maryam Babangida brought a lot of pomp, style and glamour to the Office of the First Lady and during her time enormous financial resources were allocated to the Office.

Historically the concept of the title of “First Lady” originated from the United States of America. Linguistically, the term “Lady” originated in England. The title “First Lady” was first used in the United States of America in 1849 when President Zachary Taylor called Dolley Madison “First Lady” at her State Funeral while reciting a eulogy written by him. The title gained nationwide recognition in the United States of America in 1877, when Mary C. Ames wrote an article in the New York City Independent Newspaper describing the inauguration of President Rutherford B. Hayes. She used the term, to describe his wife, Mrs. Lucy Webb Hayes. Since then all wives of the Presidents of the United States of America are described as “First Lady”.   

The Office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in its website is listed as an organ of the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Indeed number three in the hierarchy of these organs of Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The other organs listed are the President, Vice-President, the Federal Executive Council and the State House. The Office of the President is created by Section 130 of the Constitution. In the same vein, the Office of the Vice-President is created by Section 141 of the Constitution. The State House is the office of the President. The Federal Executive Council (constitutionally known as the Executive Council of the Federation) is created by Section 147 of the Constitution. However, there is nowhere in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria where the Office of the First Lady is mentioned. See ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V ATIKU ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1. In other words, the Office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not created by the Constitution or any legislation. It is a mere contraption existing at the whims and caprices of the occupants of the position of the President. Conversely there is no enactment of the National Assembly creating the office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

However, the office of the First Lady is unwittingly accorded the imprimatur of officialdom by the Federal Government deploying to the office senior and junior Civil Servants. Vehicles belonging to the Federal Government of Nigeria are being used to service the office. The deployment of vehicles and allocation of money to the official of the First Lady is decidedly illegal and void because there is no place for such office by virtue of the Constitution.

The Constitution is by virtue of Section 1 (3) thereof the supreme law of the Country. It follows that it is the Constitution that imparts efficacy and legitimacy to all other laws and regulations in the Country and therefore anything that does not derive its legitimacy from the Constitution is illegal, null and void.

In MUNIRAT ODUNTAN V ABUDU W. AKIBU (2000)7S.C. (PARTII)106, the Supreme Court held that where a non-member of a chieftaincy family was appointed, such appointment is void ab initio and the approval of the Executive Council would not, and could not confer validity on such appointment; the approval itself is equally void. For anything based on a void act is "bad and incurably bad".

 

One of the greatest English Jurist of the 20^th Century, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in the case of MACFOY Vs UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY LIMITED (1961) 3 All E. R. 1169, succinctly and eruditely illuminated on the position of the law when an act is void thus:

“…  If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse. So will this judgment collapse if the statement of claim was a nullity. But if an act is only voidable, then it is not automatically void. It is only an irregularity which may be waived. It is not to be avoided unless something is done to avoid it. There must be an order of the court setting it aside: and the court has discretion whether to set it aside or not. It will do so if justice demands it but not otherwise. Meanwhile it remains good and a support for all that has been done under it. So will this statement of claim be a support for the judgment, if it was only voidable and not void”.

I have also studied the Appropriation Acts of 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively to find out if the Office of the First Lady was allotted any money. The office of the First Lady is not listed in the departments or agencies or Commissions or other statutory bodies under the Presidency. The Office of the First Lady is not also mentioned in the breakdown of appropriation for capital or recurrent expenditure of the Office of the Head of Service; Office of the Secretary to the Federal Government; Federal Ministry of Women Affairs or the Federal Ministry of Special Duties.

I also in my search found to my chagrin and consternation that there is no allocation made whatsoever for the Office of the First Lady under the cloak of any Federal Ministry or Extra Ministerial Department of the Federal Government of Nigeria. However there is no denying the fact that the office of the First Lady enjoys some substantial form of allocation of funds from the public till to enable the First Lady and her coterie of officials to move around in expensive attires, razzmatazz and wields so much clout, influence and power. It goes without saying that access to the First Lady attracts rewards and opportunities of unimaginable proportion. At the States level the wives of the Governors are also First Ladies of their respective States and enjoy allocation of funds of the public treasury despite the fact that there is no statute or law giving a veneer of legitimacy to the office of First Ladies of States.

Undoubtedly the allocation to public funds to the Office of the First Lady is illegal and unconstitutional. It amounts to an egregious violation of the provisions of the Constitution to allocate funds which are not appropriated by the National Assembly that is constitutionally vested with the power of appropriation of Public Funds. Section 81 subsections 1, 2 & 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered and amended) provides thus:

“The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.

(2) The heads of expenditure contained in the estimates (other than expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation by this Constitution) shall be included in a bill, to be known as an Appropriation Bill, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein.

