21/04/2024
A REJOINDER TO THE POSITION OF THE WARRI URHOBO NATIONAL CONGRESS (WUNC) REGARDING THE PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE CONCERNED ITSEKIRI LEADERS HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DELIMITATION/REVIEW OF WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY; COMPRISING OF WARRI NORTH, WARRI SOUTH AND WARRI SOUTH-WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS OF DELTA STATE OF NIGERIA BY THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
Our attention has been drawn to a reply purportedly done by the Warri Urhobo National Congress (WUNC) in reaction to the press conference of the Concerned Itsekiri Leaders held on the 19th day of April, 2024 on the subject of the Delimitation/Review of Warri Federal Constituency; comprising of Warri North, Warri South and Warri South-West Local Government Areas of Delta State of Nigeria by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). May we now react to same.
1. As unapologetic Socialists, we fully subscribe to the teaching of Karl Marx on the need for replies under certain situations when he said: “To leave an error unrefuted is to encourage intellectual immorality”. Applied to the extant circumstances, we opine that it is an appropriate case not to encourage intellectual immorality; hence our extant rejoinder.
2. We must also seize opportunities like these to advance strong moral values, etiquette and public decency. Accordingly, we take note that the said reply of the Warri Urhobo National Congress (WUNC) falls short of the expected standard of decency. In this regard, may we point out the use of the words; “THE RANTING OF AN ANT!” in the title of the reply as just one of the numerous examples of the insipid descriptions, terminology and register deplored by the WUNC in the said reply. With due respect, we think that this smacks of poor upbringing and ill socialisation.
3. It is our candid piece of advice that as group, the WUNC needs to build the capacity of its members in the area of good grammar, correct spellings and effective communication with emphasis on decency and acceptable manner of writing in the future. We respectfully find the need to encourage decency in communication as that remains a unique distinguishing feature between humans and animals. We elect to ignore the terrible spellings and grammatical errors that characterised the reply as an indulgence for now.
4. We have made very frantic but unsuccessful efforts at identifying the real discussable issues raised in the said publication other than insults on personalities and allied attacks. We believe that every fruitful discussion must be dominated by issues as opposed to the throwing of cannonballs.
5. It may be imperative for us to identify one after the other the issues raised in the said reply as follows:
a. That the content of the said Press Conference is fake and that it is trending on social media- Paragraph 1 of the reply.
b. That Chief Ariyo Robinson is unprofessional- Paragraph 2 of the reply.
c. That Chief Ariyo Robinson is from Edo State - Paragraph 3 of the reply.
We note that the above contents of the reply; without any syllogistic explanations or particulars are completely irrelevant to the discussion so, we elect to ignore it. In other words, we do not think that there is any reasonable nexus between the place of origin of Chief Ariyo Robinson and the subject of delineation of Wards in Warri Federal Constituency and any allegation against him as a person should be directed to the proper avenue and occasion. Every fruitful meeting must have an agenda.
6. Therefore, the only relatively relevant points in the said reply would appear to be the following other points:
a. That there is a pending Suit No. FHC/WR/CS/70/2020 between Chief Isaac Emifoniye & Ors Vs. INEC & Ors on the subject matter - Paragraph 4 of the reply.
b. That the Urhobo people in Warri South Local Government Area are stakeholders in the politics of Warri South Local Government Area- Paragraph 5 of the reply. That the Urhobo people in Warri South Local Government Area were not party to any suit that gave birth to any judgement been paraded by Robinson Ariyo and his Itsekiri people- Paragraph 5 of the reply.
c. That the only subsisting Court Judgment on Wards and Units in Warri Federal Constituency is the Supreme Court judgment delivered on the 22nd December, 2022- Paragraph 6 of the reply.
