Dear Prof. Itse Sagay,
In your interview published under the title “Absentee governors should be impeached –Itse Sagay”, in the Sun Newspaper of 3rd February, 2013. See http://sunnewsonline.com/new/politics/absentee-governors-should-be-impeached-itse-sagay/#comments, you made several erroneous, false and misleading assertions and conclusions in so far as they refer to His Excellency Sullivan Iheanacho Chime, Governor of Enugu State, and with all due respect, we completely disagree with you with regard to those false assertions and misleading conclusions, and hereby respectfully request that you withdraw, clarify, or admit culpability as the case may be, and that you issue a public apology to all the affected parties.
First, Prof., the interviewer asked you the following question:
“Governor Chime, for instance, has been away for more time than the constitution even prescribes. What do you think should be done in the case of these absentee governors?”
Instead of immediately repudiating and clarifying the underlying legal fallacy that serves as the premise of that question, you went ahead and answered the question under the apparent endorsement and adoption of that legal fallacy. So we ask you Professor, is there anything in the Nigerian Constitution that prescribes a time limit for a Governor that is away from his office on vacation? If there is no such constitutional time prescription, how then could Governor Chime have exceeded a time limit that does not exist in the first place? Remember, sir that the issue is not whether such a time limit should exist as that would be a matter for a future constitutional amendment. The correct issue remains whether under the current Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended in 2011, whether there is any provision that prescribes a certain time limit for a Governor that is away from his office on vacation? If the answer is “no”, then how could Governor Chime have exceeded a nonexistent time limit?
The applicable sections of the Nigerian Constitution are Sections 190(1) and 190(2) as amended in 2011. Section 190(1) states as follows: “Whenever the governor is proceeding on vacation or is unable to discharge the functions of his office, he shall transmit a written declaration to the Speaker of the House of Assembly to that effect”. Section 190(2) adds that: “In the event that the governor is unable or fails to transmit the written declaration mentioned in subsection (1) within 21 days, the House of Assembly shall, by a resolution made by a simple majority of the vote of the House, mandate the Deputy Governor to perform the functions of the office of the Governor as acting governor, pending when the governor transmits a letter to the Speaker that he is now available to resume his functions as governor”.
Prof., as you can see there is nothing in these two sections that limits the length of time a Governor can be away from office for reason of vacation or unavailability to discharge the functions of his office, where such a Governor has complied with Section 190(1) of the Constitution by transmitting a written declaration to the Speaker of the House of Assembly that he is proceeding on vacation or is unable to discharge the functions of his office. In other words, sir, Section 190(2) is inapplicable where compliance with Section 190(1) has been properly established.
Now coming to the facts that we are working with, Prof. are you not aware that prior to his proceeding on vacation, Governor Sullivan Chime (as a matter of fact) properly transmitted the letter required by Section 190(1) to the Enugu State House of Assembly thereby transferring full powers of the office of the Governor to the Deputy Governor, as Acting Governor? Sir, the Speaker of the Enugu State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Eugene Odo has attested to this. The Speaker has actually confirmed that Governor Chime duly transmitted the Section 190(1) letter to the Enugu State House of Assembly prior to proceeding on vacation. See article entitled “Chime’ll be back soon —Enugu Speaker”, by Ozioma Ubabukoh, Punch Newspaper, 30th January, 2013, http://www.punchng.com/news/chimell-be-back-soon-enugu-speaker/ .
Furthermore, sir, the current Acting Governor of Enugu State, His Excellency Sunday Onyebuchi, himself, has also recently confirmed that the Governor Chime had transmitted the requisite letter to the Enugu State House of Assembly and thus properly handed over to him; and that in that letter Governor Chime had urged the lawmakers to give him (the Acting Governor) the needed support and cooperation in the period he (Governor Chime) would be away. See article entitled “Chime properly handed over to me –Ag gov”, by Chidi Nnadi, Sun Newspaper, 30th January, 2013, http://sunnewsonline.com/new/national/chime-properly-handed-over-to-me-ag-gov/ .
Prof. , since we have incontrovertibly established that Governor Sullivan Chime clearly complied with Section 190(1) of the Nigerian Constitution prior to proceeding on vacation, and since there is no provision in the Constitution that prescribes the length of time a Governor may stay on vacation or otherwise be unavailable to discharge the functions of his office, do you not see that the interviewer’s question to you was built on a premise that is a legal fallacy (that is that the Nigerian Constitution prescribes a time limit for a Governor that is away on vacation, and that Governor Chime has exceeded that time limit)? That premise is false as a matter of constitutional law. And since it is false, Governor Chime then has violated no laws with regard to any constitutional time prescription for vacation and is therefore well within his rights as expressed and implied in the Nigerian Constitution.