(3) Any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of the courts established for the Federation and the States under section 6 of this Constitution.

(4) If in respect of any financial year it is found that-

(a) the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient; or

(b) a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by the Act, a supplementary estimate showing the sums required shall be laid before each House of the National Assembly and the heads of any such expenditure shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill”.

From the above, it is as clear as the crystal that any allocation of money by the Federal Government that is not contained in the allocation to the Federal Ministries, Agencies, Extra Ministerial Departments, Parastatals, the Presidency, Offices of the Head of Service and Secretary to the Federal Government and Federal Executive Bodies established by Section 153 and listed in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) is void ab initio. The Federal Executive bodies created by Section 153 of the Constitution include:

1.   The Code of Conduct Bureau;

2.   The Council of States;

3.   The Federal Character Commission;

4.   The Federal Civil Service Commission;

5.   The Federal Judicial Service Commission;

6.   The Independent National Electoral Commission;

7.   The National Defence  Council;

8.   The National Judicial Council;

9.   The National Population Commission;

10.                The National Security Council;

11.                The National Police Council;

12.                The Police Service Commission and

13.                The Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

From the above, it is abundantly clear the Office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its counterpart in the 36 States of the Federation including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is illegal and unconstitutional. A fortiori, the allocation of Public Funds to these Offices by the Federal Government and the State Governments of the 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is illegal and void.   

The appointment of Dame Patience Jonathan as Permanent Secretary in Bayelsa State is a pointer to the fact that the Office of the First Lady is illegal. Otherwise it would amount to an illegality for Dame Jonathan to occupy two Public offices simultaneously. Section 208 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the Country vests on a State Governor power to appoint and remove a Permanent Secretary appointed into the Public Service of such a State.

Undoubtedly a Permanent Secretary either in the Public Service of the Federation or the Public Service of a State is a Public Officer by virtue of Section 10 of Part II of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. See Section 318 of the Constitution for the definition of the term “public officer”.  By Section 2 (a) of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution it is an offence for a public servant to receive or be paid the emoluments of any public office at the same time as he receives or is paid the emoluments of any other public office. See ANTHONY ABIODUN DADA V. [2005] 6 NWLR (PT. 920) 1.

It is therefore the right time these Offices are scrapped and abolished in view of the fact that the President and the 36 States have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is an impeachable offence for the President and the State Governors to continue to breach provisions of the Constitution to continue to allow the Offices of the First Lady of Nigeria and that of the respective 36 States to exist or deploy public funds towards its existence.   

OKOI OBONO-OBLA

WHY PRESIDENT JONATHAN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST IN 2015

It is a notorious fact that on the 6^th May, 2010, in a solemn but sober ceremony in the Office of the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu administered the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance as enjoined by the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, on the then Acting-President Good luck Jonathan as the 5^th President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria following the death of then President Umaru Musa Yar’adua.

It is well settled that by virtue the provisions of Section 146 (1) of the Constitution the Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the office of the President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation or impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from office for any reason in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 of the Constitution. It was obvious that it was Section 146 (1) of the Constitution that was invoked to give legitimacy and constitutionality to President Jonathan’s swearing in as President on the 6^th May, 2010.

On the 29^th May, 2011, President Jonathan was sworn in as the 6^th President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria after he was declared the winner of the Presidential Election held on the 16^th April, 2011, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Accordingly, President Jonathan took the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance as enjoined by the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) for the second time.   

It goes without saying that President Jonathan has taken the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance twice, thus: on the 6/5/2010 & 29/5/2011 respectively. The pertinent question is: What is the constitutional implication or consequences of the taking of the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance twice by President Jonathan?

By the provisions of Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, no President can take the Oath of Office more than twice. President Jonathan first took the Oath of Office on the 6^th May, 2010, as President after the death of late President Umaru Musa Yaradua. President Jonathan then took another Oath of Office on the 29^th May, 2011, after INEC had declared him the winner of the Presidential Election held on the 16^th April, 2011.

Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution provide thus:

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of President until - (a) his successor in office takes the oath of office; (b) he dies whilst holding such office; or (c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or (d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when - (a) in the case of a person first elected as President under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of office; and (b) in any case, the person last elected to that office under this Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of office but for his death, have taken such oaths”.

