“The electorate voted the senator into office, they gifted him the office and they have the right to take back what they gifted.
“It is also important to know that going by the electoral laws, the members of the constituency do not owe the senator any right to inform him of their lack of confidence in him. All they owe is to inform the body, which will inform the senator in a manner deemed appropriate for him to prepare to defend himself.” With those words, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja set the tone for the continuation of the recall case of senator Dina Melaye.
Citing electoral laws of the United States, Dimgba added when the matter came up on Monday, September 11 that the law does mandate the electorate to exhibit its right of franchise, “only in good fate.”
Accordingly, Dimgba ruled that the electorate whose petition resulted in the recall had a right to request the removal of their senator from office since they are the ones who “gifted the position of the said office.”
“The electorate can vote for any reason, good or bad, the same rule applies for a recall process. Electoral constituents can act in a way they deem fit. It is beyond the powers of the court to determine how they (the constituency) can exhibit that right.”
Melaye had approached the court in July to challenge a decision of Nigeria’s electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to commence a process for his recall, following petitions filed by members of the Kogi West senatorial constituency where the lawmaker represents.
The court had ordered a suspension of the recall process, following Melaye’s application, but directed on Tuesday that the process should continue, after deciding that the application lacked merit.
The court also decided that INEC was not under any obligation to inform Mr Melaye of its decision to recall him.
“I do not believe that an agency seeking to recall the senator has a duty to inform him, before commencing the process, these are clear cut procedures. The duty of the commission is to access the petitions and verify that the signatories are authentic.”
Dimgba said the allegation of fraud and fictitious signatures had already been settled by “the constitutional provision of INEC to verify the signatories.”
“I, therefore, hold that the complaint brought before the court were hasty, premature and presumptuous,” said Dimgba.
He added that the makers of the constitution included the provision for the removal of a senator, despite “inherent dangers.” He said that in developed countries like the United States, such a provision is not included in the constitution so that it could be misused by certain political actors.
Dimgba noted that “the court only has the powers to interpret the laws as they are.”
According to the judge, Mr Melaye’s allegation of lack of fair hearing cannot be treated in the court because the constitution has already provided an internal process inherent in INEC’s recall procedure.
Dimbga, however, noted that the complaint brought by INEC against Melaye’s motion was invalid, stressing that “the motion was duly filed according to the rules of court.”
Consequently, analysts have interpreted the court ruling as giving Governor Yahaya Bello an upper hand in his face-off with Melaye.
Speaking from Lokoja after the ruling, one of the supporters of Bello said that “Dina Melaye’s days in the Senate are numbered.”
Bello Gets Upper Hand As Court Orders Continuation of Dino Melaye’s Recall Case
