Friday, June 26, 2015

THE CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE CASE OF RIVERS STATE



THE CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE CASE OF RIVERS STATE
As Nigeria celebrates Africa Public Service Day with other nations, studies and keen observation have revealed the development of Nigeria’s political system and her constitutions since independence.  Tremendous progress have been recorded in terms of growth and stability in the application of the rules of engagement in a democracy, especially in the past 16 years of the Fourth Republic.  This was facilitated by the 1999 Constitution with all its frailties.
One of the challenges of public administration is therefore the inadequacies of the rules and  their provisions, in this case the 1999 Constitution.  Without referring to other states I deliberately chose  Rivers State where many of these inadequacies manifested. To acknowledge the aforesaid inadequacies of the constitution, it has gone through a fourth amendment so far.  Yet, there are many other sections glaring with unresolved controversies and remain un-amended till date, except the Supreme Court pronouncements on them.  I want to cite two major ones which are impeachment (removal) as provided in s.188 and defection in s.68(1)(g). There is hardly any of the 36 states that has not experienced  these phenomena.  The third challenge which is not provided by the constitution and therefore could not be resolved by amendment is high cost of governance.
As hinted earlier Rivers State witnessed many of the intriguing flash points and consequently rich opportunity for studies on  legal challenges in public administration.  Most, if not all commonwealth countries practice constitutional democracy, and it has become a global contemporary issue.
Perhaps the most critical point to start the discussion is a brief background of the election that produced Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amechi in 2007.  It was an election that produced a strange and unexpected result when the Supreme Court declared Amechi winner  having not contested or participated in the election.  He became governor by default, as Omehai who flew the PDP gubernatorial flag failed to comply with the rules.  The Supreme Court ruled that since the votes cast in an election belong to the party on whose platform the candidate ran, the runner-up in the race became the beneficiary of those votes thereby stepping into the shoes of Omehai.
The aftermath of the Supreme Court decision and the controversy led to calls for the amendment of the Electoral Act.  The amendment came through s.144 of Electoral Act 2010 to cure the effect of imposing candidates who did not fully participate in all electoral processes leading to an election.  Nevertheless, it has been argued that as long as votes cast at an election remain the proprietary rights of parties “participation” can be interpreted by the party concerned.
It was this controversial judgment that ushered in Rotimi Amechi as governor of Rivers State.  The controversy soon faded away since it was a pronouncement of the highest court in the land.  However, militancy was raging in the Niger Delta area including Rivers State and became controversial topical news.  The federal government’s response was confrontation.  Not much positive results came from this option raising the review for alternative options.
Therefore when Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was elected president in 2007 he opted for a constitutional resolution of amnesty under  s.175 of the 1999 Constitution.  However, granting presidential amnesty under that section is meant for convicted criminals. President Yar’Adua offered presidential amnesty without trial of those militants he offered to grant amnesty.  In Amechi’s view it was wrong and he said so eloquently at various fora that nominal charge and conviction were prerequisites for granting presidential amnesty; otherwise it would amount to odd application of the section.  Even as president Jonathan went ahead to implement the amnesty strategy without trial Amechi stood his ground on the issue.
One of the primary purposes of government is the provision of security to citizens and everyone in the state.  This power is vested in the Nigerian Police by s.214 of the 1999 Constitution.   In the same vein the governor becomes the Chief Security Officer of the state.  It is an irony that the governor at the pinnacle of this security organization chart in the state does not have constitutional backing to control police personnel posted and serving in his state.  The adverse effect of that manifested in Rivers State when Governor Amechi failed to control Police Commissioner Joseph Mbu when security challenges arose in the state.  It became obvious that the glaring disobedience of the governor’s directions and requests begs the question: could any of the commissioners appointed and serving in Rivers State disobey the governor and still remain in office?
