Victor Giwa: Governor Removals Outside Constitution Are Invalid

A legal practitioner and national coordinator for Advocates for People’s Rights and Justice, Victor Giwa, asserts that any attempt to remove a governor that deviates from constitutional mandates is legally invalid and will not be upheld.

During an interview with ARISE News on Tuesday, Giwa highlighted that the 1999 Constitution outlines specific, mandatory procedures that must be followed precisely for a governor's removal, cautioning that legislators do not possess unlimited authority in impeachment proceedings.

"Any removal done in total disregard of the constitutional steps is null and void," Giwa declared.

He elaborated that while Section 188 of the Constitution grants state Houses of Assembly the power to commence removal proceedings, this authority is contingent upon adherence to clearly defined, sequential stages.

Giwa explained that impeachment processes commence with a notice signed by at least one-third of the House members, followed by a motion to investigate allegations that requires the support of at least two-thirds of the total membership.

"The Constitution is very clear," Giwa stated. "The notice must first be signed by one-third of the members, and when it comes to the motion to investigate, that motion must be supported by not less than two-thirds of all the members of the House."

He emphasized that this two-thirds threshold applies to the entire membership of the House, not just those present during a session, warning that any attempt to utilize factional sittings or procedural shortcuts would constitute a breach of the constitution.

Giwa referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Onakoju v. Adeleke, commonly known as the Ladoja case, where the apex court affirmed its jurisdiction to intervene when constitutional provisions are violated during removal proceedings.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that while courts will not interfere with what lawmakers consider gross misconduct, they will intervene once the procedure laid down by the Constitution is breached," he noted.

He also addressed the "ouster clause" found in Section 188(10), which seems to prevent courts from reviewing impeachment proceedings, clarifying that this provision does not shield illegal actions from judicial review.

"The ouster clause does not protect illegality," Giwa asserted. "If the notice was not properly served, if the required votes were not met, or if the panel was not constituted according to law, the courts will step in to protect the Constitution."

Giwa cautioned that constitutional supremacy must guide all political processes, stressing that any removal executed in violation of the law will ultimately be invalidated.

"Impeachment is not a political game," he concluded. "It is a constitutional process, and once you violate the Constitution, whatever you do is null and void."

He added that strict adherence to due process is vital for political stability, indicating that the courts will continue to nullify any removals that occur outside the explicit provisions of the Constitution.