LATEST UPDATE: Enugu PDP: Can the tail wag the dog?
On the 3rd of November 2014, Elder David Aja, the deputy chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party wrote a letter to Adamu Mu’azu, the national chairman of the party. In the said letter, Elder Aja raised a lot of issues bordering on his claim to the chairmanship of the party consequent upon the resignation of Vita Abba, the former chairman. He contended that by the provisions of the PDP constitution, the position of acting chairman of the party vested on him.
To this end, his letter read: “You will recall that following the resignation of Mr. Vita Abba as the chairman of the Enugu State chapter of our great party on 20th October 2014, I was, in accordance with the party constitution, expected to take over the running of the party until the state executive committee meets to appoint a new chairman from the area the previous one comes from, pending the holding of elections for a new chairman’’.
Section 47 (6) of the PDP constitution provides that ‘’where a vacancy occurs in any of the offices of the party, the Executive Committee at the appropriate level shall appoint another person from the area or zone where the officer originated from, pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy.’’ So, Elder Aja’s letter to the chairman in this respect is a restatement of the constitution and a proper interpretation of it.
He further averred that “under our party constitution, the chairman of the state chapter of the party shall summon a meeting of the state executive committee at the request of two thirds of the members of the committee. Such request can only be addressed to the chairman or acting chairman as in this case. Thus, the power to summon the meeting, resides with the chairman and not the Secretary.”
But the foregoing claim is not a correct interpretation of that section of the constitution of the People’s Democratic Party. Section 24 (3) of the constitution states that the ‘State Executive Committee shall meet at the instance of the chairman not less than once every quarter’. This section intends that any meeting deriving therefrom or in its fulfilment shall be called by the chairman.
However, section 24(4) provides that ‘An extra-ordinary meeting of the State Executive Committee shall be held if requested for by two-thirds of the members of the State Executive committee.’
The meeting being referred to by the petitioner, Elder David Aja, was an extra-ordinary meeting of the State Executive Committee pursuant to section 24 (4) of the constitution of the People’s Democratic Party. That meeting ratified the decision of the State Executive Committee appointing Mr Ikeji Asogwa as the acting chairman of the People’s Democratic Party Enugu State chapter.
It is clear that Elder Aja is confusing section 24 (3) with section 24 (4). Section 24(4) does not envisage a role by the chairman in its fulfilment and therefore bears no reference to that office. The reason is simple. The framers of the constitution intended this provision to be potentiated with radical effects, which among others, could also include the removal of the same chairman or the acting chairman as the case may be. The objective of that provision, therefore, is to arm and instrumentalise the majority of the members of SEC in giving effect to their will, for indeed democracy thrives on the will of the majority. Any other interpretation will negate its intendment and hand a whimsical chairman a weapon to hold the SEC to ransom.
A numerical strength of two-thirds majority, as stipulated by section 24(4) is cumbersome. In any event, where it is requisite and attainable, no issue lies as to where the preponderance of opinion is among the members of a committee, board, association or what have you. It is a fixed odd that features on a cross-platform basis in constitutional law, company law, administrative law and other branches of the law that envisage the supremacy of numbers. Its radical incident is to supervene the extant bureaucratic order and yield sovereignty to members who in the instant case are members of the Enugu State Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic Party. Therefore, for the petitioner to construe that section as operative only upon its activation by the office of the chairman is to divest it of its true import and sap it of the capacity to check the possibility of abuse as clearly envisaged by the framers of the constitution.
Again, Elder David Aja alleged in the same letter that the State Executive Committee erred in its decision to appoint Ikeji Asogwa the acting chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the party. In furtherance of this, he averred that “…I was recognised as the acting chairman of the Enugu State chapter of our party, and wherein I was instructed to summon a meeting of the SEC within 14 days to appoint a new chairman from the zone where the outgoing chairman hails from in accordance with the party constitution.’’
