The 1962 crisis which shattered the banned Action Group’s control of the government of the defunct Western region was preceded by a constitutional drama in which the then regional governor, Sir Adesoji Aderemi sacked Premier Ladoke Akintola. In a counter move, Chief Akintola also sacked the governor from office.
Premier Akintola was so appointed by virtue of leading Action Group to victory in the regional elections. Governor Aderemi’s appointment was recommended by West regional government to the Governor-General in Lagos on behalf of British government.
There was therefore the argument not just in legal circles but also particularly in the politically partisan media on who between the two was constitutionally and legally correct.

Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa in Lagos had the thankless duty to arrest or pre-empt the potential anarchy with the necessary legislation.
Governor-General Nnamdi Azikiwe (as he was then known) broke his holiday at his country home at Nsukka to return to Lagos to sign the enabling bill into law. At Ikeja Airport, Zik was confronted by anxious journalists for his opinion on who was right between ousted Governor Aderemi and ousted Premier Akintola.
Tactfully, Zik disarmed the restless reporters with his response that “ Fortunately, we have a written constitution. As journalists, pick the Constitution, read it and interpret for Nigerians.”

When politicians stir controversies, there is therefore the duty to join the debate, be it historical, legal, political or constitutional. A good example is the election petition drama in Imo State where both Governor Ikedim Ohakim and challenger Martin Agbaso are fighting for their political lives.
There is this aspect, which appears to be unfair to Martin Agbaso – that his petition had been dismissed by an Appeal Tribunal. He should, therefore, go home and sleep. Not exactly so! It is the man’s legal and constitutional right to pursue the matter even up to the Supreme Court and as he loses at every stage, he would have put his name in history in the development of law and constitutionalism in Nigeria.

At the end of the day, particular points of law would be established beyond all doubt. Specifically, if he contested governorship election on April 28, 2007, conducted by INEC to make up for an earlier one cancelled by the same INEC on April14, can he (Martin Agbaso) still turn round to claim the presumed benefit of April14, 2007 elections? That is the legal issue to be determined first to warrant any trial at all.
There is also criticism of Martin Agbaso still pursuing his petition virtually two years after the election. The man cannot be blamed for that long period. Rather, our stupid judicial system is responsible and Martin Agbaso should not suffer any handicap for that.
What is more, in Ogun State, the trial of election petition filed by ANPP candidate Senator Ibikunle Amosu, against Governor Gbenga Daniel is still to take off at all. On at least two occasions, the trial panel couldn’t form a quorum, hence adjournment after adjournment, prolonging the case into years. Thank God, there is no such problem in Imo.

As mentioned earlier, for the Imo petition to proceed at all, there should be a litigant before the court. All governorship elections were held on April 14, 2007. In Imo State, for whatever reasons but statutorily within INEC’s powers, the governorship election was cancelled.
Those with legitimate grievances against the cancellation went to court. In so doing, Martin Agbaso among them, was claiming whatever the probable verdict of April 14cancelled elections. When therefore the same INEC re-scheduled new governorship elections for April 28, any candidate unwilling to accept the verdict of the re-scheduled governorship race should not have contested.

Put differently, any candidate claiming victory in the cancelled April 14 race, in law, should have stuck to that position. The moment such candidate joined the April 28 rescheduled race, he forfeited, no matter legitimate, legal or constitutional claim to April 14 outcome.
Of course, there is always the risk of losing April 28 by default if not contesting, that is by sticking to Åpril 14. Equally, there is the legal authority of losing completely April14, once a candidate’s appearance impliedly conferred legality/constitutionality on INEC’s authority to conduct April 28, 2007 elections. Under the law in this situation, the litigant has only one choice –reject cancellation of April 14 elections and claim whatever right or (b) join April 28 elections and forfeit everything from April 14.

Even if INEC was legally wrong to cancel April 14 in Imo governorship race, any candidate who joined April 28 unconsciously legalized the April 14 cancellation.
April 14, 2007 or April 28, 2007 governorship race in Imo was a one and all situation. If only Martin Agbaso had stood by his legal challenge of cancellation of the April 14, 2007 elections. What is at stake now is not just his claim to the verdict of that particular race, but the implication in law, of his miscalculation.
Here are two remote examples. General Buhari rightly challenged the legality (repeat legality) of General Obasanjo’s re-election in 2003. While the case was on, a legal trap was set for General Buhari but he was smart enough to avoid the trap. A newly sworn-in President Obasanjo included General Buhari (as a former head of state) among recipient of Nigeria’s highest national honour, GCFR.