The research I recommend for post-graduate studies on public administration is to find a balance between control of the police by the governor without making them state police. This subject is important if you consider the rise and fall of Senator Chris Ngige as PDP elected governor of Anambra state following the hedging  out of Governor Chinwoke Mbadinuju.  The subject assumed a more dangerous dimension when Governor Chris Ngige was stripped off police escort and security.  And you ask the question: how can a governor without security offer or provide security to the entire citizenry in the length and breadth of the state?
Then came the removal/suspension of Local Government Chairmen and councilors in River State, and of course across the entire country, were they constitutional? Maybe a few amendments to stem governors’ power to remove local government elected officers and replace them with transition staff.
In the course of hostilities at the state Assembly that led to fracas in the house and therefore ceased to perform their legislative duties.  How could they have performed their legislative duties when about a dozen of them were scattered at various  hospitals and medical centers  in Nigeria and abroad? The legal consequences of that was a take-over of its legislative duties by the national assembly under s.11(4) of the 1999 Constitution.  There was a major learning curve from the outcome of the court action when the Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional.
Perhaps the straw that broke the camel’s back was the National Judicial Council (NJC) and governor Amechi with reference to appointment of Chief Judge of the state.  The modalities of achieving this is set out in s.271(1) of the 1999 Constitution thus: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Judge of a state shall be made by the Governor of the state on the recommendation of the NJC subject to the confirmation of the appointment by the House of Assembly of the state.” The interpretation of this section which eminent scholars have concluded to be political, gave rise to conflicts, litigation, suspensions, legislation (amendments) and logjam.
The issues that featured in the unfolding melodrama and diverse comments turned on “recommendation” and “appointment” being two different entities belonging to two characters in the scheme.  The analyses led to confusion that held sway as to whether Justice Peter Agumagu, then at the helm of affairs at the Customary Court of Appeal could be properly ‘transferred’  to head the State High Court as Chief Judge? The Federal High Court objected to that initiative.  It was not a voting matter of “Aye or No”? It would have been  easier to determine if the provision allowed the NJC’s advice and consent but that was not the case.
That the Chief Justice of the Federation went ahead to appoint an administrative judge to fill the vacuum was salt to injury.  In reaction the agitating  government amended the State High Court Procedure Rules assigning the functions of CJ and Administration Judge to the Chief Registrar.  That piece of legislation  is probably the first legal obstacle cleared by the Rivers State legislature on inauguration.
Before that ,  governor Nyesom Wike had in a swift provided by his inauguration appointed an Acting CJ, in accordance with s.271(4) president Customary Court  of Appeal.  He had also declared financial autonomy for Rivers State judiciary which judgment was JUSUN’s reason for going on strike for several months.  So in a jiffy all the logjam was swept aside leading to the conclusion in many quarters that the civil service, whether in uniform or civil failed in their responsibility as disciplined and neutral career civil servants.
The civil service is a very important institution from colonial days to the present time.  Each passing era has civil servants that held the government together in their efforts to serve the people that elected them or none elected dictators.  It is difficult to exonerate the civil servants in all the challenges  that faced Rivers State public service especially in the second tenure of Governor Rotimi Amechi’s administration. These are some of the challenges civil service face across the federation.