He continued: “In spite of the foregoing, Oruruo purported to summon a meeting of the state executive committee, allegedly at the behest of two thirds of the members of the committee on October 31, 2014.Surprisingly; Chime was present at the said illegal meeting and participated actively in it, in defiance of the directives of the NWC. Governor Chime and Oruruo then proceeded to appoint Chief Ikeje Asogwa, once again, as the chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the party.’’
The incident and radical consequence of two-thirds majority is a permanent capacity of the members of SEC to continue to appoint Ikeji Asogwa or whomsoever they choose for as many times as the meeting is called. This consequence also includes the right to confirm Aja’s worst fear: That the members of SEC do not want him to act as chairman during the ward congress. It is a right that flows from two-thirds majority and in so far as they can remove Aja, the issue of just stopping him from being the person to supervise the delegate’s election becomes of chicken consequence. They can even say he is not competent for that purpose. That is the law, the power of majority, and no court in the world can help him.
Politics is about the dominant coalition. It is not Catholic Mary League or Saint Jude’s Society, or Daughters of Divine Love. It is about power and conspiracy. This is the reason PDP has a high turnover of national chairmen. Those who fall victim are not criminals or sinners. They simply suffer the misfortune of mis-alignment from the capricious and ever changing variables of power.
Returning to the law, to cap this matter, the pertinent issues for determination are: one, can the State Executive Committee be convened through a two-thirds majority for the purposes of giving effect to the directive of the National Working Committee? Two, can a meeting of the State Executive Committee be illegal as alleged by Elder Aja? Three, did the timing of the State Executive Committee meeting contravene the time limit imposed by the National Working Committee? Four, is the extraordinary general meeting of the State Executive Committee invalid because it was not called by Elder Aja?
For issue number one above, the People’s Democratic Party is the ruling party in Enugu State. If the members of its SEC are convinced that the issue of responding to the directive of the National Working Committee warrants their intervention by way of an extra- ordinary general meeting which they called, it legitimately supersedes a general meeting which Elder Aja erroneously assumes they must wait for him to call. They operated within the constitution.
In respect of issue number two, the People’s Democratic Party is a creature of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The State Executive Committee of the PDP is therefore a legitimate organ of the party protected by law. Its meetings and resolutions will always remain legitimate in so far as they are within the law, in this case, through an extra-ordinary general meeting.
As for the third issue above, if the National Working Committee ordered a rectification of the situation in Enugu within two weeks, that would only be seen as the proper thing to do since the party is preparing for the 2015 elections that are by the corner. An extra- ordinary general meeting could not have been more expedient and in the wisdom of the members of State Executive Committee demanded immediate attention. The meeting they called for Friday, October 31, 2014 was within, and not outside of two weeks as ordered by the National Working Committee. That Friday was not dies nonjuridicus (non- juridical day), even if that were applicable in a political situation. It was a full day unencumbered by any factor whatsoever.
For issue number four, as indicated earlier, Section 24(4) of the constitution of the PDP does not envisage a role by the chairman in its fulfilment and therefore bears no reference to that office. Therefore, the SEC meeting in issue is not invalid because it was not called by Elder David Ajah. If the intention of SEC for instance were to remove David Aja from office and upon attaining a two-thirds agreement and David Aja disappears, would the meeting not proceed because the chairman has dematerialised?
In walking around the intricate dissimilarity between sections 24(3) and 24(4), it ought to be borne in mind that the constitution is envisaging regularity and therefore not tailored to deal with contentious political cleavages, as it is obvious that the real issue is control of the party machinery at a very crucial stage of the electioneering process.
The experience of the PDP in Rivers State over the substitution of Chibuike Amechi with Celestine Omeiha as the governorship candidate in the state and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the former should guide the party in certain situations, the Enugu issue in particular. This case witnessed the successful challenge of this same constitution by a member yielding judgement to him against the decision of the party leadership, at a preliminary level just like this.
A party with the quality candidacy of Honourable Ifeanyi Ugwuani should exploit all the advantages his personality offers. Is it not amazing that in all of this conflict, he remains acceptable to all the contending interests across the divide? That is the character of a generational gubernatorial material.
Thanks for Reading The LATEST UPDATE: Enugu PDP: Can the tail wag the dog?
