Shaibu’s Impeachment: Politics Of High-handedness Must Stop

Philip Shaibu, the immediate past deputy governor of Edo State, enjoyed a hitch-free working relationship with his boss, Governor Godwin Obaseki, for almost eight years; but their once cordial relationship hit the rocks the moment Shaibu declared his intention of running for the governorship of the state. The two became sworn enemies on that note, and were at daggers drawn until last Monday when Obaseki executed his grand plot of easing out Shaibu as deputy governor.

The highlight of the drama that played out in Edo in the last couple of days was that Omobayo Godwins, the 38-year-old graduate of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, was sworn in as a replacement for Shaibu almost immediately after the latter was impeached by the state’s house of assembly, an indication that Obaseki had had his plan worked out and was merely waiting for the day of its execution to come.

It was thought-provoking and tears-inducing that Shaibu helplessly succumbed to the whims of the forces and elements that wanted him out of office. Prior to the climax of the impeachment saga, Shaibu had approached the court to ask that the charges of ‘perjury and disclosure of government secrets’ brought against him by the state’s assembly be voided, but the court ruled that the investigation being carried out by the panel set up to query his alleged failings continued, and that a report would be submitted to the house of assembly upon which his fate would be decided.

Recall that the said panel of investigation was set up by the chief judge of the state who invariably panders to the whims and caprices of the governor. One can only imagine how difficult or impossible it is for a sitting chief judge of a state to take positions or decisions that contradict those of the governor.

It is a sort of unwritten code in Nigeria that the heads of the judiciary at the different levels of government (federal, state and local) usually align with their corresponding executives when certain major decisions are to be taken.

It is not to be expected that the Chief Judge of a state would, for instance, oppose a governor’s wish to have his deputy impeached. In fact, it is the Chief Judge that puts finishing touches to the impeachment plan. It is he that draws up the legal systematics that drive the plot. He, in fact, recommends to the governor the easiest ways to leverage legal loopholes in actualizing his goals, and he does all this in his capacity as the chief custodian and interpreter of the laws of the state. When he has assisted the governor in achieving such ‘anti-legal’ goals, he gets handsomely rewarded and is offered other favours such as contracts.

It is this groveling around the seat of power that has prompted legal critics and public opinionists to assert that the judiciary in Nigeria is not independent and can never really dispense justice effectively. The perception among legal pundits is that judges and other judicial officers will never quit groveling around the politicians who control the apparatus of government because the judiciary is not financially and “other-wisely” independent and depends largely on the executive for its sustenance.

Former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chief Okey Wali (SAN), stated during one of his interactions with the press that the judiciary will never be able to attain its full potential and effectively dispense justice if it is not granted financial autonomy.

It is the executive that decides what goes to the judiciary as allocation. The judiciary submits its annual budget to the executive, and the executive trims it down to the size it deems fit before including it in the national budget. No one dares question the size of funds allocated to the Judiciary. But this sort of unceremonious treatment can never be meted out at the legislature because the lawmakers will not tolerate it. In fact, it is to the detriment of the executive that it tinkers with the budget of the legislature.

It is this systemic injustice against the Justice Sector that prompted the late Gani Fawehinmi to say that “there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the Nigerian justice system and render it incapacitated.” He averred that the people who control the paraphernalia of government have deliberately refused to amend the laws to grant financial autonomy to the Judiciary as a means of keeping the judges and ministers in the Temple of Justice subservient and loyal to them.

It is to the shame and discredit of the judiciary that countless embarrassing and controversial judgments have emanated from its courts. There have been impeachments in the past that the court upheld at the time, but that it turned around later to term ‘miscarriage of justice.’ The impeachment in 2013 of Sir Jude Agbaso, deputy governor to Rochas Okorocha, former governor of Imo State, was nullified by the court in 2023, a decade later.

In the above context, the questions begging for answers are as follows: Why did the court uphold the impeachment of Agbaso? What discoveries did the court make now that it didn’t make 10 years ago? How will Agbaso be compensated for the injustice meted out at him? Why should the court be trusted to deliver incontrovertible judgments going forward? Can a man like Philip Shaibu recourse to the court at this very desperate time in his life? These questions are very pertinent, and an attempt at answering them will definitely enhance our jurisprudence.

Now, while the judiciary has continued to receive unending backlash for occasionally failing to dispense justice and act according to the expectations of the people, it will however be worthwhile and rational to absolve it from some of the liabilities since it is not totally independent or free from external interferences. The judiciary is to a large extent hamstrung and incapacitated. Its leaders are appointed by the executive, and its financial allocations are decided by the same executive. If the judiciary does not play by the rules laid down by the executive, it suffers.

