 Welcome back. It's good to know that she's still watching the run-up today. Barely 24 hours after Senator Ademola Adeleke assumed office he took some tough decisions, as we would like to call it, which included freezing the state's accounts, reversing appointments made by his predecessor, and abolishing the name of the state, you know, at the time he was called the state of Oshun, and he returned it to Oshun state. Adeleke also signed six executive orders yesterday, affirming the reversal of the appointments made by ex-governor Adeboega Oyetola, and further sacking some 12,000 workers set to have been illegally employed. Those sacked included 30 permanent secretaries, while chairman of the state's independent electoral commission, Shegu Oladito, and its members were suspended. The governor also dethroned three monacs whose installations were allegedly controversial. And what are the implications of these policies? These are what we will be discussing today, and joining us to have this conversation on the program this morning is Mr. Ayo Olugun. He's a spokesperson, transparency, and accountability group. You're very welcome, sir. And we also have Baristatunji Abdullah-Mid. He's a legal practitioner and public affairs commentator. You're very welcome, sir. Thank you very much. Good morning. All right. Let us start with you, Mr. Tungji. We're going to be getting your both reactions. How do you react, you know, to these actions taken by the very recent governor of Ocean State? And, you know, judging looking from the legal angle, does it have, is it legally allowed to take these decisions just as getting into office and, you know, making such changes? Is it legally allowed? Yeah, it is allowed for a new lease when governor to make changes and appointments, especially in line with its administration. But if we have to this decision right now, it's not all the taking that I would say has a proper legal backing as far as I am concerned. So if I want to talk about the legal implications of all these steps, I think we have to look at them one after the other. For instance, the, the first thing of the, the freezing of accounts, the governor has the right to freeze the accounts, at least to prevent a voter driver or from the account and to be able to monitor what is in the accounts, depending when you will set it down. Similarly, the first thing, the name of the state, I think is in order, as far as I'm concerned, is in order. Now we standing the, the what's it called, the, the, the, the opposition from the House of Assembly, you know, the, the, the, the name, the name known to under our constitution, I'm talking about, I'm talking about constitutional federal government in 1999. It's Ossoon states, not state of art, Ossoon. So what I'm saying is that the name state of Ossoon is unknown to our constitution. It's illegal and has no basis under our law. And that, that, that are, are relying on any government relying on the law made by half assembly to change the name of a state is like amending the constitution of the Republic of Nigeria and which is not within their power. So the, for any name of a state to change, it must be from the National Assembly. It must be by amendment of the constitution. So if there's no amendment of the constitution, no matter what color you give to it, whether it's out of assembly or whether governor, governor, the directive or whatever, it can't, it's not, it's not possible. It's illegal. It's not constitutional. It must be in line with the constitution. So as far as I'm concerned, the reversing of the name, in fact, let me tell you that in 2017, a lawyer was in court to challenge the name. The name, the lawyer is Kameh Azibola. He went to court to challenge that the state of Ossoon is not known to the constitution. And the court said yes. The court agreed with him in 2020. Yes, because we have impunity in this country. Nobody bothered to enforce the judgment of the court in that, in that aspect. So the governor coming now to say go back to the names Ossoon state is not doing anything on, toward, he's not doing anything illegal. He's not doing anything on constitution. He's just trying to ensure that look, the constitution which he has shown to uphold is being protected and is being aligned. So as far as I'm concerned, in that regard, it's on the right path in that sense. Because people have to even be in position to say, look, like, for example, I have to give associate anything from the federation. I may refuse them on that then if it's continue to do the name, state of Ossoon, because it's not known to our constitution. We are giving money or whatever you are giving to unknown person, to unknown state that's not known to our constitution. So as far as I'm concerned, I give me a password in that, in that, in that, in that, mark in that regard. Then the issue of sacking of department secretary, that one too is bad, is bad by law. It's legal. It can, it can, it can, it can sat department secretary. But that we must, we must make a decision here. If you look at section 208, section 202, C of the constitution of federal law in 1999, the, the, the power to appoint or remove certain people is affected on the, on the governor and which, of which department secretary is one of them. So in other words, the governor has the right to, he has the power to appoint them and also has the right to remove them. The