Iyke Ozemena

IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultant

www.corporateleadersboard.ning.com
www.facebook.com/corporateboard.corporateboard
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE    COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S      DIRECTORS http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY     MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
www.corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com

   

   
Top of Form

Bottom of Form

ENFORCEMENT OF EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY



ENFORCEMENT OF EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY
Article 9 of United Nations Declaration on Human Right provided that: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Individuals derive a form of immunity from this provision by international law. However, I intend to discuss the doctrine of immunity beyond the above provision, especially as it relates to government attorneys and representatives.


African Union  under the Chairmanship of President Robert Gabriel Mugabe,  held its 25th ordinary Session in Johannesbourg, South Africa with an Agenda of enhancing the economic, socio-political fortunes of member states. However, world attention shifted from these critical issues to International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC was established recently and heavily sponsored by the West. That the activities of this court regarding enforcement of extra-territorial jurisdiction has been causing stirs and ripples across the globe is no longer news. It has already left the world divided between those who support it and most African/third world countries who consider the court targeting them and so detest it. It may be an issue of perception since they are prosecuting war crimes most of which occur in the continent. But they cannot wish away the ICC, even if it a cruel necessity.


President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, a retired military officer who fought a civil war that lasted about eight years is not the first leader to be so accused of war crimes and against humanity. President George Walker Bush (jr) was once accused  after the invasion of Iraq, Charles Taylor ofLiberia was also accused after their civil war and exile etc.  So when President al-Bashir was attending AU meeting in Johannesbourg an attempt was made to procure Arrest Warrant to arrest him.  A similar call was made by ICC while he was on AU mission in Nigeria. The Attorney-General called upon to obtain Arrest Warrant and detain him reportedly argued that he was not on a private visit. These attempts call for thorough examination of the state of international law on the issue. A case in point is Democratic Republic of Congo V. Belgium 2002 regarding arrest warrant issued for the arrest Congolese Foreign Minister.


Previous messagehttps://dub118.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifThis warrant was issued by an investigating Brussels Judge on 11 April 2000 against the arrest of the current Foreign Minister of Democratic Republic of Congo, (DRC) Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi in 1998  who like, the South African Zulu King, Goodwill Zwelithini, was alleged to have incited racial hatred among Congolese that caused the death of hundred of  persons.

The charges before the court emanated from the breach of Geneva Convention 1- IV (1949); Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I &11 (1977). They were considered grave breaches against humanity.

Even though Belgians were not victims nor was Foreign Minister Ndombasi in their territory, Belgium law authorities commenced action under Belgium law of June1993. It must be noted that under those Geneva conventions the crimes were under Universal Jurisdiction, so Governments and Interpol were aware and on alert.

Under Belgium law it did not matter that Ndombasi was acting on official capacity when he committed the offence. Therefore, Belgium alleged that they had instructed Congolese authority to prosecute Minister Ndombasi in 2000. And they responded by filing an application at the International Court of Justice for the annulment of the warrant of arrest for two reasons supported by Article 2 UN Charter.

(a)DRC claimed mutual non-violation of state sovereignty,
(b)Principle of equality of sovereign states, and disputed Belgium’s claim of universal jurisdiction which violated those two principles against DRC.
(2) DRC further argued that the warrant of arrest disregarded the current Foreign Minister’s immunity under customary international law.
(3) DRC also argued for the application of Art 48 of ICJ statute which provides for interim (provisional) measures of protection) to alleviate Mr. Ndombasi predicament who had been crippled from performing his duty as Foreign Minister.
When this application came up for hearing in November 2000 the attention of the Court was called to the effect that Mr. Ndombasi was no longer DRC’s Foreign Minister consequently Belgium applied for the case to be delisted since it has been rendered moot when he ceased to be Minister. However on December 8, 2000 the court ruled against granting interim measure to the Minister who now have been  transferred to another government function not involving frequent Foreign travel. But the warrant was still in force and therefore the case was not rendered moot.
In her submission in May 2001 DRC rescinded her argument against Belgium’s universal jurisdiction but pressed on her argument that Belgium had violated her rights under customary international law as regards Foreign Minister Ndombasi’s inviolability and immunity from criminal jurisdiction. And so requested the ICJ to so hold.
DRC further submitted that the violation of customary international law on which the warrant of arrest was based prevented any state including Belgium from enforcing it. Therefore Belgium was urged to recall and cancel the warrant of arrest and thereafter notify international community.    
Belgium on its side raised 4 objections against the ICJ jurisdiction to entertain the case. It also went ahead to invoke the doctrine of non-ultra petita with regards to the dropping of DRC’s claim that Belgium had wrongly conferred on itself Universal Jurisdiction as being of less importance.
Jurisdiction: Delivering judgment on 14th February 2002 the ICJ said it assumed jurisdiction based on the declarations of both parties pursuant to Art 36(2) ICJ Statute. (International Courts and Tribunas Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Inter-State Applications). It therefore rejected the 4 grounds of objections raised by Belgium. And the Court noted that those objections were based on the fact that Mr Ndombasi had ceased to be Minister.  The court assumed jurisdiction at the time of filing the case regardless of subsequent events. Even though the case became moot, however it did not take away the jurisdiction of the court on whether the issue and circulation of warrant of arrest was contrary to international law.
The Court further ruled that the date for assessing the admissibility of a case and whether it revolves on diplomatic protection was the date of filing the application.
However, the Court admitted that the doctrine of Non Ultra petita barred it from considering whether Universal Jurisdiction was in conformity with international law. But the Court felt not bound by anyone to consider if anyway.

