MIMIKO AND ONDO LGS

THE Ondo State governor, Dr Olusegun Rahaman Mimiko, is engaged in another raging battle. But his battle this time is not about reclaiming his mandate earlier given to a rival political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Governor Mimiko is waging a war against what he perceived as the unconstitutional elections conducted in the 18 Local Government Areas by the Olusegun Agagu government. For close to two years, Dr. Mimiko had engaged the PDP-led government in Ondo State in a dogged fight that was only recently resolved by the Court of Appeal Tribunal sitting in Benin, Edo State, which declared him the victor. 

BUT the respite that came the governor’s way at the court of appeal is fast yielding ground to another round of anxiety and disquiet.  This is coming against the backdrop of the governor’s dissolution of the executive and legislative arms of the 18 local government councils in the state. The governor, who had earlier ordered the freezing of the local councils’ accounts, also directed directors of local government administration to take over the councils. These two developments have brought him on a collision course with the state House of Assembly in which the PDP has more members.

EXPECTEDLY, members of the PDP in the state House of Assembly have kicked against the dissolution of the local councils, describing the governor’s action as ultra vires. The PDP members had argued that the governor of the state had no constitutional power to dissolve the councils. According to the lawmakers, section 12 of the Local Government Amendment Law (2007) forbids the governor from dissolving local government council(s) without a resolution of the state House of Assembly supported by two-thirds of the lawmakers.  The lawmakers condemned the dissolution describing it as illegal, unacceptable and antithetical to the basic tenets of democracy and the rule of law. They vowed to challenge the dissolution in court.

Fighting what they regarded as a breach of the law by the chief executive of the state is the right thing for the aggrieved lawmakers to do but such a reaction need not be accompanied or preceded by grand posturing that is currently going on in the state.  There are indications that the aggrieved lawmakers are being encouraged by their party to move against the governor and commence the process of impeaching him.

ON the face of it, the governor would appear to have acted illegally since section 12(4) of the Local Government Amendment Act (2007) is unequivocal that he could only exercise his power to sack the local government with the support of the House of Assembly. But Governor Mimiko has insisted that the decision to dissolve the local councils’ administration was taken to protect the nation’s constitution and the rule of law. He claimed that a court order had restrained the government of Dr. Agagu from conducting the local government elections.

PRIOR to the election, the Labour Party and some other political parties in the state, he explained, had complained of irregularities in the process leading to the local council elections, including the appointment of the members of the Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission (ODSIEC). The alleged irregularities were challenged in the law court and Justice Olanrewaju Akeredolu on October 31, 2007 restrained ODSIEC from conducting the scheduled council elections.  But the Agagu government, he claimed, still went ahead to conduct the elections on December 15, 2007 without challenging or vacating the subsisting order at a superior court. Legally speaking, therefore, the elections never took place since a court of competent jurisdiction had forbidden their being held. In essence, it would appear that what Governor Mimiko had done was to reverse the breach of law by his predecessor. It would not matter whether or not he did so for altruistic reasons.  

SINCE the governor’s action had been challenged in the court, the muscle-flexing lawmakers and members of the executive should sheathe their swords and allow the law to take its full course. Threat of impeachment and recourse to violence by the opposition will only heat up the polity and deny the citizenry of the dividends of democracy. Also Governor Mimiko should not allow himself to be misunderstood as taking the law into his own hands though his action in the circumstance in many ways had some legal merit. Still, two wrongs do not make a right. The governor could go to court to seek an interpretation of the present state of the local government councils in the   state vis- a- vis Justice Akeredolu’s October 31, 2007 restraining order.

LET it be the place of the court to declare null and void the supposed elections in the interest of peace. Another round of sub-optimal performance may be foisted on the citizens of the state if the gladiators fail to jettison and/or moderate their parochial interests and resolve the current impasse in the interest of the people of Ondo State.

WE are at a loss understanding the action of the Federal Government in deploying the police to back up the claims of the dissolved council officials that they remained in office. This action amounts to assuming judicial powers that none of the parties in the dispute possesses.

BOTH the Federal Ggovernment and the police authorities should withdraw the police placed at the disposal of the council officials and limit their role to that of ensuring law and order in the state as the dispute is being legally resolved. The impression should not be given that the federal government is acting in this matter motivated by party and partisan considerations rather than the national interest.

NO ‘GBOSA’ FOR OMOSA

ALIU Omosa heard no applause, ‘gbosa’ in Nigerian students’ slang. He heard ‘gboa, gboa, gboa’ and his face was aflame. The slaps had a searing power.

HIS attackers were policemen. Omosa was perplexed though he was in great pain. He could not see how he had offended the four policemen, one of them and Assistant Superintendent of Police.

OMOSA is a commercial bus driver. He is more than familiar with the checkpoint culture. He knows that a N20 note is the pass that policemen demand to see. They are not interested in vehicle documents. It is not true that some policemen do not look at vehicle papers because they cannot read.

WHEN Omosa got to the checkpoint in Osun State, he threw a N20 note in the direction of the policemen and refused to stop. A neighbour of Omosa, it seems, had tamed a ferocious dog that was placing obstacles in his marital path by throwing a bone at it. Omosa believed policemen reacted to a N20 note the way dogs rush headlong at bones.

OMOSA was dreadfully wrong. The Inspector General of Police may have outlawed checkpoints, but the police team was not going to take the insult lying down. The policemen rushed into their sport utility vehicle and gave Omosa’s bus a chase.

THE SUV was too fast for the bus and Omosa was forced to stop. He told the policemen that he had not heard the order that he should stop. He was slapped and punished by the policemen.

NIGERIANS have been rejecting slightly torn N20 notes for sometime now. Even banks are said to reject such cellotaped notes.

THE N20 note that Omosa threw at the policemen must have been made useless by a tear, a fact expertly noticed by the policemen as the note somersaulted in the air.