one who said remove B.I., he cannot sat them as a civil servant. He can only remove them as a permanent secretary because being a permanent secretary is your highest להיות of your, of your career. So if you are now removed as department secretary, you can your whole now, say you are designing or you are living the service, that is all within the power of a governor to sack any civil servant sacking or engineering or what polishing. There is within the power of the, of the, of the civil service commission, not the governor, too many must go through procedure. So you can just wake up one day and say, I say governor, I'm I'm sacking you as a civil servant. No, you must go through the processes, there are processes. And that is by under the civil service commission. In other words, so which means that the 12,000 employees that have been sacked by the governor, as far as I'm concerned, is not backed by law. It's not supported by law. Because for you to terminate or sack a civil servant, you must, there are processes that must be followed. I'm not aware those questions are being followed. I'm not aware that the civil service commission are the one who are saying it should go. So the governor is not within the range of power of the governor to just sack a civil servant just like that. Though I'm not talking about, I'm talking about legal application of it. I'm not talking about the morality. Because some people will say, is it proper for somebody who's going to 24 hours to stand to appoint people? Yes, that is immoral, that is illegal. And that's immoral, that's not normal. But I'm talking law now, I'm talking law. Is it backed by law? What is that? So, you want to ask me a question? Yes, I would get back to you, yeah. But I'd also like to get the reaction of Mr. Ayo, Mr. Ayo, first, your reactions to these pronouncements made by the new governor. And do you think that these policies in any way are detrimental to the people of Oshun state? Thank you very much. I absolutely agree with a number of positions taken by the last person who has just spoken, except for a few places where he got it wrong. First and foremost, the pronouncement within the account of the government is the norm. Because when you speak about to the inaugural address, some of the decisions and policy statement that he made at the inaugural speech, some of them are either norms or enforcing what exactly has been the legal position. And one of these is the phrasing of account. It's the norm. Any government that comes in as the right to phrase that account, spending the time it can look into the books to ascertain exactly what the financial situation of the state is. And also talking about his decision to change the name of the state. That is premised already on a subsistence judgment. But like he made an allusion to, both the community and the people are taking the state's government to court under the direction of Raul Varebechela to challenge the use of the name state of Oshun. And the court has ruled that that is illegal and of the proper thing. And what is known to the law is Oshun state. So the governor was only enforcing or making pronouncement on what exactly the law is taking the position of town. So whatever the House of Assembly is doing, we get it wrong. I think the position of the House of Assembly by the release that I saw from there yesterday is not necessarily about the Oshun state of Oshun. Because they made an allusion in that question that that is still in court. I think there's an appeal going on on it and they will not comment on that. And what the Assembly need to talk about was the acronym of the state. You will recall that under the state used to be known as the state of the living spring. And Raul Varebechela came in by the occasion of the promotion of the House of Assembly changed it to state of the virtuous. And that is what the Assembly is saying that if you must reverse back to the state of the living spring, it has to go through the legality of the promotion of law by the House of Assembly to change it from the state of the virtuous back to the state of the living spring. It's important to say that I want to talk about the decision of the governor to make it another, in that speech there is a contradiction in the decisions of the promulgations made by the governor. Somewhere in between is the Noguda speech he made a beat that all appointments and contracts dated from 17th July when he was denounced in the city. Sunday when he was sworn in should reverse back to the status quo. And somewhere along again in the same Noguda speech he did say that he was going to set up a committee to review certain appointments and contracts. And I did say that that latter part is the legat thing to do. What you can do is to set up a committee to review certain decisions taken by the predecessor and not outrightly making promulgations for reverse back to the status quo up until 26th of November. The immediate process of registration the governor of the status has been has the power, the power of the governor did it end when he lost election. His power ended on the 26th of November. So whatever decision it took between the planning and the election to win the tender expired as far as the law is concerned is still valid. So if as a new governor you must review around those things it has to be to the legat process. And just like the lawyer has said he