So why, Prof., did you not immediately repudiate and clarify that underlying legal fallacy in that interviewer’s question to you? Prof., because you are a Professor of Law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria your failure to refute that legal fallacy is unacceptable and particularly dangerous because unknowing members of the public (relying on the strength of your very impressive qualifications and antecedents) may have accepted your tacit endorsement and adoption of that legal fallacy and thus concluded that Governor Chime has violated the law, when in fact Governor Chime is innocent, and is clearly within his rights as expressed and implied by the Nigerian Constitution. Professor, your tacit endorsement and adoption of that legal fallacy was wrong and unfair to Governor Sullivan Chime and the good people of Enugu State.
Secondly, Prof., you made the following statement in that interview:
“Chime’s case is getting out of control. It’s even more disturbing and outrageous that a lady who is the chief of staff is exercising the powers of the governor because she is close to the governor. The deputy governor is just left high and dry; being scorned, ill-treated and disrespected by commissioners all over the state. That is total distortion of the constitutional arrangement. I think Chime’s case is serious and he probably needs to be impeached”.
Prof., do you know that the purported factual assertions in your statement above are all factually false, deceptive and misleading? Where did you get all this deceptive information from? Did you bother to verify them before you came out to disseminate them to the public as “your irrefutable facts”? Apparently you failed to do so. This is because if you had bothered to verify your ‘facts’ before you published them, you would have discovered a few eye-openers.
For example your claim that the Chief of Staff, Mrs. Ifeoma Nwobodo, has been exercising the powers of the Governor of Enugu State, is false, baseless, outrageous. And it is unpardonable that you levied such a weighty accusation against the Chief of Staff, yet you failed to identify what specific power of the Governor, the Chief of Staff has exercised, and you failed to cite even a single example of your alleged illegal exercise of gubernatorial power by the Chief of Staff. Prof., the Chief of Staff’s political traducers are notorious for heaping various outrageous accusations upon her, but failing to substantiate any of them at all. Unfortunately, Prof., much like those political traducers, you have made your own outrageous accusation against the Chief of staff, but very significantly, you have completely failed to substantiate it. Prof., because you have failed to cite even one example, or otherwise failed to substantiate your accusation against the Chief of Staff, we will therefore presume that your accusation was most likely ill-informed by the baseless, politically-sponsored rumours against the Chief of Staff that you probably read in the newspapers.
But Prof., not everything you read in the media is true. Sometimes political traducers could employ the media as an instrument to discredit, demonize and devalue a particular political target. And, Prof., if you had bothered to investigate you would have discovered that the Chief of Staff is actually a victim of such negative media campaign, and that many false rumours have been spread against her to tarnish and discredit her, but that she is actually innocent of those often outrageous charges. Prof. did you know that some members of the political elite in Enugu State see her as a stumbling block? Did you know that she is often accused by the elite as being responsible for the eradication of patronage under the Chime administration (which the elite had become used to under the immediate past administration of Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani)? Did you know that contractors also accuse her of being over-prudent because very few contract file pass through her table with the contract amount not being reviewed downward?
Prof. did you also know that the Chief of Staff is also being falsely accused of sacking the Chairman of the Enugu State Universal Basic Education Board, Mrs. Ethel Nebo-Ezeabasili; and the Head of Service of the Enugu State Civil Service, Mr. Dennis Eze; and the Managing Director of the Enugu Waste Management Board, Mrs. Thelma Ogakwu, even when the Chief of Staff has absolutely no power to sack any of these officials, and did not in fact sack them as the officials were sacked by the Secretary to the State Government, acting under the instruction of the Acting Governor of Enugu State? Prof., it has not helped matters either that because she comes from a private sector background, the Chief of Staff is known not to have much patience for politicians or long-winded overly bureaucratic civil servants, and as a result some see it as too brusque and a violation of the political and bureaucratic culture that they are used to.
Professor what we are saying to you is that if you had done your due diligence, you would have discovered that all of the above “offences” have earned the Chief of Staff a good number of powerful political foes in Enugu State; and that it is these powerful political foes that have been sponsoring the false rumours against her – rumours such as that she is the de-facto Governor of Enugu state, and that she is exercising the powers of the Governor, among several other rumours that are all false.
Prof. It is false that the Chief of Staff is exercising the powers of the Governor as you claim. In fact the Chief of Staff has herself described insinuations that she is the de-facto Governor of Enugu state as “unfounded imagination”. Sources close to her have also described her as “restricting herself to assignments detailed to her office by the acting governor”. See article entitled “Enugu: A Tense Wait for Chime”, Thisday Newspaper, 13th January, 2013, http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/enugu-a-tense-wait-for-chime/136174/ .