Buhari rebuffed the honour for obvious reasons, not even appreciated by supposed legal minds. If General Buhari had been decorated with the national honour, he (Buhari) would have been so honoured by a regime whose legality he was challenging at an election tribunal. President Obasanjo’s legal counsel would easily through such technical knockouts have abruptly ended the trial of General Buhari’s election petition.

Instead, General Buhari refused to recognize, in default, Obasanjo’s re-election and stuck to his election petition. Oh yes, Buhari lost the petition eventually but in the process, so dented existing legal procedures for election petitions, such that compelled comprehensive amendments against the 2007 elections.
Another example was one of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s grounds of appeal at the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his election petition against President Umaru Yar’Adua at the Presidential election petition. Atiku claimed among others that he was excluded by INEC from the elections. On the face of it, Atiku Abubakar’s battle against INEC’s ban on him was decided at the Supreme Court only five days before the elections proper conducted by INEC.
With those only five days to the election, Atiku Abubakar was in no way to have properly contested the presidential elections but he still contested if only to humiliate INEC. But that participation lost to him the claim that he was excluded from the elections. If Atiku had won the 2007 elections, would he have claimed that INEC excluded him or that any result therefrom was not valid?

Such question also applies to Martin Agbaso unwise (really unwise) decision to contest the re-scheduled April 28, 2007 governorship race in Imo.
A legal landmark directly applicable to this Imo governorship petition trial was the Awujale of Ijebuland deposition case in 1984, by the late Justice Owolabi Kolawole. The purported deposition of the Oba (traditional ruler Oba Sikiru Adetona) was preceded by a probe panel instituted by Ogun State governor the late Bisi Onabanjo into the conduct of the traditional ruler.
The panel was headed by retired Justice Sogbetun. The Awujale headed to court to challenge the legality of the Sogbetun panel. Summoned to appear to respond to allegations against him, the Awujale was advised by his lawyer not to appear before the Sogbetun panel since such appearance would render the legal challenge in court lost.

The inquiry panel proceeded and submitted a report to Governor Onabanjo, who, on the second day claimed to have deposed the Awujale based on the report of a panel, which the Awujale did not recognize. The Oba again went to court to challenge his purported deposition, on among others, the ground that he was not give a fair haring as guaranteed to every Nigerian citizen under the Constitution.
Ogun State government responded that the Awujale was summoned by the panel but refused. The Oba responded that his legal counsel advised him not to appear before a panel whose legality he (the Awujale) was challenging in a law court.
The late Justice Owolabi Kolawole upheld the Awujale’s submission (through his counsel) and instantly nullified the purported deposition of Oba Adetona who today, still remains on his throne.

Justice Kolawole’s ruling of May 4, 1984 at Abeokuta easily applies to the Imo governorship suit. The judge said, “Let me say right away that a party who becomes aware of any procedural irregularity and nevertheless enters an unconditional appearance and takes further steps with a view to defending the action is deemed to have waived the irregularity.”

In now claiming his presumed victory on April 14,2007 governorship elections, Martin Agbaso clearly is saying (even if rightly) that INEC was wrong to have cancelled that result. Unfortunately, whatever merit of such claim cannot be defended and is completely nullified by his participation in the April 28 race. Had he not taken part, the stage would have been set for a tough legal battle. Agbaso either believed in his victory of April 14, 2007 or he did not.
He could not have believed in his presumed victory and still proceeded to run in a race, April 28, 2008, which on all grounds, legal, political and constitutional, nullified the exercise of April 14, 2007.

The Awujale, for example, in not appearing before the probe panel, knew he might lose his throne but he stuck to his conviction that the probe panel was illegal and unconstitutional.
Martin Agbaso should similarly have stuck to his conviction of his victory or INEC’s illegality (if so, it was) in canceling the April 28, 2007 exercise.
Our laws and constitution, as Zik educated us, are written. We should all read and interpret.