SHARE WITH FRIENDS
On the 3rd of November 2014, Elder David Aja, the deputy chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party wrote a letter to Adamu Mu’azu, the national chairman of the party. In the said letter, Elder Aja raised a lot of issues bordering on his claim to the chairmanship of the party consequent upon the resignation of Vita Abba, the former chairman. He contended that by the provisions of the PDP constitution, the position of acting chairman of the party vested on him.
To this end, his letter read: “You will recall that following the resignation of Mr. Vita Abba as the chairman of the Enugu State chapter of our great party on 20th October 2014, I was, in accordance with the party constitution, expected to take over the running of the party until the state executive committee meets to appoint a new chairman from the area the previous one comes from, pending the holding of elections for a new chairman’’.
Section 47 (6) of the PDP constitution provides that ‘’where a vacancy occurs in any of the offices of the party, the Executive Committee at the appropriate level shall appoint another person from the area or zone where the officer originated from, pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy.’’ So, Elder Aja’s letter to the chairman in this respect is a restatement of the constitution and a proper interpretation of it.
He further averred that “under our party constitution, the chairman of the state chapter of the party shall summon a meeting of the state executive committee at the request of two thirds of the members of the committee. Such request can only be addressed to the chairman or acting chairman as in this case. Thus, the power to summon the meeting, resides with the chairman and not the Secretary.”
But the foregoing claim is not a correct interpretation of that section of the constitution of the People’s Democratic Party. Section 24 (3) of the constitution states that the ‘State Executive Committee shall meet at the instance of the chairman not less than once every quarter’. This section intends that any meeting deriving therefrom or in its fulfilment shall be called by the chairman.
However, section 24(4) provides that ‘An extra-ordinary meeting of the State Executive Committee shall be held if requested for by two-thirds of the members of the State Executive committee.’
The meeting being referred to by the petitioner, Elder David Aja, was an extra-ordinary meeting of the State Executive Committee pursuant to section 24 (4) of the constitution of the People’s Democratic Party. That meeting ratified the decision of the State Executive Committee appointing Mr Ikeji Asogwa as the acting chairman of the People’s Democratic Party Enugu State chapter.
It is clear that Elder Aja is confusing section 24 (3) with section 24 (4). Section 24(4) does not envisage a role by the chairman in its fulfilment and therefore bears no reference to that office. The reason is simple. The framers of the constitution intended this provision to be potentiated with radical effects, which among others, could also include the removal of the same chairman or the acting chairman as the case may be. The objective of that provision, therefore, is to arm and instrumentalise the majority of the members of SEC in giving effect to their will, for indeed democracy thrives on the will of the majority. Any other interpretation will negate its intendment and hand a whimsical chairman a weapon to hold the SEC to ransom.
A numerical strength of two-thirds majority, as stipulated by section 24(4) is cumbersome. In any event, where it is requisite and attainable, no issue lies as to where the preponderance of opinion is among the members of a committee, board, association or what have you. It is a fixed odd that features on a cross-platform basis in constitutional law, company law, administrative law and other branches of the law that envisage the supremacy of numbers. Its radical incident is to supervene the extant bureaucratic order and yield sovereignty to members who in the instant case are members of the Enugu State Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic Party. Therefore, for the petitioner to construe that section as operative only upon its activation by the office of the chairman is to divest it of its true import and sap it of the capacity to check the possibility of abuse as clearly envisaged by the framers of the constitution.
Again, Elder David Aja alleged in the same letter that the State Executive Committee erred in its decision to appoint Ikeji Asogwa the acting chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the party. In furtherance of this, he averred that “…I was recognised as the acting chairman of the Enugu State chapter of our party, and wherein I was instructed to summon a meeting of the SEC within 14 days to appoint a new chairman from the zone where the outgoing chairman hails from in accordance with the party constitution.’’
He continued: “In spite of the foregoing, Oruruo purported to summon a meeting of the state executive committee, allegedly at the behest of two thirds of the members of the committee on October 31, 2014.Surprisingly; Chime was present at the said illegal meeting and participated actively in it, in defiance of the directives of the NWC. Governor Chime and Oruruo then proceeded to appoint Chief Ikeje Asogwa, once again, as the chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the party.’’
