 Welcome back, you're still watching The Breakfast on Plus TV Africa, sorry for that mix of happens from time to time. But we have a first guest on a first major discussion set to join us, but let's give you a brief background to that. Well from defecting, or for defecting from the People's Democratic Party to the All-Progressives Congress, APC, a boy state governor, David Umahi, his deputy, Dr. Kelechi Ikwe, have to vacate the offices, this is according to an order issued yesterday by Justice E. Angakwa of the Federal High Court, a bourgeois decision which seems to have opened a new vista in Nigeria's political landscape. Justice Akwa said the move from the PDP to the APC was illegal and unconstitutional. The judgment followed suits filed by the People's Democratic Party seeking the removal of the governor and his deputy from office from banning the party. Justice Akwa said the depositions of the 3rd and 4th defendants, Umahi and Ikwe, in their counterfeit evidence were, quote, evasive and insufficient, end of quote, to competently challenge the plaintiff's originating process. Now it was the opinion of the court that the immunity clause in Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution is not absolute. Section 308, the judge said, is a veritable constitutional shield while adding that it was not incetted for political reasons. Now Umahi and his deputy had filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the suit by the People's Democratic Party, arguing that Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution provided immunity to them from the plaintiff's suit and that the votes cast during the said elections belonged to them and not the plaintiff, going by the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 and the recent Supreme Court pronouncements. However, the court disagreed with them and held that Umahi and Ikwe did not contravert the deposition that total votes scored in an election belonged to a political party. That's not all. In another judgment, the judge sacked 15 members of the Airboy State House of Assembly who defected from the People's Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress on the same grounds that the governor was removed. Reactions quickly followed this judgment, with Umahi himself declaring that he was still governor of Airboy State and faulted the trial judge, the People's Democratic Party in the state, however, described the ruling as a victory for all Airbongians. That's the people of Airboy State saying it was, or it marked, the end of what they call impunity and rascality. The People's Democratic Party further said it had submitted the names of its nominees to replace David Umahi and Eric Ikwe as governor and Deputy Governor of Airboy State, respectively, to the Independent National Electoral Commission. Now, speaking on the development of the media briefing yesterday, Ioche Aiu, the PDP national chairman, said the party has nominated Iduma Agarui and Fred Odogu to replace Umahi and Ikwe as governor and deputy governor. He said that after consultations with stakeholders in Airboy State, the party has put forward the names of these two individuals, Iduma Agarui as the new governor and Fred Odogu as his deputy. But the question on many lips is who is the governor of Airboy State as we speak? Who is the governor of Airboy State as we speak? It's a million-dollar question if you want to call it, but joining us this morning to answer this and other questions, let's welcome Mandir Ubandi, who is a legal practitioner. Dr. Mandir Ubandi, good morning to you and thank you very much for your time. Good morning. All right. So, let's start off by answering that question, who is the governor of Airboy State as we speak? As we speak, the governor of Airboy State is engineer David Umahi and his deputy. Because what was decided yesterday was a court case and I know that the appellate options is not for rules for any person in Nigeria. You still have to appeal against any decision and if I may know my law, right, you have 90 days to appeal because this is not a pro-election matter. This is a matter that is actually each teacher after the man has been sworn in as a governor of the state. And within our procedural laws and the constitutional provisions, and even in our statutes, you still have 90 days within which to appeal on any decision that has been rendered in any court of law. That I know. I don't know whether they have taken that away, even if the judgement is, they must be replaced immediately. If they have a right of appeal and he must exhaust all his appellate choices, but before that decision can stand, that's as much as I know. Would you say that David Umahi and his deputy did not put up a strong argument in their defense because they in their deposition cited section 308 of the Nigerian constitution which talks about the immunity clause saying that the suit by the PDP should not stand because as far as they are concerned, that section of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, protects them from the suit. That would be one of the grounds of our PDP. I know that if you are elected today as a governor, as a president, or as deputy, or vice, you enjoy immunity under the constitution, you know, from being stood to avoid a situation where you'll be destroyed. That was the reason why those who drafted the 1999 constitution inserted that particular section that actually grants immunity to the executive when they are in power. It's only when they are in power, you can take some of those legal actions against them. So it would certainly be one of the grounds of our PDP. But I think, I don't know how, probably, I don't know whether they argue it or omitted it. I think the most potent argument with regards to this particular case would be the position of the constitution with regards to defection of an executive. If you are a member of the state assembly, whether at the federal or at the state level, you cannot defect to another political party unless you prove that there is crisis within the political community or political party, making, giving you good respect for your cause, for you not to move to another political party. That I know. That is applicable only to members of the state assembly. But when it concerns the executive, whether the governor or the president, the constitution is very silent. There was no time, the constitution makes a provision that if a governor does defect without any reason or without good reason, then he is likely to be removed by the court