The macabre dance in Anambra

The macabre dance in Anambra

ON July 10, 2003, a group of voodoo priests staged a ghoulish dance at Awka, the Anambra State capital. On that day, about 200 mobile police, armed to the teeth and led by AIG Raphael Ige, hatched a carefully organised putsch, forcefully abducting Governor Chris Nwabueze Ngige of that State after overpowering the Governor's personal security outfit. The Governor was stowed in a waiting police jeep and driven to a local hotel, where he was put under house arrest. He regained his freedom hours later after he successfully used a GSM phone to contact the federal authorities. A localised civilian-police coup had been attempted.

The contemporary history of Nigeria has recorded six occasions when the Nigerian armed forces" the army, navy and air-force had had the opportunity to vociferate "Fellow Nigerians..." even when Nigerians poignantly refused to fellowship with coupists. The Nigeria Police have never had that opportunity. Indeed, they had willy-nilly played second fiddle to the military and quaffed whole cups of indignity to the dregs while the era of military dictatorship lasted. On July 10, 2003, the police thought the opportunity to chirp "fellow Nigerians..." had presented itself. So, a unit of the Nigeria Police Force (Zone 9) put its best legs foremost and tried to do what the army had done successfully on six occasions in the past. They failed.

Raphael Ige said he acted on "orders from above". He was quickly retired by the President without the faintest effort to probe into the meaning of the phrase "order from above". After all, Raphael Ige was just an AIG. Above him were several DIG's, and IG, the Nigeria Police Council, a Minister for Police Affairs and the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The phrase "order from above" might relate to any or all of the foregoing superiors of Ige. The man should have been suspended, instead of being hastily and compulsorily retired, from office.

Ige is either guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of one of the federating units of the Nigerian "Federation", contrary to the provisions of S.1(2) of the 1999 Constitution, abduction and treasonable felony under section 41(b) of the Criminal Code Act (cap. 77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990) or he is not. In either case, it is a court of competent jurisdiction or a duly constituted tribunal of inquiry, with plenary powers, that can pronounce on his guilt or innocence. Section 36(5) of the Constitution underpins the innocence of the accused until he is proved guilty. Who knows, for example, whether the AIG did what he did at the behest of his superior officers, in which event there could be more people to retire or even dismiss from the service.

Is it not more than doubtful that an Assistant Inspector General of Police could summon up courage to overthrow the elected government of a State without his account officers (particularly, the IG) being privy to the plan? Therefore, the precipitate retirement instead of suspension and detention of Ige constitutes a breach of the man's fundamental human right to fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution. The hasty retirement of the AIG may also be a cunning stratagem designed to paper over cracks in the establishment.

The self-confessed mastermind of Ngige's abduction, Chris Uba, continues to harp on the purported resignation of the Governor either prior to or after his inauguration. One is at pains to figure out what Chris Uba had to do with Ngige's resignation. Section 306(5) of the Constitution requires that any Governor who wishes to resign from his office should address his resignation to the Speaker of the respective State House of Assembly. The immediate past Speaker of the Anambra State House of Assembly, Mrs. Eucharia Azodo, claimed that she received Ngige's letter of resignation on July 10, 2003, the day of the macabre dance, and proceeded to read it to the whole House. Therefore, why, when and how did Uba (not even a floor member of the House) see or receive Ngige's letter of resignation? Why is he particular about Ngige's resignation?

The Governor was sworn in only on May 29, 2003, and it was too early in the day for any person to determine whether he was performing or not. Doubtless, there was an agreement, or an express contract, between a group of persons led by Chris Uba, on the one hand, and Governor Chris Ngige, on the other hand, the offerors and the offeree, respectively. The considerations that flowed from the one and from the other indubitably included huge financial and other forms of assistance to Ngige in his besotted effort to become Governor of Anambra State, and a pledge by Ngige to allow the offerors to teleguide him in every facet of the administration of the State, or resign in default of his pledge. In all probability, Ngige must have signed one or two undated letters of resignation, inside a toilet, under duress. For greater effect, Ngige (the offeree) was taken to a Shrine, where he was placed under oath by a voodoo priest. Quite clearly, this was an immoral and illegal contract, having all the elements of turpitude and in which both parties are in pari delicto (in equal fault).