does not possess the power to sack permanent circuitries from the civil service. And I think that was the wrong use of word in the statement he issued before he sworn in that as soon as he steps into office on Monday he was going to stand there for the service. The governor doesn't have such power. The power he has is to review and ask them to reverse back as directors of the case maybe and not having the power to attract the sack then from the civil service and that would amount to effective rascality. And I hope the governor and his amnesty understand that. And also when you speak to the issue of the sack of some of us you can look at it from two ways. You can look at the political correctness of it and you can look at the legality of it. And I just say this that our leaders, our politicians should learn that political correctness does not supersede legality. No matter how political correct decisions may be if it's in legality, it stands invalid. And that is one of such. You would recall that the appointment of the area of Ikire, for example followed the appointment of nine oba's in a day. The former governor appointed nine of them. So if you are singling out a number of the oba's appointed the same day and you are living out there. Morally the question would be what are those ones done wrong? And the oba's are not done. If nine things were appointed on the same day and you sing it out about two or three of them for their appointment to be reversed and you leave the others. What have they done? If you are saying the decision of the former governor is not right then it is decided that it will affect the entire nine and not you singling out one and leaving the others. And also for that speaking to that issue. It is known that the executive area or executive order cannot suck an oba. What the position of an oba raised under the authority of the local government is only the local government authority that have the power to suck an oba or to detune an oba. If he is fan guilty of any offense whatsoever the other person or the other authority that has the power to suck an oba is the court of law. And that is why we have a lot of traditional institution cases as lasted 10 to 15 years over time between maybe the Incubant and maybe another family of the time as the case may be. So I think it's a must to executive as quality to just wake up and begin to dashboard us as much as some of those things are legal and in tune there are some other problems that are made that is not legal. And I just say it again that we must not sacrifice legality on the order of political correctness. All right. Let me get back to you Statunji Abdul Amid. These policies that he made most of which are some of which you pointed out to be legally viable. But then what would you say will you know what significance will these policies have you know to your own opinion? How do you think this will affect the success of you know a delicate time as governor of ocean state? Yeah, you see you cannot, we have to take them one after the other. If you're looking at the increasing of account like I said earlier on is this for him to be able to ensure that look that counts are in cash depending when you set it down. The issue of real estate or the name of the state yeah it may not have any economic value but it is to show that look he is working in line with law is of holding the tenant of the constitution on the obeying the court order because there is a court order which says it's not very fast. There is no basis for it to be done before because you must amend the constitution for that up. So if you talk about that then you can say it's so the issue of Parliament secretary and the Senate, I see it as a trap from the former governor like Mr. Ayose the governor up to one hour to his explanation of his tenant has the power to do whatever he wants to do to appoint or to even SAC or do whatever he wants to do. So appointing them is within his power he has the right to appoint them but the governor does not appoint up to that appoint, I'm not aware he appoints up to 12,000 people before within the seven years within the three years or three and a half almost four years in office waking up in a day to just appoint 12,000 people he just required to create a trap for the coming governor. Where would the money come from to pay the salary? Because you look at salary, let him assume one takes a minimum wage of 12,000 times 12,000 that would be billions of Naira. So monthly, where would the state get the money from? It doesn't care, you want to set a trap for the state to appoint incoming governor to face. You appoint a Parliament secretary when you have 24 hours to go yes you have the power to appoint you have the power to do that I see it as a kind of a bad in bad fit that for me, as far as I'm concerned was not in bad fit we have left it for the incoming governor to do that since you have 24 hours to go so as far as I'm concerned the implication that is at look the state may find it difficult to pay the salary of those people the state may find it difficult to implement its policy because those Parliament secretary appointed may not have the same interest with the coming governor. So because we want to look at people and take negative steps to ensure that people that work with him are people that are aligned with his personal ambition and interest that will develop the