By the provisions of
Section 135 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 no President can take oath of office twice. President Jonathan
first took oath of office on the 5th May 2010 as President after the death of
late President Umaru Musa Yaradua. President Jonathan took another oath of
office on the 29th May 2011 after INEC had declared him the winner of the
presidential election held on the 16th 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.
The Supreme Court has held
in the case instituted BRIG-GEN MOHAMMED MARWA VS. ADMIRAL MURTALA NYAKO &
ORS for interpretation of Section 180 subsections (1) & (2) of the
Constitution that no Governor can take Oath of Allegiance and Oath of office
more than twice. The Supreme Court held that tenure elongation under any guise
is not envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. The Governors 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 1st 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 29th 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 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 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) .
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
Jonathan has taken the Oath of Allegiance and oath of office twice. Jonathan
took Oath on 5/5/2010. He took another Oath on 29/5/2011. CHIEF EDWIN Clark is
a long standing lawyer he should read the Constitution objectively and leave
out 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. The Constitution does not contemplate that a President
should enjoy an extra day outside his four years 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, he
would have served as President for NINE YEARS.
This is more than the EIGHT
YEARS prescribed for a President who has wins 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. 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 entangles come 2015. Jonathan cannot eat his cake and have
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