7. On the strength of our earlier admonition, may we now proceed to make submissions on the issues disclosed in paragraphs 6 (a) to (c) above; those in paragraphs 5 (a) to (c) being completely irrelevant to the discourse:
ON THE ISSUE OF PENDING SUIT NO. FHC/WR/CS/70/2020 BETWEEN CHIEF ISAAC EMIFONIYE & ORS VS. VS INEC & ORS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER, WE SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS:
a. That the issues giving rise to the action have been adjudicated upon to finality by the trial and the appellate courts prior to the institution of this action.
b. The issues revolves around that of the valid legal number and structure of Wards in Warri South Local Government Area and this was settled by the judgment in suit NO: FHC/B/109/97: BETWEEN JOSEPH OTUMARA & 8 ORS VS. INEC AND 5 ORS which was the outcome of a suit commenced by Originating Motion and the judgment of the Honourable Court was delivered on the 13th day of August, 2003. By way of emphasis pages 23 and 24 of the said judgment, pagination indicated on the right top corner of the said judgment are hereby referred.
c. Assuming that a person were not party to a suit that affects his interest and the judgment was delivered in 2003 as above indicated, what is the remedy? Is it to file another action in 2020 about 20 years later? No! That is completely unknown to our laws.
d. By virtue of the applicable statute, Decree No. 51, published in the Gazette, of 1992, the number and structure of the Wards that constitute the political sphere now known as Warri South Constituencies 1 & 2 was, remained and should remain the 10 Wards of 1. Ode-Itsekiri, 2. Ubeji, 3. Obodo, 4. Okere, 5. Bowen, 6. Pessu, 7 Avenue, 8. Esisi, 9. Ekurede and 10. Igbudu electoral Wards.
e. Sometime in 1996, a very malignant gerrymandering exercise was carried out by a section of the then electoral body resulting in the restructuring of the Warri South Constituencies 1 & 2 from 10 to 12 Wards in number with a politically obscure structure in violent breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As we have said during the Press Conference, despite the fact that INEC has been ordered to jettison this illegal Ward structure and number in various court judgments and rulings, it has not done so even till today.
f. It is worthy of note that there has never been at any material time, a Stay of ex*****on of the judgment referred to in paragraph 6 (b) above at all; not even an application for stay.
g. Matters are made worse by the fact that the position of the law regarding the 10 versus 12 Wards number and structure was again pronounced upon in a pre-election matter during the last election circle, which suit was instituted to enforce the said judgment. The said suit is FHC/WR/CS/105/2022 Between Jalogho-Williams Hosanana Vs. INEC & 5 Ors. In its judgment at pages 26 and 27 in particular His Lordship Hon Justice O.E Abang of the then Federal High Court now of the Court of Appeal held:
“If INEC flouted the order of court in 2019 elections by conducting elections in the 12 nullified Electoral wards in Warri South 2 state constituencies for Delta State House of Assembly and again for 2023 general elections published the names of candidates for the said Elections, the only language INEC will hear and understand is the issuance and service of forms 48 & form 49…”
h. Furthermore, during an enforcement of judgment proceedings, one year before the said suit being referred to by the WUNC as pending was instituted, the Federal High Court in suit NO: FHC/B/109/97: BETWEEN JOSEPH OTUMARA & 8 ORS VS. INEC AND 5 ORS on the 25th day of March, 2019 ordered INEC to immediately obey the said judgment as per the legal number and ward structure of Warri South Constituencies 1 and 2, State constituencies of Delta State of Nigeria for the conduct of the 2023 Delta State House of Assembly elections for Warri South Constituencies 1 & 2.
i. The adversaries claim not to be party to the said judgment; but surprisingly, it is also true that they were not party to the judgment the Supreme Court delivered on the 22nd December, 2022.
j. The sad reality is that the Adversary does not know that there is difference between the State and Federal Ward Structures; they have gone to the Federal High Court to Challenge DSIEC over State Ward Structure when they should be at the State High Court.
k. The 3rd Defendant in their case is the Delta State Independent Electoral Commission (DSIEC) which is only involved in the elections into Local Government Councils in Delta State and its area of jurisdiction does not extend to Houses of Assembly elections. Who does not know this pedestrian point? Our adversaries do not!