of law. I don't have that provision or I don't know of such a provision in the constitution. So if the real issue for the termination was defection of Umayyad and his deputy, and now the governor has been removed by the court, where what section of the law, the court site, that was the good reason actually to say, oh, because you have defected, you have offended the provision of this constitution and for that reason you are going to be removed. We are talking about voting or non-voting. We are talking about voting belonging to political parties. We are talking about the issue of defection. And is there any grant for removal of a governor? And I don't think there is any. And the constitution itself has been very elaborate as to the reasons for removing a governor who has been properly elected. There is a provision in the constitution. Can be another impeachment, or if he is incapacitated medically, or if he resigns, or he dies. I mean, these are some of the measures how a governor who has been elected can be removed. It's not this issue of defection. It's not a grant. I'm here to see that grant in the constitution. And now the issue that was before the court was his defection from PDP to APC. And we are not going to have to remove that governor base upon the fact that it affected. Now I am saying this without bias, because I hate the issue of political prostitution I have been going on in overtime in a joint political history. We are governors, like leaders who are elected on their own platform. And within a short time, whether there is any reason or no reason whatsoever, I told Trump to another political party. That is political prostitution, people without principle. I am totally against it. But I will not, because of the fact that I have that personal hatred for this year of prostitution in politics, then now begin to agree when there is no basis for something to be done, because it must also be done in terms of law. I don't see any legal, some legal ground for this from what I told them yesterday. And I can assure you that it's going to be a long way in legal fights, because this matter will get to Supreme Court. I can assure you it's going to get to Supreme Court. And I'm giving him a maximum period of two or three years, because of the fact that it's a political case. If it's an ordinary case, it will take up to 10 years before it's resolved. And by that time, Pomai would have still been in office and then complete his tenure. And they say because it's politics, political case, they may give it a expeditious trial process. I mean, a hearing process. So maybe one or two years. Because you will appeal and then bring a motion for stay. And until that appeal is determined, you cannot in any way get him out of office. So it is not as easy as it has been pronounced. And for the APVP Washington Grand Nominated Candidate, I'm sure they are playing politics. I'm not going to put that. But it is going to be particularly impossible for every election to take place, when there is an appellate opportunities for somebody who is aggrieved. I think it's funny to hear that they have actually gotten a replacement and they are ready to take over power. I know that it's not as easy as it seems. All right. So Mandoobani, let's also look at, do you have mentioned the appellate opportunity that's available right now for the governor and the deputy governor, as well as the legislatures? Do you see the federal, I mean, the court, the judgment from the federal court standing at the test of the Supreme Court? As I said earlier, I have mentioned it in my earlier analysis. But what is in contention is defection. For the executive, there is no provision in the condition that is clearly an error for an executive to defect. There is no provision. The constitution is very silent as to what will happen or what are the consequences for the governor who defectes. It's very clearly silent. But with regards to members of the House, yes, you have to do that, that is crisis from the political party where they are coming from. But for the executive, it's silent. And so if the constitution is very silent, there cannot be a ground for removal. Because the constitution is also very exhaustive to reasons for removing a governor who has been elected. The issue of defection does not fall within that available exemption. So I am very, very doubtful whether this particular case withstand the validity of the appellate court. I am very, very not to show. I may be wrong. But one thing I can assure you is that it's going to be a development in our new students. Our new students will be enriched by this particular decision that has just taken place. Morally. Morally, most of us have been against this issue of people jumping in the mud. If there was a political order, I jumped to three political parties within one day. From one day it was at the PDP in the morning. In the afternoon it was in Abga. In the night, I didn't move to another political party. Somewhere in the new state. I mean Abya. The former governor of Abya state was once in a PPA. From PPA he jumped to Abga. And then finally jumped back to PDP. In one day, in the morning afternoon and night, so nobody likes what is going on in our political landscape. Where politicians jump political parties. It means that they don't even understand the meaning of political parties. Because you have to believe in a principle and an ideology before you join a political party. But here, there is no presence of ideology and principle in whatever these politicians do. So I'm totally against this issue of jumping from one political party to another. But then, I will not, because of my hatred for that, now begin to agree when a governor is removed without any solid legal basis or constitutional backing. I doubt whether this particular case will stand in the scrutiny of the opinion calls. Just before Kofi comes in now, let's look at the crux of the conversation. You have mentioned it in this conversation is the fact that, I mean, the argument here is that the votes were for the PDP. I mean, at the time he was a candidate, he was part of the People's Democratic Party. And, you know, these votes, those who actually casted their votes, casted it, you know, for this political party. Now that he's moved from the PDP, you know, to the APC, would you describe this judgment of the federal, you know, high court as a legal issue? Would you say that the crux of this conversation is a moral issue or not necessarily because you were saying that it doesn't have