So Prof. because you failed to cite a single instance where the Chief of Staff exercised the powers of the Governor as you falsely claimed. And because you apparently failed to carry out the investigation that should have revealed to you the context and motivation for these false rumours against the Chief of Staff, you have essentially exhibited herd mentality by simply joining the political herd to pile baseless accusations upon an innocent woman. Accusations that you failed to substantiate. This is clearly wrong and unfair to the Chief of Staff and to the good people of Enugu State.
Furthermore, Prof., you described the Acting Governor of Enugu State as having been “left high and dry; being scorned, ill-treated and disrespected by commissioners all over the state”, and that this “is total distortion of the constitutional arrangement”. Prof. this is a highly outrageous statement coming from you! And again you failed to substantiate this outrageous statement. And again you failed to cite even one example. Prof., how has the Acting Governor been scorned, ill-treated, and disrespected, and by whom? When did this happen? Which commissioners disrespected the Acting Governor? When and where did that happen? Unfortunately you, again, offered no substantiation and because of that, sir, all your assertions in this regard will be discarded as baseless and unfounded and they are.
Prof., it might interest you to know that the Acting Governor himself (as if in direct response to you), has recently discredited your assertion completely. The Acting Governor, recently categorically assured Nigerians that he is fully in charge in Enugu State as power was duly handed over to him by Governor Chime prior to Chime proceeding on vacation. The Acting Governor also confirmed that Gov Chime had through a letter to the State House of Assembly handed over the full powers of the office of the Governor to him as Acting Governor, and that Governor Chime had also asked the House of Assembly to support him (the Acting Governor). And as if to also directly answer your unfounded charge that there is a “distortion of constitutional arrangement” in Enugu state, the Acting Governor himself, categorically declared that Enugu State has no problem with governance at all, and that all that needs to be done is being properly attended to. The Acting Governor equally dismissed another baseless rumour that he had been given a N500, 000.00 approval limit, insinuating that such rumour is nonsensical. See article entitled “I’m fully in charge, says Enugu acting gov”, by Atika Balal, Daily Trust, 30th January, 2013, http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/index.php/news-news/49529-i-m-fully-in-charge-says-enugu-acting-gov .
Clearly, sir, Acting Governor Sunday Onyebuchi is in charge in Enugu State, how then could it be true that he is (according to you, Prof., ) “left high and dry; being scorned, ill-treated and disrespected by commissioners all over the state” ? How can that be? He is the Acting Governor of the State for crying out loud, the Chief Executive Officer of the State! He can call any public official to immediate account, and sack any public official found wanting including any commissioner! And he has in fact sacked three very senior government officials; the Chairman, Enugu State Universal Basic Education Board; the Head of Service; and the Managing Director, Enugu State Waste Management Authority.
Prof. Acting Governor Sunday Onyebuchi is in charge in Enugu State, and he is clearly exercising his powers. In fact the Enugu State Executive Council under his leadership and chairmanship has been awarding several contracts running into billions of naira and such projects are ongoing. And despite Governor Chime’s absence, government has still surged forward, and numerous developmental projects worth billions of naira in the area of roads, water supply, electricity, education, health, and housing among others are all in progress, all over Enugu state, and all under the leadership and supervision of Acting Governor Sunday Onyebuchi. See article entitled “Enugu PDP: Chime Will be Back Soon”, by Christopher Isiguzo, Thisday, 11th January, 2013, http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/enugu-pdp-chime-will-be-back-soon/136016/ .
Prof., it might also interest you to know that the so-called Save Enugu Group, a 5-man opposition group which comprises mainly of Governor Chime’s old Ebeano foes, had been stridently pressing that an imaginary cabal is running Enugu State and that the Acting Governor is not truly in charge; and that there is a N500, 000.00 approval limit imposed on the Acting Governor. But even this group has recently conceded that neither the cabal nor the N500, 000.00 approval limit exists in reality and that, in their own words, they have “buried the popular bogey that a cabal known as and called G-5 has been running the affairs of Enugu state with him (the Acting Governor) merely a ceremonial acting governor. That to us rests the issue …”. See article entitled “Press Release: Enugu State Acting Governor Sunday Onyebichi Says He Is In Charge”, 247ureports.com, 31st January, 2013, https://247ureports.com/press-release-enugu-state-acting-governor-sunday-onyebichi-says-he-is-in-charge/ .
In other words, Prof., the main Enugu-based opposition group on this matter has invariably conceded that Acting Governor Onyebuchi is, in fact, fully in charge in Enugu State, and that no other person or cabal is exercising the powers of the Governor in Enugu State, other than the Acting Governor.
