BARELY
three days after he parried a question on whether he would contest the 2015
presidential election, indications emerged Wednesday that President Goodluck
Jonathan’s mind is clear on the matter.
He thinks that he is eligible to
contest contrary to what some people may say. This emerged Wednesday as he told
the Federal High Court, Abuja Division that contrary to the provision of the
1999 Constitution, an incumbent president’s tenure of office can extend
beyond four or eight years.
Jonathan made this declaration in a
response to a suit filed by a Port Harcourt-based lawyer and card-carrying
member of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Henry Amadi, whereas he contends
that Jonathan is no longer viable to contest in 2015 on the grounds that by so
doing he would be spending more than the maximum period of two terms of four
years envisaged by the 1999 Constitution.
The suit is akin to another one filed
by a chieftain of the PDP, Cyriacus Njoku on March 20, 2012 before an
Abuja High Court asking it to stop President Jonathan from contesting
presidential elections in 2015 on the grounds that he is already in his second
term in office.
Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi had earlier
fixed November 13, 2012 to deliver judgment in Njoku’s suit but subsequently
adjourned indefinitely following his alleged medical trip abroad.
But in the present suit, Amadi had
named Jonathan and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as
co-defendants.
The plaintiff prayed the court to
restrain Jonathan from putting himself forward or participating as candidate
for election to the office of the President at the end of his current term of
office in 2O15.
Amadi also asked the court to direct
INEC not to accept Jonathan’s nomination as candidate of the PDP by 2015
because by so doing, Jonathan would impose illegality on the polity since the
oath of allegiance and office he would take if he wins would violate the two
oaths of allegiance and office stipulated by the 1999 Constitution.
But in the counter-affidavit filed on
his behalf by Ade Okeaya-Inneh (SAN), Jonathan said that the court should
dismiss itself of jurisdiction to entertain Amadi’s suit, saying the plaintiff
is an ordinary individual who is not qualified to request court to stop him
from contesting the 2015 presidential election.
Jonathan said Amadi failed to disclose
reasonable cause of action and that the plaintiff’s claim was hypothetical and
academic.
Jonathan averred that he took the first
oath of office on May 6, 2010 following the death of erstwhile President Umaru
Musa Yar’Adua.
“The question that arises for
determination is whether, having regard to the facts of this case, he is in his
first or second term. In other words, given that the constitution prescribes a
maximum of two terms of four years each totalling a maximum of eight
years as President, is he eligible to run for re-election in 2015?
“If yes, that would mean that, if he
wins, he would be in office for a period of more than eight years. On the other
hand, if the answer is no, that would mean that he, for no fault of his, would
be constrained to serve for a period of less than eight years.
“Given that between May 6, 2010 and May
28, 2011 he held office for the unexpired term of office of Yar’Adua following
the death of the latter. Does the constitution contemplate that the period of
about one year and three weeks would constitute his first term, a period of
less than half of the constitutionally prescribed period of four years?’’
Okeaya-Inneh went further to say that,
“in resolving this issue, the court is invited to make a determination whether
the period of May 6, 2010 to May 28, 2011 wherein Jonathan occupied the office
of the president can in law be regarded as one term of office and relevance of
the oath of office Jonathan took on May 6, 2010 in computing the tenure of
office of Jonathan in line with sections 135 (1) and (2), 137 (1)(b), 140 (1)
and (2) and 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution.”
He argued that it was better with the
political situation of Nigeria for Jonathan to spend nine years in office than
to spend less than eight years.
“This approach is also consistent with
the time-honoured canon of interpretation to the effect that if confronted with
two interpretations, one of which would abridge a person’s right and another
which would maintain or enhance a person’s rights, the former constitution
yields to the latter,” he said