Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, the appellant herein, is the Executive Governor of Oyo State. He was elected to that office sometimes in April, 2003. He took the oath of office on 29th May, 2003. He is to serve as Governor of Oyo State for a period of four years. His term of office will expire on the 29th day of May, 2007. However, sometimes in 2005, a faction of members of the Oyo State House of Assembly purportedly impeached him and he was removed as Governor of Oyo State.

He was replaced as Governor with his Deputy. The appellant was not happy with this, he therefore challenged the purported impeachment in court. The matter went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its judgment declared the purported impeachment unconstitutional and as such null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant remains the legally, constitutional and democratically elected Governor of Oyo State. As a result of this judgment, the appellant was reinstated as the Governor of Oyo State. However he had already spent eleven months out of office before his reinstatement He therefore brought an originating summons against the respondents. In the amended originating summons, the appellant asked the Federal High Court to determine:

“WHETHER having regard to the provision of section 180 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (which relates to the tenure of office of a Governor of a State) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in suit No.SC/272/2006 nullifying the purported removal of the plaintiff from office as Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria, the period of eleven months for which the Governor was illegally removed from office, forms part of the plaintiff four years term of office as Governor of Oyo State.”

The appellant then claimed the following reliefs:-

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a term of four uninterrupted years in office as Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria commencing from 29th May, 2003 by virtue of section 180(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff as the person duly elected and sworn in as Governor of Oyo State can only be required to vacate office in the manner prescribe under sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution, that is until the expiration of four years from the date on which he swore to the oath of allegiance and oath of office.
3. A declaration that the purported removal of the plaintiff, a sitting Governor in breach of this provision of the Constitution shall not affect or interfere with the certainty of tenure of office of the plaintiff as Governor as provided for in section 180(2) of the Constitution.
4. A declaration that by virtue of section 180 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria nullifying the purported removal of the plaintiff from office as Governor of Oyo State, the period of eleven months during which the Governor was removed from the office does not form part of the plaintiff’s term of four years as Govemor of Oyo State.
5. A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of section 180(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the plaintiff is entitled to remain in office until 29th April, 2008 when his four years certain term of office as Governor of Oyo State shall have expired.
6. A declaration that the plaintiff is not required to vacate office as Governor until 29th April, 2008, which said date conforms with the constitutional period of tenure of four years certain as provided in the Constitution.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its agents or privies from conducting an election to the office of Governor of Oyo State on the 14th April, 2007 as scheduled by the 1st defendant or at any other time without first taking into consideration the period of eleven months, when the plaintiff’s tenure of four years certain would have been accommodated.

And further take notice that the ground upon which this application is brought are as follows:-

(i) By virtue of S.180(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Governor of a State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall hold office for four years certain commencing from the date when he took the oath of allegiance and oath of office and can only be removed pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

(ii) The said period of eleven months when the plaintiff was removed from office does not form part of the plaintiff’s four year certain term of office.”

The originating summons is supported by an affidavit of 18 paragraphs. All the respondents opposed the originating summons and all of them separately filed their respective counter-affidavit.

Each of the parties also filed a written address. At the hearing of the originating summons, counsel for the parties adopted their respective written addresses and also proffered oral argument.

In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Chief Judge held as follows:-

“From the totality of the foregoing, and to answer the issue raised for determination by the plaintiff in (sic) its originating summons, the substantive suit herein, I find that the plaintiff’s term of office is 4 years, calculated from the date the plaintiff took his Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office which is 29th May, 2003 to 29th May, 2007. The 11 months during which the plaintiff was out of office, albeit forcibly, having been declared null and void cannot now confer any right or impose any obligation on the plaintiff. To take cognisance of that period of four years of the plaintiff’s tenure so as to award to the plaintiff an additional period of 11 months in office, would have the effect of elongating or extending the plaintiff’s tenure of office beyond 29th May, 2007 and push same to 29th April, 2008. That is a thing that will clearly offend the provisions particularly section 180(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution 1999. It will also offend the provisions of section 178(1) and (2) of the Constitution.”

The learned trial Chief Judge therefore declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the appellant.