| Urhobo Historical Society |
Report of
Investigation Panel That Impeached Alamieyeseigha
Pursuant to the
pro-visions
of Section 188 (7) (b) of the Constitution of The Federal Republic of
Nigeria,
1999, which states thus:
“ A Panel appointed under this section, shall, within three months of
its
appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly”
We hereby present
to you the
FIRST PART of our proceedings and findings regarding the above:
At our first sitting on Tuesday, the 06th of December,
2005, the provisions of Rule 2 (a) of
the Bayelsa State House of Assembly Impeachment Procedure Rules
were
invoked to enable The Panel sit in camera.
The said rule states as follows:
“The panel shall
have and may
exercise any of the following powers, that is to say:
An examination of the allegations levelled against Chief D.S.P.
Alamieyeseigha,
Executive Governor of
An allegation under
category (i) above, dispenses with the necessity for proof
because, it goes without saying. In that category, the facts are
said
to
be “axiomatic”. The adjective “axiomatic” derives from the word
‘axiom’.
Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the
English
Language 1989 defines “axiom” as:
What is required is
an evaluation of the facts and their juxtaposition
with the
requirements of the law.
On the other hand, an allegation under category (ii) above,
intrinsically
requires exhaustive fact-finding that is bound to take a
lot of
time, resources and effort. Visits shall have to be arranged to the
Corporate
Affairs Commission in
In the present
circumstance,
where, owing to non-availability of funds due to the freezing of bank
accounts
of the Bayelsa State Judiciary, the Panel has had to
independently
arrange its own funds for its hotel accommodation and day-to-day
operations, a practical, down-to-earth approach is inevitable. Common
sense
therefore dictates that we commence with those allegations in
category
(i),
before addressing allegations in category (ii).
ALLEGATIONS IN CATEGORY (i), i.e. Allegations for which proof is
unnecessary:
JUMPING BAIL
Contained in
Additional
ground to the notice of impeachment of his Excellency, Chief D.S.P.
Alamieyeseigha, JP, the Executive Governor of Bayelsa State of
Nigeria,
pursuant to section 188 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic
of Nigeria, dated 18th November, 2005. (note that the additional
ground
itself is dated 22nd November, 2005).
“His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, while standing trial for
money
laundering offences in a court in London, the United Kingdom,
smuggled
himself out of London and illegally returned to Yenagoa, Bayelsa State
of
Nigeria on the 21st day of November, 2005, contrary to the
conditions
of
Bail granted him by the court in London which had restricted him
to
London, and thereby bringing the exalted office of the governor of
Bayelsa
State to disrepute, odium and ridicule.”
It must be observed that despite the clear and unequivocal words of the
above
allegation, His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha failed
and or
neglected to offer any facts or averment in rebuttal thereof in his
Statement
Made in Reply to The Purported Notice of Impeachment. The
practical
effect of this is that the said allegation remains untraversed, and
therefore stands admitted. In simple terms, the allegation of the
Bayelsa
State House of Assembly is to the effect that the Governor jumped
bail.
In his defence, the Governor was silent on the issue. It is trite law
and logic
that facts admitted need not be proved; and averment
unchallenged, is
gospel truth.
Consequences of the
Failure
to Abide by the Conditions of the Bail Scotland Yard could issue a
warrant of
arrest against Chief Alamieyeseigha and further embarrass the
people
of
Bayelsa.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has become a fugitive liable to be arrested
whenever he
returns to the
By his ignominious
con duct
Bayelsans and indeed all Nigerians have been scandalised, embarrassed
and
depicted as people whose word cannot be relied upon.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and besmirched the
reputation
of Nigerians living in or visiting The United Kingdom.
Chief
Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and free movement
of the present-day Governor of Bayelsa State or his successor in
office.
Chief Alamieyeseigha has severely hindered the capacity of the
Governor of Bayelsa State to transact international business
whether
now
or in the future, as he can no longer travel overseas.
Chief
Alamieyeseigha has dealt a severe blow to the Ijaw Nation of
which Bayelsa is part, who traditionally take great pride in the
meaning
of their name – Ijaw ---- truth, which name has now been bastardised
owing to
the profligacy of Chief Alamieyeseigha.
It is instructive
to note
that in the Oath of Allegiance he swore to in accordance with the
provisions of
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of
Nigeria Cap C23 to at his swearing ceremony in May 2003 he swore
to
“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of
Nigeria.”
This is further reaffirmed by his swearing to the Oath of Office of
Governor
pursuant to the same Seventh Schedule, as follows: “will strive
to
preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State
Policy
contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria…. and
that I will not allow my personal interest to influence my
official
conduct or my official decisions.”