The incident and radical consequence of two-thirds majority is a permanent capacity of the members of SEC to continue to appoint Ikeji Asogwa or whomsoever they choose for as many times as the meeting is called. This consequence also includes the right to confirm Aja’s worst fear: That the members of SEC do not want him to act as chairman during the ward congress. It is a right that flows from two-thirds majority and in so far as they can remove Aja, the issue of just stopping him from being the person to supervise the delegate’s election becomes of chicken consequence. They can even say he is not competent for that purpose. That is the law, the power of majority, and no court in the world can help him.
Politics is about the dominant coalition. It is not Catholic Mary League or Saint Jude’s Society, or Daughters of Divine Love. It is about power and conspiracy. This is the reason PDP has a high turnover of national chairmen. Those who fall victim are not criminals or sinners. They simply suffer the misfortune of mis-alignment from the capricious and ever changing variables of power.
Returning to the law, to cap this matter, the pertinent issues for determination are: one, can the State Executive Committee be convened through a two-thirds majority for the purposes of giving effect to the directive of the National Working Committee? Two, can a meeting of the State Executive Committee be illegal as alleged by Elder Aja? Three, did the timing of the State Executive Committee meeting contravene the time limit imposed by the National Working Committee? Four, is the extraordinary general meeting of the State Executive Committee invalid because it was not called by Elder Aja?
For issue number one above, the People’s Democratic Party is the ruling party in Enugu State. If the members of its SEC are convinced that the issue of responding to the directive of the National Working Committee warrants their intervention by way of an extra- ordinary general meeting which they called, it legitimately supersedes a general meeting which Elder Aja erroneously assumes they must wait for him to call. They operated within the constitution.
In respect of issue number two, the People’s Democratic Party is a creature of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The State Executive Committee of the PDP is therefore a legitimate organ of the party protected by law. Its meetings and resolutions will always remain legitimate in so far as they are within the law, in this case, through an extra-ordinary general meeting.
As for the third issue above, if the National Working Committee ordered a rectification of the situation in Enugu within two weeks, that would only be seen as the proper thing to do since the party is preparing for the 2015 elections that are by the corner. An extra- ordinary general meeting could not have been more expedient and in the wisdom of the members of State Executive Committee demanded immediate attention. The meeting they called for Friday, October 31, 2014 was within, and not outside of two weeks as ordered by the National Working Committee. That Friday was not dies nonjuridicus (non- juridical day), even if that were applicable in a political situation. It was a full day unencumbered by any factor whatsoever.
For issue number four, as indicated earlier, Section 24(4) of the constitution of the PDP does not envisage a role by the chairman in its fulfilment and therefore bears no reference to that office. Therefore, the SEC meeting in issue is not invalid because it was not called by Elder David Ajah. If the intention of SEC for instance were to remove David Aja from office and upon attaining a two-thirds agreement and David Aja disappears, would the meeting not proceed because the chairman has dematerialised?
In walking around the intricate dissimilarity between sections 24(3) and 24(4), it ought to be borne in mind that the constitution is envisaging regularity and therefore not tailored to deal with contentious political cleavages, as it is obvious that the real issue is control of the party machinery at a very crucial stage of the electioneering process.
The experience of the PDP in Rivers State over the substitution of Chibuike Amechi with Celestine Omeiha as the governorship candidate in the state and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the former should guide the party in certain situations, the Enugu issue in particular. This case witnessed the successful challenge of this same constitution by a member yielding judgement to him against the decision of the party leadership, at a preliminary level just like this.
A party with the quality candidacy of Honourable Ifeanyi Ugwuani should exploit all the advantages his personality offers. Is it not amazing that in all of this conflict, he remains acceptable to all the contending interests across the divide? That is the character of a generational gubernatorial material.
Thanks for Reading The LATEST UPDATE: Enugu PDP: Can the tail wag the dog?
SHARE WITH FRIENDS
0 comments :
Post a Comment