President Jonathan was elected Vice-President in 2007. However became President on the 6^th May, 2010, to complete the tenure of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua which would have expired on the 28^th May, 2011. It goes without saying that President Jonathan inherited the tenure of President Yaradua. After President Jonathan became President on the 6^th May, 2010, he is deemed to have been “First elected” to come under the contemplation of Section 135 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Ordinarily President Jonathan would have been deemed “First elected” on the 29^th May, 2011, if he had not become President on the 6^th May, 2010. President Jonathan did not become Vice President by selection. He was elected Vice President. He contested the Presidential Election of 2007 alongside the then President Yar’adua. He was then regarded as an associate of President Yar’adua. He cannot extricate himself from President Yaradua’s tenure. After he took over as President on the 6^th May, 2010 he was deemed to have continued with the term or tenure of President Yaradua. That tenure ended on the 29^th May, 2011. The relevant provisions of the Constitution especially Sections 130, 132, 134, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 146 thereof must be interpreted or construed holistically not in isolation from one another.

In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION vs. ATIKU ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1, Sunday Akinola Akintan, J.S.C. (reading the Lead Judgment) said thus:

“ ... As I have already stated above, the office of the Vice President is created by the Constitution. His appointment and removal from office are also provided for in the Constitution. Although the President had to nominate him as at the time he wanted to contest for the office of the President, and the Constitution also requires that the person nominated should be from the same political party as the President, I believe that the   Constitution assumes that the President and the Vice President should maintain the same relationship throughout their term in office.

The Nigeria Constitution, like the American Presidential System, envisages single executive power for which the President is the head and in whom the executive powers are vested. Article 11 of the Constitution of the United States, just like section 5(1) of our Constitution, provides that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United State." The principle implies the preclusion of a current vesting of the executive powers in two or more persons of equal authority. The Principle also has the effect that the legislative organ cannot take away from the President or confer on others, functions of a strictly executive nature: See Myers v. United States 272. US 52; Nowak And Rotunde, Constitutional Law, 6^th edition paragraph 7.14, page 298; and Nwabueze, Constitutional Democracy in Africa, (Vol. 4) Forms of Government, page 76. One of the implications of the principles of a single executive, as relates to the Vice President, is that although the office of Vice President is, unlike that of a minister under the system, an elective one, he is not voted in a separate election, but by the very same votes by which the President is elected. This is because, as already shown above, a Presidential candidate is required to nominate another candidate to run with him on the same ticket as mate or associate" for the office of Vice President. I believe that the unity contemplated by the arrangement transcends the election. I also believe and hold that their relationship should be throughout their joint term. The position is as aptly described by Prof. Nwabueze at pages 78 to 79 of his book, cited supra, where he stated as follows:

"It is not intended to suggest that the union (between the President and Vice President) demands of the Vice that he should be a slave to the President, with no will or opinion of his own. It does not submerge his personality or individuality in that of the President or make them two-in-one .... As the President's chief adviser, it is his prerogative and duty to discuss freely with him the policies and actions of the government, to point out any defects or errors in them, and the dangers to which they may expose the government. Nevertheless, having done this, the principle of collective responsibility binds him to all government decisions or actions, whether they emanated from the President alone or from the Executive Council. So long as he remains in office as Vice President, he is not free to oppose in public decisions or actions of the President or of the Executive Council, no matter that he personally disagrees with them. His freedom to disagree and to criticize can only be exercised privately in a meeting with the President alone or in the Executive Council. Freedom on the part of a Vice President to criticize his President publicly for mismanagement or corruption is certainly not consistent with the loyalty required of him as a member of the President's team. It is worse still that a Vice President should make mismanagement or corruption by the President a reason for seeking openly to contest the office against him. Continued faith in the President should be the only reason for continuing to serve under him. More importantly, it is the only explanation for an interpretation of a Vice President's continued stay that the electorate can grasp and identify with...”

The interpretation of Section 135 (1) of the Constitution would surely be different from the interpretation which has been given to Sections 180 subsections (1) & (2) of the Constitution by the Court in the celebrated case of BRIG-GEN MOHAMMED MARWA VS. ADMIRAL MURTALA NYAKO, that no Governor can take Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office more than twice. This is because Sections 135 (1) and 180 (1)(b) of the Constitution are identical in all material particulars. It is necessary to reproduce Section 180 (1) of the Constitution which provides thus:

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of Governor of a State until:-

(a) when his successor in office takes the oath of that office; or

(b) he dies whilst holding such office; or

(c) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or

(d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of a 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”.