So Prof. , based on the above, it is clear that you have failed to substantiate your accusation that the Acting Governor is (according to you) “left high and dry; being scorned, ill-treated and disrespected by commissioners all over the state”. You have also apparently failed to carry out the investigation that should have revealed to you that you are completely wrong about the Acting Governor, and that the Acting Governor is truly in charge in Enugu State. You have only succeeded in injuring the reputation of the Acting Governor and misleading the public on this issue. Honestly it is embarrassing and unfair that you would describe such a powerful man as the Acting Governor of Enugu State who is exercising the full powers of the office of the Governor in such disrespectful terms. Prof., if anyone has shown the Acting Governor any disrespect, it is you. And that is clearly wrong and unfair to the Acting Governor and to the good people of Enugu State.
Finally, Prof, perhaps your most egregious and outrageous claim in that interview occurred when the interviewer asked you whether the doctrine of necessity should be applied in Enugu State. You replied as follows:
“That could be done too. It’s a more moderate approach to allow the deputy to act until he (Governor Chime) comes back. But I think him (Governor Chime) leaving Enugu without a head of government is an impeachable offense”, and “I think Chime’s case is serious and he probably needs to be impeached”.
Professor you are wrong on your ‘facts’ in the above statement, and wrong on the law as well! And it is indeed outrageous that apparently you are oblivious of the fact that Governor Chime did not leave Enugu State until he had properly transferred full gubernatorial powers to an alternate head of Government (the Acting Governor).
Apparently you are not aware that Governor Chime fully complied with the requirements of Section 190(1) by transmitting the required letter to the Enugu State House of Assembly, and that by so doing he transferred the full powers of the office of the Governor to Deputy Governor, thereby empowering The Deputy Governor as the Acting Governor. And of course Gov Chime did all of this before he left Enugu State to proceed on vacation.
Are you also not aware that both the Speaker of the Enugu State House of Assembly and the Acting Governor himself have both attested to the fact that Governor Chime, in fact, fully complied with the requirements of Section 190(1) and that he properly transferred power to the Deputy Governor as the Acting Governor? Are you also not aware that Acting Governor Sunday Onyebuchi, as the current head of the Enugu State Government, has been performing his gubernatorial duties creditably, overseeing the award of public works contracts running into billions of Naira, and sacking very senior government officials including the Head of Service, the Chairman, Enugu State Universal Basic Education Board, and the Managing Director of the Enugu State Waste Management Authority?
Prof. you should have known that your statement above is factually false and potentially reckless, and as such you ought to have prudently investigated the accuracy of these statements before publishing them to the world. But you failed to do so. Prof. do you know that your statement above, that the doctrine of necessity could be applied in Enugu State “as a more moderate approach to allow the deputy to act until he (Governor Chime) comes back” is wrong as a matter of law? The reason is that the doctrine of necessity is inapplicable where in this context Section 190(1) has been properly complied with by Governor Chime!
Yet despite that you were wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, you publicly advised and recommended the impeachment of His Excellency Sullivan Iheanacho Chime, Governor of Enugu State! So you see, your advice and recommendation was wrong and reckless and dangerous because it has the potential of creating unnecessary and avoidable unease and trouble among the people of Enugu State.
Let me end this piece here by reiterating and restating our demands as follows:
1. That you immediately issue a public statement refuting that legal fallacy which you tacitly endorsed and adopted in your interview to the effect that the Nigerian Constitution prescribes a time limit for a Governor that is away from his office, and that Governor Chime has exceeded such a time limit; furthermore that you explain and clarify same for the benefit and education of good Nigerians;
2. That you immediately issue a public statement withdrawing your false, unsubstantiated, and misleading, assertions during the interview to the effect that that the Chief of Staff, Enugu State has illegally usurped gubernatorial powers; and that the Acting Governor of Enugu State has (according to you) been “scorned, ill-treated and disrespected by commissioners all over the state”; and that there is (again according to you) a “total distortion of the constitutional arrangement” in Enugu State;
3. That you immediately issue a public statement admitting that your invariable assertion that Governor Chime left Enugu State without a head of Government is wrong as a matter of fact; and that your assertion that the doctrine of necessity is applicable in a situation where Section 190(1) of the Nigerian Constitution as amended has been properly complied with, is wrong as a matter of law.
4. That you immediately issue a public apology to the good people of Enugu State whose beloved Governor, and Acting Governor, and Chief of Staff you have so unfairly vilified and cast in a bad light.
SIGNED
On behalf of the good people of Enugu State
Ambrose Agu
Enugu, Nigeria