In view of the
foregoing, the
issue that has arisen for consideration is whether the acts of the
Governor do
not amount to a failure on his part to keep to the Oath he swore
to at
his swearing-in ceremony in May 2003. To resolve this issue,
recourse
has
to be made to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of
Nigeria. Section 13, which deals with the Fundamental Obligations
of
the
Government, provides that it shall be the:
“duty and
responsibility of
all organs of government, and of all authorities and persons,
exercising
legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe
and
apply the provisions of this Chapter (that is, Chapter II dealing with
the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State
Policy)
of
this Constitution”
Under the Foreign
Policy
Objectives provided in Section 19 (d) Chief Alamieyeseigha is enjoined
to have
respect for international law. It is settled in international law
that
a
foreign state can exercise criminal jurisdiction over someone who is
not
her citizen if the alleged crime was committed within her jurisdiction.
By
jumping bail Chief Alamieyeseigha is in breach of his oath to
respect
international law. He has by this, committed an act that
amounts to
gross misconduct in line with the definition of the term “gross
misconduct” as given in Section 188 of the Constitution which defines
‘’gross
misconduct’’ as a grave violation or breach of the provisions of
this
Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion
in the
House of Assembly to gross misconduct.
An act is said to
be
misconduct if it falls below the standard of behaviour expected of a
person and
in this particular instance a Governor. The failure of Chief
Alamieyeseigha to abide by the conditions of bail amounts to gross
misconduct
apart from being a grave violation of the Constitution. This is
anchored
on the fact such conduct falls below the standard of behaviour
expected
of a Governor.
Also worthy of note
is the
fact that in the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant bail,
provision
was made for sureties. These sureties are eminent persons within
the
jurisdiction of the court who would vouch for the character and
integrity of
the recipient of the Court’s discretion to grant bail. In Chief
Alamiyeseigha’s case, three prominent and distinguished persons
held
him
out to be a man of honour, a man who would stand his trial, a
responsible and
trustworthy person. They were willing to place, and did place,
their
reputation and property on the line to prove this point. However, by
debasing
himself to the extent of jumping bail, he has held himself out to
be a
man without integrity, without morals and no sense of decency. This
indeed constitutes a misconduct which renders him unfit to govern
a
state. His conduct is infradig, and most unbecoming of a person
adorning
the exalted title of “His Excellency”.
By virtue of the
aforesaid,
this investigative panel is of the considered opinion AND HEREBY GIVES
THE
VERDICT that the above act of the Governor is tantamount to
“gross
misconduct” and therefore renders him liable to the provisions of
Section
188 of The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999.
ALLEGATION NO. 6 IN THE NOTICE OF
IMPEACHMENT DATED 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005
:
“Failing, refusing and/or neglecting to formally notify the Government
of
Bayelsa State, particularly The Bayelsa State House of Assembly
of his
arrest, detention, and arraignment and trial in court in London for the
offence
of money laundering but instead deceptively wrote (sic) to the
Bayelsa
State House of Assembly a letter, obviously backdated to the first day
of September, 2005 requesting to be away for 120 days to
enable him
recuperate from a surgery he underwent in Germany, thus
deliberately
and
mischievously attempting to keep away from the government and people of
Bayelsa
State, the fact of his arrest, detention and trial in London of
money
laundering charges, a fact that is now house-hold knowledge all over
the
world.”
Upon exhaustive
examination of the above allegation, the following
incontrovertible deductions were arrived at by our Panel:
(ii) That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha
wilfully and
deliberately engaged in suppression of material facts when he
failed,
refused and or neglected to notify the Bayelsa State House of
Assembly
of his arrest, detention, and arraignment and trial in
court in
London for the offence of money laundering.
(iii) That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha sought to
deceive the
Bayelsa
State House of Assembly and the entire people of Bayelsa, by
virtue of
the spurious letter addressed to the Speaker, Bayelsa State House of
Assembly
ostensibly dated 01st September, 2005, but in actual fact made in
reaction
to an event which occurred on 15th day of September, 2005, namely
his
arrest and detention with the prospect of long stay in the United
Kingdom.
(iv) That the deceit referred to in (iii) above, is borne out by the
fact that
close associates cum advisers of the Governor were caused to
issue a
statement immediately after news of his arrest and detention to the
effect that
the governor was having “extended bed rest” in London, following
surgery
in Germany.
(v) That flowing from the foregoing is the fact that His Excellency,
Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, must have written that letter
AFTER,
NOT BEFORE his arrest, but wilfully and deliberately dated it to create
the
impression that it was written before — a fact which by itself,
is
indicative
of a fraudulent propensity.
By virtue of (i) to
(v)
above, this investigative panel is of the considered opinion that the
above
acts of the Governor are incompatible with his dignified status
as
“HIS
EXCELLENCY”, tantamount to “gross misconduct”. The Investigative
Panel
therefore HEREBY GIVES THE VERDICT that the above act of the Governor
renders
him liable to the provisions of Section 188 of
The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
Mr. Speaker sir, having thus submitted this FIRST PART of our report,
we shall
now proceed with deliberations on the other allegations.
Chairman
Barrister David Serena-Dokubo Spiff