The Supreme Court in interpreting and construing Section 180 (1) (b) of the Constitution in the case of Marawa vs Nyako (supra) held that tenure elongation under any guise is not envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. The Governors of Adamawa, Bayelsa, Cross River, Kogi and Sokoto States in the Marawa’s case had sought interpretation of when their tenure would start to run having taken Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office twice after they won elections ordered by the Court arising from the nullification of previous ones won by them. The Supreme Court said that the Oaths after they won the elections ordered by the Court were a nullity. The proper oath is the one they first took even though the election was eventually cancelled by the Court it does not cancel the Oath taken. Onnoghen, JSC illuminated thus:

“The fact that there was an election in 2007 as a result of which the 1^st respondents (Governors) took their Oaths of Allegiance and of Office are facts which cannot be wished away, just as the acts they performed while occupying the seat. The said governors may not have been de jure governors following the nullification of their elections, which is not supported by the acceptance of their acts in that office as legal and binding on all and sundry, they were certainly governors de facto during the period they operated ostensibly in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and Electoral Act and as such the period they so operated has to be taken into consideration in determining the terminal date of their tenure following, what I may call, their second missionary journey vide a re-run election particularly as the constitution unequivocally grants a tenure of four years to a person elected governor of a state calculated from the date he took the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office which was the 29^th day of May, 2007. It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states. To calculate the tenure of office of the governors from the date of their second Oaths of Allegiance and of Office while ignoring the period from 29^th May, 2007, when they took the first oaths is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the governors to occupy and act in that office which would be unconstitutional. It is therefore clear and I hereby hold that the second Oaths of Allegiance and of Office taken in 2008, though necessary to enable them continue to function in that office, were clearly superfluous in the determination of the four years tenure under Section 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution." Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C (Pp. 64-65, paras. B-C).

It is clear as the crystal that Section 135 subsections (1) and (2) of the Constitution is identical (pari materia) with Section 180 subsections (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The truth of the matter is that President Jonathan has taken the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office twice. Jonathan took Oath on 6/5/2010. He took another Oath on 29/5/2011. If President Jonathan contests the Presidential Election in 2015 and he wins and is inaugurated by taking the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance on the 29^th May, 2015, he would have taken such Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance thrice. This will be contrary to the intention of the framers of Section 135 (1) (b) of the Constitution. It would also mean that President Jonathan would have been in office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Nine (9) years.

The apposite question will be: Does the Constitution contemplate that a President would be in office for more than eight (8) years?   The answer to the question is clearly in the negative.  The Constitution only contemplates that a President must be in office for eight years at most. The Constitution does not envisage tenure elongation under any guise or camouflage.  As soon as President Jonathan became President on the 6^th May, 2010, he was deemed to have been first elected as President. There is no gain saying that President Jonathan had been elected twice. President Jonathan is therefore undoubtedly caught up by the provisions of Section 135 (1) (b) of the Constitution and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the Governors tenure elongation case.

Those (including CHIEF EDWIN Clark, a long standing lawyer) who have been insisting that President Jonathan should run for elections in 2015 should read the Constitution objectively and leave politics and sentiments out of it. It is well settled that politics and sentiments have no place in the interpretation of the Law. It is what the Law says not how it ought to be that counts. The Constitution does not contemplate that a President should enjoy an extra day outside his four year tenure. Jonathan has four year tenure, 2011-2015. Jonathan had served for one year before he took Oath on winning the 2011 election. If we add this one year together with four years of his present term, it means that at the end of his present tenure he would have been President for FIVE YEARS. Assuming Jonathan contest and wins in 2015, the implication is that he would be serving as President for NINE YEARS.

“It is settled law that the time fixed by the
constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states. To calculate the tenure of office of the
governors from the date of their second oaths of Allegiance and of office while ignoring the period from 29th May, 2007, when they took the first oaths is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the governors to occupy and act in that office which would be unconstitutional. It is therefore clear and I hereby hold that the second Oaths of Allegiance and of office
taken in 2008, though necessary to enable them continue in office, were clearly superfluous in the determination of the four years tenure under Section 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution".

President Jonathan shall be
enjoying tenure extension if he contest and wins the 2015 election because he would have stayed for NINE YEARS by the time that tenures expires by 2019. This will constitute a breach of Section 135 subsections 1, 2 & 3 of the Constitution.

This is more than the EIGHT YEARS prescribed for a President who has won election twice. It is unconstitutional and illegal for a President to be in office more than what is prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not contemplate that a President will be in office more than eight years at most. There is no tenure elongation under any guise.  It is well settled that the Supreme Court except under extraordinary circumstances will never depart from the PRINCIPLE it has laid down in the GOVERNORS' case. Jonathan has obviously found himself in a legal quagmire which only the Court will entangle come 2015. Jonathan cannot have his cake and eat it. The only legacy he can leave is to carry out comprehensive and far reaching electoral reform to usher in a FREE, FAIR & TRANSPARENT ELECTION in 2015.

He should shun the advice and advocacy
of sycophants and ethnic champions such as EDWIN CLARK. When Clark is talking about NIGER DELTA or SOUTH/SOUTH he is only thinking about his IJAW ETHNIC nationality!

OKOI OBONO-OBLA