By
Oraye St. Franklyn
Since
the news broke of the restoration of the rights of Sir Celestine Omehia as a
former Governor of Rivers State by Gov. Nyesom Wike, the public space has been
riddled with mixed reactions. To be candid, the announcement was initially
greeted with commendation from across many quarters. But as its euphoric tide
ebbed, came the silent but strong voices of dissent challenging its place and
VALIDITY in law, especially given the position and pronouncement of the Supreme
Court on the issue.
Truly,
we must concede to those who hold that the ACTION suffers some legal strength
and bite given that every action of the Chief Executive of a State ought to be
founded in law.
The
popular position that the restoration of Sir Omehia's rights was a GOODWILL
gesture, appears to suffer legitimacy when juxtaposed with the fact that
another goodwill gesture of the Governor like the prerogative of mercy is
founded in law. This is where the stalemate exists.
Pundits
and critics in critiquing the VALIDITY of the Governor's action demanded to
know its foundation in law. Some even opined, and quite innocuously so, that
the action amounted to challenging the wisdom, integrity and status of Nigeria's
apex Court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, if not slapping its face completely.
So
worrying was the worth of the matter that one had to embark on an urgent voyage
of discovery to consult and confer with experts of law for legal opinions on
the issue. Truth be told, I consulted widely. I spoke with experts of the law
from both the Bar and Bench and at the highest levels. The opinions were
unanimous: It is a matter of fact rather than law and the action of the
Governor was very much in ORDER.
Their
reasons were not far fetched as the contentious issue brings to the FORE the
import of two seemingly contrasting but complementary concepts on the subject
of Legality: The principles of De facto and De jure.
De
facto means a state of affairs THAT IS TRUE IN FACT, but that is not officially
sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance
with law (i.e. that is officially sanctioned).
In
essence, De facto refers to situations that are true for practical reasons,
whereas De jure refers to formal, official status of the matter.
Thus,
CONSIDERING THE FACT that Sir Omehia functioned and acted in the capacity of
the Governor of Rivers State, whether or not (de jure) legally in the eyes of
the law, it is not in dispute that he was the De facto Governor of the State.
That
Sir Omehia was De facto Governor, even IF it is said to be an illegality, did
not vitiate the duties he performed at the time or the VALIDITY of his records
of service as Governor. If they, therefore, remain valid then it means THE FACT
that he was Governor remains valid.
People
of God, it is on the basis of THAT FACT that Gov. Nyesom Wike believes Sir
Omehia deserves his entitlements as a former Governor and I agree with him.
So
will the Governor's action be sustained in law if challenged in a court of
competent jurisdiction? It is my reasoned opinion that it would. The concepts
are not unknown to law. Law itself exists to promote justice and evidence, THE
AVAILABLE BODY OF FACTS or information INDICATING whether a belief or
proposition is true or valid, is a vital part of that duty of law.
It
is the same reason Chief Ernest Shonekan is still referred to as, and enjoys
the benefit of, a former Head of State of Nigeria though his Interim National
Government was a nullity in law. It is the same reason Heads of all military
governments in Nigeria, as illegal as they were, still obtain their benefits as
former Heads of State of our country. It is because it is a MATTER OF FACT,
which the law also depends upon to dispense justice and obtain VALIDITY.
This
matter is A MATTER OF FACT and the Rivers State Governor in my view rightly
deserves the commendation for choosing to do what is right and acceptable
before God and men of conscience.
Oraye
St. Franklyn writes from Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Culled
from www.trulynigeria.com
No comments:
Post a Comment