l. The elections and related matters that the law empowers the INEC not DSIEC to handle are Federal elections including elections into State Houses of Assembly across Nigeria under the ambit of the Electoral Act, while those that DSIEC is so empowered to handle are State Local Government elections under the ambit of the Delta State Independent Electoral Law, 1999 as amended.
m. One does not need to be a lawyer to know that the Ward Structure for Federal Elections are distinct from those for State conducted elections. That the WUNC does not know this calls for serious concern. That is why WUNC has instituted an action against DSIEC at the Federal High Court. That cannot in any way affect the enforcement of a judgment in a different suit given over 20years ago.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE ONLY SUBSISTING COURT JUDGMENT ON WARDS AND UNITS IN WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY IS THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 22ND DECEMBER, 2022 WE SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS:
8. Permit us to point out that the doctrine of stare decisis does not arise at all in the circumstances. As we have pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has ordered the re-delineation of Wards in Warri Federal Constituency. A careful perusal of the judgment would reveal that the Supreme Court essentially only gave effect to the provisions of Section 114 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. In other words, it simply posed and answered 2 (two) questions; namely:
a. What is the period of time within which INEC should review state constituencies? In resolving this question, the Supreme Court called upon the provision of Section 114 of the Constitution (Supra) 10 years.
b. Has that time elapsed in the case of Warri Federal Constituency? By the facts, the time has elapsed and as such, it ordered the review of state constituencies.
9. The Supreme Court never nullified the structures that were on the ground before now and for which INEC has remained in contempt for over 21 years.
10. The issues canvassed in the Supreme Court case are not the same with that of the Court of Appeal.
11. The question may therefore be asked: “which Ward structure and number is INEC seeking to review in Warri South? Is it the 10 Ward structure or the 12 Ward structure?
12. By way of illustration, where there are two constitutions in a country and one has been declared illegal and the other legal, when a body is asked to review, which of them would the body review?
13. May we state that re-delineation sought to be done is one that is due for majority of constituencies in Nigeria going by the afore-cited provisions of the Constitution. So, legally speaking, every constituency is due for re-delineation in which the last delineation exercise is more than 10 years.
14. That the exercise is due in not in issue but how as per the status quo or default position is what we need to look at to avoid another round of litigation.
15. Assuming but not conceding that the issue in the Supreme Court case and that in the Court of Appeal are the same issues, it would then create the following serious challenges:
a. That the Supreme Court case is an abuse of court process and as such the litigants and Counsel involved become liable in varying degrees.
b. That the Court of Appeal case being final and without any pending appeal is of the same hierarchy with that of the Supreme Court in the circumstances.
16. CONCLUSION:
a. It is most desirable that this lingering issue be brought to an amicable closure without the need for further litigations hence should there be any argument with our above submission, INEC is in a position to approach the courts to seek clarifications otherwise, we might have to do that.
b. It must be mentioned that “fresh” as used in the judgment is within the meaning of Section 114 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. Hence, the Supreme Court did not nullify the structures that were existing before. Besides, there is no constitutional provision for such. The Supreme Court throughout the judgment alluded to that which INEC has the constitutional duty to perform and nothing more.
c. In this regard therefore, we humbly urge INEC to first dismantle the illegal structure in order to begin the process of executing the modernised structure as Lord Denning in Macfoy V UAC puts it; “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse”
d. Like INEC did with isolating Warri for review in 1996, it has now set machineries in motion to isolate Warri again for delimitation/review when the whole country is constitutionally due for it. The only most appropriate way to describe this is; A MODEL OF SELECTIVE JUSTICE, GROSS DISRESPECT FOR COURT JUDGMENT, MARGINALISATION, DISCRIMINATION AND OPPRESSION. By way of illustration, we may ask; when a general election is due for the whole country, is it proper to isolate only Warri for the exercise? We don’t think so! This is more so as there are people of Itsekiri ethnic extraction in other Local Government Areas apart from Warri who should benefit from the planned delineation exercise. Why, why, why, INEC why?
Thank you for your attention and God bless us all.
Signed:
Pp: CONCERNED ITSEKIRI LEADERS
Chief Robinson Ariyo,
The Egogo of Warri Kingdom
