A former Secretary to the Lagos State Government and lawyer, Chief Olorunfunmi Basorun, on Wednesday, said the intervention of President Bola Tinubu in the tension between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, was constitutional.
Basorun, who spoke with The PUNCH in a telephone chat, said the President did the right thing as “the father of the nation,” adding that there was no section in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that prohibited such intervention.
The 85-year-old lawyer was replying to the comment made by rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, and elder statesman, Chief Edwin Clark, who said Tinubu’s intervention was unconstitutional.
Falana had said Tinubu’s intervention could only have been advisory as he had no constitutional role to intervene in states’ political affairs.
He added that the President had no right under the law to “reinstate lawmakers whose seats have been declared vacant” by the House Speaker as a result of their defection from the party that brought them into office.
He further noted that the Constitution’s position is that a lawmaker who defects from their party, except on the condition that the party is in crisis and is divided, must vacate their seat.
“The cross-carpeting legislator can only retain his seat if he can prove that the political party that sponsored him is divided into two or more factions. The 27 members of the Rivers Assembly, who decamped from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress, have lost their seats because the PDP that sponsored them is not factionalised or divided as stipulated by the Constitution.
“Even if all the cases in the Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court are withdrawn in line with the advice of the President, it is submitted that all actions taken by the Speaker recognised by the Rivers State High Court, remain valid, including his pronouncement on the vacant seats of the 27 cross-carpeting members of the House.
“In other words, only a court of law is constitutionally competent to set aside the pronouncement of the Speaker, which is anchored on Section 109 of the Constitution. Furthermore, as the Speaker has not been removed by the required number of legislators, a presidential directive cannot remove him,” Falana said on Tuesday.
Similarly, at a press briefing in Abuja on Tuesday, Clark condemned Tinubu’s intervention and the agreement reached, describing it as appalling and unacceptable to the people.
He also alleged that Fubara had been “ambushed and intimidated” into signing the agreement, adding that Tinubu’s intervention was a desecration of the constitution.
“It is obvious that Governor Siminialayi Fubara was ambushed and intimidated into submission. President Tinubu should know that with all the powers he possesses, he cannot override the Constitution.
“From all that transpired at the meeting, the laws of the land have not been obeyed. President Tinubu simply sat over a meeting where the constitution, which is the fulcrum of his office as President and which he swore to uphold and abide by, was truncated and desecrated.
“The eight resolutions reached, are the most unconstitutional, absurd, and obnoxious resolutions at settling feuding parties that I have ever witnessed in my life. Some media captured it very well when they described it as directives,” he said.
