![]() Plain Meaning rule is elementary-it is often the beginning of statutory or constitutional analysis. A Federal judge has plenary room to roam on a case of first impression, such as was presented in this case. Justice Ademola could have employed a myriad of legal mumbo jumbo to do justice but, like Pontius Pilate, he abdicated the role. It is of importance to note that Section 4 of the Constitution confers the legislative powers of the government on the National Assembly and not the various parties. The legislature retains oversight, control and supervisory roles over the proper working of the Government. A legislator acts as a link between the Government and the people, and the success of a democracy depends among other factors on the role played by the legislators. ![]() In a democracy, the will of the people is expressed through their representatives and not a party. Carpet-crossing appeared harmless, and possibly, beneficial. It is worth noting that AG lost the local government election of 1953. There was no violence after the election as AG formed the ruling party in the Western House of Assembly. AG denied this allegation and maintained that the delegates stood for election under the AG. After the election, NCNC had alleged that AG introduced carpet-crossing of his delegates to the party to form the majority party in the House. The Nigerian Council of Nigeria Citizens (NCNC) and Action Group (AG) had fiercely campaigned and contested the Western House of Assembly. ![]() The genesis of Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution comes from the 1951 Western Nigeria elections. And if they did, then a plain meaning analysis of Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution is inadequate. Justice Ademola’s conclusion fails to advance societal interest in the face of a constitution that subjects the collective decision of a legislative constituency to the dictates of a political party, and it is dangerous.ĭoes Justice Ademola’s decision disenfranchise the electorates in the legislative constituencies represented by the affected legislators? What happens when a legislator is kicked out of his party or refuses to caucus with his party? What happens when a legislator decides to run for a subsequent election on the slate of another party? What should be the appropriate role of the party in our democratic system? What is the evil of carpet-crossing? These are some of the political, but substantive questions that ought to trouble Justice Ademola before his decision. But that analysis is unhelpful in the face of a constitution that places party politics above the national politics. ![]() On the surface, Justice Ademola is correct and limited in his opinion, and even more, when the supremacy clause of Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution is read in conjunction. Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. ‘Being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.’” “A member of the Senate or the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if – In his ruling, the Justice applied the Plain Meaning rule to conclude that the following warrants his conclusion: The Justice interpreted Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to prohibit the legislators from conducting any further legislative businesses. Justice Ademola of the Abuja Federal High Court declared that the PDP legislators that defected to the opposition party have forfeited their seats in the Assembly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |