Back Page Columnist

Constitutionality or otherwise of Akeredolu’s 7-day quit order on herdsmen

(PART 1)

 

INTRODUCTION

 

As a well cultured Nigerian and Catholic Christian, I abhor criminality in all its ramifications. I have been a serial victim. But God has always delivered me from the snares of all evils (Psalm 23). As a constitutional lawyer and Human Rights Activist, I speak not just for today, but for tomorrow and posterity. I do not simply jump into the fray of issues and take the popular and most convenient route. Many do.

 

Without weighing the possible negative effect of such populist positions. Such may be good music to the ears in the short measure. I prefer to look at, not just the short, but the medium and long term effects and consequences of such delicate matters. That is why over 98% of my postulations have always come to pass. Not a few Nigerians have wondered aloud whether I am a prophet, seer or Nostradamus. I am neither.

 

Some Nigerians have, on the trending issue, been vociferously in support of the Ondo State’s blanket order given to herders, by my good friend, Governor Rotimi “Aketi” Akeredolu, to quit Ondo forest reserves within 7 days. Many have applauded it. Many endorsed; clapped.

 

There is some sense in this, éclat though. But, have we stopped for a moment, to look at the possible manifold and ponderous effects of such a blanket order on other tribes and indigenes living in other parts of Nigeria other than their own?

 

Have we analysed and interrogated the issues? When my good friend, Governor Nyesom Wikee of Rivers State ordered the demolition of a hotel for the owner’s violation of covid-19 rules, I intervened, arguing that he should have done it through a court order.

 

I suggest that the owner of the hotel should go to court for redress. In the same measure, I argued that Governor Nasir-El-Rufai should not have rolled out bulldozers and caterpillars to demolish a hotel in Kaduna simply because it was alleged that the owner had desired to use it for a nude party, a matter never proved. It was simply political.

 

But, I believed it should have been done through a court order; not through brute force. We cannot use illegality to fight illegality; just as it is wrong to use corruption to fight corruption.

 

Can we really stop Nigerians from plying their trade in any part of Nigeria, if done legitimately and in accordance with extant laws? I think not. I hope not. I pray not.

 

We must learn, in a constitutional democracy, to be a country governed by laws, not men. We must build a country of strong institutions, not strong men. This was why America only just recently defeated a strongman, performer president Donald Trump, with strong institution.

 

It is in this context I will now proceed to critically analyse and interrogate, whether Governor Akeredolu’s 7 days Quit Notice for herders to quit Ondo State forest reserves is legal, constitutional and proper.

 

THE LEGAL REGIME

 

The Land Use Act of 1978 (LUA) has since laid the issue to rest as to who controls land in Nigeria. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, provides that “all land comprised in the territory of each state in the Federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that State such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. The Act says “all Nigerians”, not only indigenes of a state.

 

The case of NZENWATA & ORS V. NZENWATA (2016) LPELR-410 89(CA) gives a detailed explanation of the control and management of land under the Land Use Act, 1978, in the following words: “By the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, 1978, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation were/are vested in the Governor of that state and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of the Act (Section 1 of the Act).

 

Also as from the commencement of the Act, all land in the urban areas shall be under control and management of the Governor of each State and all other land shall, subject to the Act, be under the control and management of the Local Government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated. (Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act).

 

By the provisions of Sections 5 (1) and 6(1) of the Act which deal with the Principles of Tenure, Powers of the Governor and Local Governments and Rights of Occupiers: It shall be lawful for the Governor in respect of land, whether or not in an urban Area- (a) to grant statutory rights of occupancy to any person for all purposes.”

 

Section 5(1) (a) Section 6 (1) of the Act on the other hand provides that: It shall be lawful for a Local Government in respect of land not in an urban area- (a) to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or organization for the use of land in the Local Government Area for agricultural, residential and other purposes.”

 

The combined effect of the provisions of all the Sections of the Act above quoted is that all lands in urban areas as well as the Rural Areas are either vested in the Governors or Local Government Chairmen and all citizens of this Country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupiers or owners as the State Governor in cases of land in Urban areas hold such land in trust  for them.

 

See Savannah Bank of (Nig) Ltd. & Anor v. Ajilo & Anor (1989) LPELR-3019 (SC) Per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at pages 84-85, Paragraphs A-C).” Per AGUBE, J.C.A. (Pp. 32-34, Paras. D-D).” In accordance with Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978, State Governors can exercise the power to grant statutory rights of occupancy in any part of the State, at which point a proof of the right of occupancy, which is known as a Certificate of Occupancy, is issued by the state Governor.

 

From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that my good friend, the Ondo State government and its Governor, Arakunrin “Aketi” Rotimi Akeredolu has control over all lands within his State territory. It is also clear that “all citizens of this country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupies or owners as the state governor in cases of land in urban areas hold such in trust for them”.

 

NOW THIS

 

Additionally, section 28 of the LUA, 1978, provides for the powers of the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy already granted for overriding public interest.

 

Similarly, the instances in which these rights can be revoked are provided for in the same section (28). From the aforementioned, it is within the powers of the Ondo State Governor to exorcise and expel occupants of lands within its territories, if it is shown to be in the overriding interest of the public, such as security matters.

 

Governor Akeredolu can therefore, in exercising the rights granted to him by virtue of his position as Governor of Ondo State, issue the order asking herders to vacate the forests reserves within seven days, simply on the ground that the reserve belongs to the Ondo State government. Indeed, the Governor can compulsorily acquire such lands as occupied by the ungovernable

 

herdsmen, in accordance with section 44 of the 1999 Constitution. In such a lawful event, the Governor is expected to make prompt payment of compensation to the herdsmen, who have lawfully been in occupation without criminal records in accordance with section 44(1)(a) of the Constitution.

 

See AIGORO V. COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND HOUSING, KWARA STATE (2011) LPELR-9112(CA).

AND THIS

The governor has duly exercised his powers under the Land Use Act by giving the 7 days quit notice to the herdsmen.

 

This is constitutional and legal. It is also correct to state that something drastic needed to be done to tackle the increasing menace of crimes and violent acts faced in Ondo State forest reserves, which the Governor adduced as his reason for the order. Said Hippocrates (the father of Medicine), “desperate diseases require desperate remedies”.

 

Akeredolu’s primary function as Governor of Ondo State is the security and welfare of his people (section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution). However, it is trite law that the Governor’s powers are only effective up to the extent that they do not arbitrarily affect a citizen’s fundamental rights under the 1999 Constitution, without resort to due process of law.

 

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, supersedes the provisions of the Land Use Act. It is the highest law of the land, the grundnorm, the fontact origo, and supreme law. See ABACHA & ORS V. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14(SC).

 

 

Thus, where any law or provisions of laws conflict with the Constitution, such a law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.

 

Inherently, governors are bound by their oath of office to obey and uphold the Constitution and all other laws that uphold it. No governor can therefore unilaterally, arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously order a group of people, tribe or religion to vacate, by fiat and ultimatum, any part of a state which they govern, without resort to due process and the law courts, as this will amount to encroaching on the fundamental rights of citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

These rights include right to freedom of movement (section 41); right to freedom from discrimination (section 42); and right to own movable and immovable property (section 44).

 

How fair and equitable is a 7 day quit notice from a habit where people have lived all their lives, some for decade? I think it is not! Next week, we shall discuss other aspects of this vexed issue of national concern. (To be continued).

 

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

 

“Illegality will never solve the problem of political lawlessness”. (Emanuel Celler). LAST LINE Fellow Nigerians, kindly follow me every week, to enable us jointly put our heads together on the task of re-engineering Nigeria.

 

We shall accomplish this right here on “The Nigerian Project”, by Chief Mike A. A. Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph. D, LL.D.

 

• Follow me on twitter @ MikeozekhomeSAN

SHOCKING LIFE STORY!!!

Abuja Man reveals (FREE) secret Fruits that Increased his Manh00d size and Lasting Power in 5days…

CLICK HERE TO GET IT!!!

%d bloggers like this:
Fake Richard Mille Replica Watches, www.richardmille.to The ceramic upper and lower cases are imported from Taiwan and are processed by ATPT ceramics to form Y-TZP ceramics. After high-tech anti-fingerprint technology, they present a delicate and soft sub-black material. This color quality has remained unchanged for a hundred years. The color and luster are more detailed to achieve the ceramic tone visual pattern electroplating upper and lower shells that are infinitely close to the original products, with anti-reflective coating sapphire glass! The tape uses a soft and delicate Malaysian imported top rubber strap, and the movement is equipped with an imported Seiko NH movement. The buckle of this version is made according to the original size and thinness, making it feel more comfortable and intimate, the highest version on the market Richard Mille Replica