It is trite law that an agreement to do an act that is illegal or immoral or contrary to public policy, or to do an act for a consideration that is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy, is unlawful and therefore void ab initio as it is, in the immortal language of story in Equity Jurisdiction, capable of a material influence "to diminish the respectability, responsibility and purity of public officers, and to introduce a system of official patronage, corruption and deceit wholly at war with the public interest."

The Ngige-Uba case would seem to be on all fours with the case of Garforth vs. Fearson (1787) 1 Hy.Bl.328, where A agreed that if by the influence of B he were appointed Customs Officer of a port, he would appoint all such deputies as B should nominate and would hold the profits of the office in trust for B. It was held, after A had secured the post, that no action lay against him for breach of this agreement. The general principle, founded upon public policy, is that any transaction that is tainted by illegality in which both parties are equally involved is beyond the pale of the law: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of a base (immoral or illegal) consideration, an action does not arise. It is notorious that even the defendant (Ngige in this case) can successfully plead the turpi causa (or duress), and, though this "defence is very dishonest and seems only worthy of the Pharisee who shook himself free of his natural obligations by saying Corban", it is allowed for the reasons given by Lord Mansfield in Holman vs. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341 @ 343. "The principle of public policy is this: ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act..." In another landmark case, Parkinson vs. College of Ambulance Ltd. (1925) 2 KBI, the defendant fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that he had power to nominate persons to receive titles of honour and that he or his company could arrange for the grant to the plaintiff of a knighthood if the plaintiff would make a donation of £3,000 to the company funds. The plaintiff obliged, but was disappointed, whereupon he brought this action to recover £3,000 as damages for deceit or, in the alternative, as money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff or, in the further alternative, for breach of warranty of authority. Lush, J. held that the parties were in pari delicto and that the conduct between the plaintiff and the defendant was against public policy and, therefore, illegal.

The Uba vs. Ngige case is not indistinguishable from the foregoing cases. Chris Uba and Chris Ngige and their confederates had conspired to defraud. All of which, doubtless, explains why some people have opined that Ngige should either abdicate or be turned adrift not being a fit and proper person to hold the position of Governor of a State. I agree. But who will remove him? His party, the PDP, cannot. By the undifferentiated grace of God, Ngige will not die, and he will surely not resign (again). Besides, all members of the present Anambra State House of Assembly are morally incompetent to institute impeachment proceedings against him, having unsuccessfully schemed with others outside the House to remove him by accepting a resignation that never was.

In view of all this, Ngige should be let severely alone, in the interest of peace and stability. Besides removing Ngige from his seat would represent a validation of the illegality perpetrated by the coupists. It would be a dangerous precedent. The man Ngige was made to sign two letters of resignation, under duress, inside a toilet. He was led to a voodoo priest's shrine, where he was placed on oath, willy-nilly. He was abducted vi et ami and put under house arrest. He has seen red, over three times. Yet, no man should be twice harassed for the same cause! Remove Ngige from office today, and you give victory to Uba and others. Yet, no man should profit from his wrong-doing.

The immediate action the Federal Government has to take now is to constitute an independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry and get all the 200 mobile police, including Raphael Ige, and all Ngige's godfathers, arraigned before it. Meanwhile, the IG should be asked to explain why he should not be asked to step aside for insouciance and ineffectiveness if he insists on want of privity to the coup d'etat. Finally, the conflicting statements and renunciations emanating from the Presidency and from the office of the National Chairman of the ruling party PDP, should stop, and the Federal Government should begin to enthrone the rule of law and due process and de-emphasise the apotheosis of personality cults.

August 2003