Consequencies of planned defection of Zamfara gov to APC

Consequencies of planned defection of Zamfara gov to APC -This article aims to explain the legal ramifications of such an alleged intended departure of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) by the Governor of Zamfara State, Dr. Bello Mohammed Matawalle, investigate under the circumstances, acted as governor.

Matawalle has been appointed governor of Zamfara State based on the ruling and the order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Hence, any step he takes against the Supreme Court ruling and order will be not only illegal but also immoral. Due to the existing order of the Supreme Court, the APC did not contest elections in Zamfara in May 2019, and therefore PDP candidates in various categories have been declared winners of various electoral offices in the state. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the resident of the Zamfara state governor’s seat must be a PDP believer, not an APC.

Although the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is silent on the issue of splitting a seated governor from the party under which he won his election to another party, it is believed that this recurring issue of governor emigration can be put to rest at any time is offered to the coTagsurts to determine. A court may declare the office of governor and deputy governor of a state vacant if the inmates of such seats move from the party which nominated and sponsored them for the conduct of the gubernatorial elections in Nigeria and on whose platform they won the election as a candidate have s

READ Buhari congratulates new Olu of Warri, mourns departed monarch

Article 221 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, provides: “No association other than a political party may, in an election, collect votes for a candidate or contribute to the funds of a political party. Or contribute to the electoral costs of a candidate one choice “.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting the provisions of Article 221 of the Constitution, had ruled in various ways that an independent candidacy is not applicable to elections in Nigeria, which in fact and under Article 221 of the Constitution is the party that is sponsoring a candidate in an election that wins the election as a candidate cannot participate in an election without being sponsored by a party. Therefore, in an election, votes are obtained on behalf of the political party. See Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61 (p. 173, Paragraph D-F).

ALSO READ  We prayed against Yinka Odumakin’s death when it was revealed to us – Brother

It is undisputed that Alhaji Bello Matawalle was nominated and sponsored to run for the PPD as governor of the state of Zamfara in 2019. This clearly means that the governor of Zamfara state cannot leave the party that nominated him and sponsored his election to governor without legal consequences. Consequences can only be determined by a court in a properly presented case under the provisions of Section 6 (6b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, which sets out judicial powers. of the court in any matter between any person or between the government or agency and any person in Nigeria and all related acts and procedures to establish a matter relating to that person’s civil rights and obligations.

The PDP is entitled to determine who holds the governor’s office of Zamfara state in the face of the allegedly planned assault by the PDP owner against the APC, and therefore has the right to seek properly requested resources from a court in the unlikely event. Case the governor has shortcomings. The Latin maxim ubi jus ibiremedium applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.

It should be noted that “jus” means the legal authority to do or request something, and “remedy” means the right to bring an action or the means provided by law to reclaim or declare or confirm that right. In other words, the maxim assumes that when the law grants a right, it remedies it; This recourse must be based on a statutory right. See the case of Bello v. A-G., Oyo State (1986) 1 NWLR 828; Thomas versus Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (part 18) 669.

In pursuing this appeal, however, the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria would also be taken into account in accordance with the judicial powers of the court. It should be noted that the Constitution did not provide for the removal of a governor due to desertion to another party, unlike Section 68 (1g) of the Constitution, which provides for the release of the seat by a member of the National Assembly before the expiry of their Mandate has defected to another party.

Article 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides for the removal of the governor from office, but not for desertion to another party. Section 189 also provides for the resignation of the governor or lieutenant governor under certain circumstances, which did not include desertion to another party.

The big question, however, is whether the constitution on how to remove a governor or lieutenant governor from office or remove a governor is final. The answer to this question lies in the judicial interpretation of the provisions of Articles 188 and 189 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The draftsman believes that Articles 188 and 189 of the Constitution are inconclusive as to the reasons why a governor may be removed from office, particularly by a court.

A country’s constitution is commonly referred to as the organic law or norm of the people. It is the formulation of all laws from which state institutions derive their creation and legitimacy. It is the unifying force of the nation, distributing rights and placing duties on the people who are subject to its operations. A nation’s constitution is therefore a very important composite document, and its interpretation is subject to recognized interpretative canons known by law that are designed to strengthen and maintain awe of constitutions around the world. See [Shosimbo v. State (1974) 10 SC. 91. A-G., State of Abia v A-G., Fed. (No. 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264; Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NW

Leave a Comment