state. So as far as I'm concerned we know that some of them are legally correct that there are some more and the aspect of it that will have a bad implication for the state. Mr. Tunji, let me get your reaction now because we're actually rounding off now gentlemen let us look at it from the perspective of those who have been employed. It's been established a governor, a sitting governor has the power to make appointments even up to the last minute of his stay in office fine but look at the perspective of the persons who have been appointed or employed at this time and then with such short notice the appointment or employment is terminated. Do these people have the legal rights to sue or how do they go about it? Like you cannot just employ me and under three months you're giving me a second letter again. What is my position as a person who has been appointed or employed? If those people are properly appointed by the governor they went through the number process of the appointment. I think they have a right to go to court because like I said earlier on the governor is not within the power of the governor to start civil servants. The disciplinary action against civil servants should be taken by the civil service permission after certain places have been followed. So the price of start civil servants will have to go through the civil service and they must be given fair earning. It's not just you can't just wake up in the morning and say you are sad because you are appointed by social governor or this and that. So as far as I'm concerned they have a grant to go to court but unfortunately you know we're in Nigeria. They're going to court. We know, I'm sorry to say they are usually not that independent to be able to hold his grant and say look this is proper, this is not proper. Sometimes judge court also look at the economic consequences of it and then based on that say it's not to be difficult for the governor to implement and because of that we want to agree that it was done in bad faith. But legally speaking, legally speaking they have the right to say look they have been unjustly terminated. The appointment has been unjustly terminated or the price of terminated appointments is not followed due process of law. So they have the right to go to court to challenge it. And Mr. Ayo, let me get your reaction too. You are the spokesperson for transparency and accountability group. So I'm sure your group has dealt with issues like this as well. How do you react to from my question the perspective of those who've been employed or who has been given the appointment and with such short notice it's being terminated. What's your reaction to that? I think it is very important to first of all get the opportunity of the numbers that has been granted around. The news has carried it since yesterday that 12,000 workers are being asked to leave the civil service by the new governor. And the spokesperson of the media power governor has come out to challenge the new governor to say look we did not employ 12,000. So the question would be just like it is said in law that our leg is most proof. So if the governor is alleging that 12,000 people were just employed or legally employed into the civil service at the twilight of the administration of governor. So I think it is important that clarity should be sought in that line. There is a need for the government of governor the ability to come out and state exactly who the 12,000 are. Tell us their names, tell us the numerous police or as part of an agency to which they've been employed so that we can get clarity on the ferocity of the claim of 12,000. Number two, it is also very important that we should understand as a people that if those like the lawyers say it is if the process by which those individuals were employed was in the process was fully forward as laid down by the principles of the civil service it becomes illegal for the new governor to apply this statement because they have their rights as citizens of the states to be employed into the civil service they applied. We must not forget as some of these people were talking about and people that applied for teaching service job under the last administration they went through the process of screening the roadstays and what have you. So if they've gone through all this process and they are employed into the civil service at the legally proven then it becomes impossible for any governor to by via objective order send them from the civil service. What needs to be done is that what will be done is that these individuals will go to court to challenge their expulsion or they are sent from the civil service even before picking up the job and they are likely going to win because it's within the power of the needed past administration to employ. So if they were properly employed the new governor cannot really suck them without going through the laws and going through the process of the civil service and government civil service rule. All right, thank you very much gentlemen. Thank you so much for sharing your ideas and your perspectives with us this morning on the run up. We really appreciate your presence. Thank you so much for coming by. Thank you very much. All right, then it is still the run up. The news will come up at noon after the news, the run up will return and we will continue having interesting conversations. Do not go anywhere, stay with us.