The Constitution does not bestow absolute independence on the judiciary, and this, according to Barrister Patrick Okereke Nwajah, is a deliberate attempt at keeping the judiciary under the checks of the executive.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was designed with some loopholes that can be exploited by desperadoes and power grabbers whenever they deem necessary. A typical case of the exploitation of constitutional loophole for the grabbing of power was witnessed when Justice Walter Onnoghen, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, was unceremoniously removed from office by former President Muhammadu Buhari just months to the 2019 general elections.

Buhari’s calculation was that if Onnoghen, a supposed untrustworthy Southerner, was removed from power and replaced with a Northerner who is loyal to him to a fault, he would have dealt with a potential albatross that could interfere with his victory at the 2019 polls.

Now, whether or not Onnoghen would have allowed the manner of electoral malpractices that marred the 2019 elections to be swept under the carpet, is not half as important as whether it is appropriate that the Nigerian 1999 Constitution bestows overwhelming powers on the executive to the detriment of the judiciary.

The president of Nigeria can just decide that he is no longer comfortable with having a certain man as the Chief Justice of the country and then remove him without any upheavals. That is the kind of power that the Constitution bestows on the executives that makes them highhanded.

Still looking at the case of Shaibu’s impeachment, one would wonder why the law allows an executive governor to wield so much power that he can just remove his deputy with the wave of a hand. If the ticket upon which the duo contested and won the election was a joint ticket, how then does the law allow a loophole through which a highhanded governor can victimize, incriminate and sack his deputy without consequences?

This question comes in handy considering the fact that Shaibu’s impeachment was premised on spurious allegations. At the House of Assembly plenary during which Shaibu was impeached, one of the allegations preferred against him was clearly said to be unsubstantiated, but the house still went on with the hearing and did as it had been paid by the governor to do.
A curious observer may want to question the factuality or otherwise of the claim that the Edo House of Assembly members were bought over by the governor and made to do his biddings, and even demand evidence to substantiate the claim. But then, an adept follower of the political game in Nigeria will not need to be schooled on the way and manner politics is played in Nigeria.

For emphasis’s sake, the governor controls all the state funds and is literally the one to whom everyone else answers. So, how is it possible that the people with whom he shares the state powers will not dance to his tune when he promises to reward them handsomely? Even the speaker of the house of assembly will not want to risk incurring the disapproval of the governor since the governor can use his influence to turn his co-lawmakers against him and have him impeached.

The fact remains that every actor on the political turf of a state wants to be in the good books of the governor, and no one dares pick a fight with him without first weighing the odds and fortifying his war chest.

What played out against Shaibu was mere power play, not that there were any real reasons for his impeachment. If the governor accuses Shaibu of misappropriation of funds, he inadvertently ropes himself into the mess because it would be said that he, as the state’s chief executive, allowed such impropriety to happen under his watch; or will he freely allude to the fact that he sat idly and watched his deputy embezzle public funds? There is really no way he will indict Shaibu without indicting himself.

In saner climes, a deputy reserves the right of first refusal when a successor is to be picked for his boss. He is naturally the most favoured candidate to succeed his outgoing boss. A good example of this is seen in the political camaraderie that existed between America’s Bill Clinton and his vice, Al Gore. Although Gore did not win the presidential election of 2000, he however got all the support a deputy could ever get from his boss.

But here in Nigeria, a lot of considerations come into play when a candidate is to be picked to succeed an outgoing office holder. The feud between Obaseki and Shaibu was caused by Shaibu’s refusal to stand down on his ambition of becoming governor despite knowing that he was not eligible, as per the zoning arrangement of the state.

The zoning arrangement stipulates that power will continue to rotate among the three senatorial zones of the state, that is; Edo South, Edo North and Edo Central.

Before Obaseki was Adams Oshiomhole who hails from the Edo North senatorial district. Obaseki himself coming from the Edo South senatorial zone, opted to hand over power to Asue Ighodalo who hails from the Edo Central senatorial district so that the zoning arrangement would be adhered to. But Shaibu insisted he would be governor despite all pleas made to him, and in a bid to frustrate his ambition and starve him of funds, Obaseki had him impeached.

In conclusion, the manner of highhandedness that reigns in the Nigerian political space should be checked, as a matter of urgency. There shouldn’t be any encumbrances to a person’s political ambition. The choice of a leader is the sole reserve of the people and should not be based on any political arrangements or formulas.

What if a zoning arrangement throws up the wrong set of leaders? Who will bear the brunt of such a wrong decision? The people, of course!

This is the reason power should always reside with the people. The people know who will meet their expectations, and in the majority of cases where the people have been allowed to uninhibitedly choose their leaders, they have made the right decisions.

Nwachukwu is an Abuja-based journalist and media consultant. He can be reached on email at [email protected] and on X @Cmatencore

Disclaimer: This article is entirely the opinion of the writer and does not represent the views of The Whistler.