any strong legal backing? Could this be a moral issue for the issue of defection? Clearly moral for the government and president. Clearly moral. Because if the drafters of the constitution clearly founds that movement of its equity, they would have put it down there that this would be the consequence of a governor moving. They would have been in the constitution. And so it does move without any solid reason. These are the consequences. The constitution had made an elaborate provision concerning that. But it didn't. It only, you know, made it with regards to legislative and more government. And so my problem with this case is that the constitution one has made provisions for removal of a government. This issue of defection is not one of them. But we need to understand. Then on the issue of food belonging to political party of individual, there has been discordant terms concerning that principle. In one instance, you say it belongs to individual. In another instance, they say it belongs to what we call it now, it belongs to the political party. The decision of, is it, no, not the demand that is presently the governor of Biosha State. Do you remember how he came in? There was one. Quite beautiful. The demand I know of the election belongs to A.P.C. And his deputy, not the man who said I won the election, his deputy had an issue with his credentials. And pronouncement was made. Removing a governor that had no issue whatsoever. But because he had that issue with his deputy. I remember that the vote belonged to the political party. But what happened? They don't belong to a PDP candidate. And then they turned him as a governor of the state. Whereas we agree, in principle, that vote belonged to the political party. So he vote belonged to the political party. Why was the PDP man? Who never got any such vote made the governor? So there are issues, you know, that is current on with regards to this issue of who never vote belonged to political party. But in any case, and in this case, you know, which is the Supreme Court case, I mean I'm mainly dealing by statute. Say that you cannot make somebody a governor who has not undergone all the process of electoral process. You can't judge from nowhere because, you know, I'm bring somebody and say he is going to be the governor if he doesn't, you know, undergo the political process of context. So again, we must understand that. And so it is not something that is clearly stated. But one thing I am sure is that the issue that was before the court, which is an issue of contention, was whether if you defect as a governor, whether you can lose your seat. And I'm saying that there is no provision in the law that says this is a consequence for a governor defecting. There is a consequence for a later defecting, yes. But for a governor, was there any provision? And then secondly, the strong point, the last strong point is whether you can, you know, remove a governor based upon the fact that he defected. Can you remove a governor because of the fact that he defected? You know, I doubt that very much. And then the further high court, the further high court actually have jurisdiction over his case. These are issues that have been conversed in part of appeal. But further high court, after a governor has been elated, have jurisdiction over this particular political case, whether a governor's seat is going to be vacant or whether the state is going to be vacant, is he a federal high court case or a state high court case? Issue of jurisdiction will come in. And of course, if there are no four within the overview of the further high court, as defined on section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, that again means that that decision has been reached by the court because without jurisdiction, which is a life prior of any particular matter, it cannot go on. There is no basis for that decision because without jurisdiction, it will have no basis for you to have reached that particular decision. The issue of immunity of a governor who has been deleted will also be an issue to converse on appeal. So there are many issues to be converse. And I tell you, as I said earlier, it's going to enrich our jurisprudence. It's going to enrich our jurisprudence. And we are ready to learn. We are ready to see what the decision of the appellate court will be. But it's not going to be easy for whoever has won this case. Very quick one. Very, very quick one, please. A very brief answer. Of course, the Electoral Act 2010 is there, clear for all to see and the provisions they're in. And a recent Supreme Court pronouncements on the issue of defection, we are aware of some governors who are taken to court by their parties in their respective states. How come a judge of the ilk of Iagakor, of the Federal High Court, is giving the contrary ruling to previous rulings? For instance, one that has recently been given by the Supreme Court and the others that you have cited. He is a human being. He's not a blower error. And that's why we have appellate courts. We have appellate courts in order to correct any error or cause downstairs. I follow him. So he is a human being. He may have probably believed in this issue of that votes belong to political parties. And it's on that basis he reached his decision. So being a human being, he can hear it. But he refers to now, probably adhere to what you call precedent and believe on his own line of thought. Then the agreed party has the right to claim upstairs, which is what I think the governor and the deputy will do this morning. They will let him file the appeal and bring a motion first day. He's not going to be there. He's got a legal position to be implemented. And they are rehearsing what's to do. I was... Yes, I was going to ask you, Mr. Bany, Dr. Bany, what the implications would be if at the end of the day, this is subheld at the appellate court and the higher court, the Supreme Court. What this would mean for the likes of Matawale and Kul who have also defected recently an IID. We don't have time. I want to thank you very much for your time. HD is a legal practitioner and he's been a guest on the first discussion right here on the Breakfast on Plus TV Africa. Thank you for your time. Thank you for having me, I'm very grateful. All right, we'll move on right here on the Breakfast, merci. And of course when we return we'll look at the second conversation where the House of Representatives will love me because I've actually reconceived that the gender bill will be right back. Please stay with us.