ICJ considered the critical question of whether Minister was entitled to full immunity from criminal prosecution under Customary International law during this tenure as a Minister as submitted by DRC.
Belgium objected to acts of the Minister before his assumption of office because immunity cannot be taken for impunity; only acts in official capacity should attract immunity.
The ICJ further held the immunity of DRC Foreign Minister was not defined by international treaties. However, by analogy it noted that the New York Convention on Special Mission 1969; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 provided guide to some aspect of immunity. But noted that Foreign Ministers enjoy full immunity under Customary international law to enable them perform efficiently well, since they represent their government as attorneys/negotiators in international arena. It was the view of the ICJ that Foreign Ministers acts should enjoy full immunity from criminal prosecution beyond official functions; but it certainly did not include those acts committed before assuming office.
The ICJ considered Belgium’s argument that official toga should not be a barrier for arresting a Minister or government agent that has committed war crime or crimes against humanity which Omar al-Bashir is accused of. Statutes were used to corroborate this argument including decided cases such as: Boeru V. Gaddafi, French Highest Court of Ordinary Jurisdiction- Paris March 2000; Regina V. BOW Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex-parte Pinochet UK, House of Lords, 24 March 1999.

The Court noted that nothing in the Statutes and cases quoted above indicated any exception under Customary International law to the immunity of Foreign Minister. However its non-applicability in international Courts  does not necessarily follow suit in local Courts. In addition the cases were not binding precedents on immunity suits before local Courts and so in the Court’s opinion Belgium lost the argument. The ICJ ruled that extradition treaties imposed on States signatory to them does not take away the full immunity granted to foreign Minister under Customary International Law.
It noted the procedural nature of immunity which it observed did not amount to impunity since criminal responsibility is a substantive law. There, the immunities enjoyed by Foreign Ministers did not bar Criminal prosecution in four situations:
(i) If they are prosecuted in their own States.      
(ii) If their States waive their immunity.
(iii) If they cease to hold office with regards to facts committed prior or subsequent to their term of office, or during their term of office in a private capacity.
(iv) Before certain international criminal courts where they have jurisdiction such as ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ICTY) (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ICTR) and (International Criminal Court ICC) by 13 votes to 3.

The ICJ therefore ruled that since Mr. Ndombasi did not fall within the four exceptions listed above, the mere issuance of an arrest warrant together with its international circulation violated his immunity as a frequent traveler on official duties.

It was also decided by 10 votes to 6 that Belgium should cancel the warrant of arrest and notify international community that received the circulation, even as the Foreign Minister had ceased to be in that office before the judgment.
There were 4 separate dissenting opinions on Immunities and Universal jurisdiction (extraterritorial jurisdiction).  The deduction from the case is that Omar al-Bashir could not have been arrested anyway.
Iyke Ozemena

IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants.

amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE    COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S      DIRECTORS: Duties & Enforcement
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY    MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
www.corporateleadersboard.ning.com
www.facebook.com/corporateboard.corporateboard
www.corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com