By Obi Nwakanma

Language is a bitch: when it wants it can turn, and twist, and yield contingent meaning often beyond what it sometimes intends. Take the Yoruba name “Aregbesola”: it could be unpacked into three distinct words Are/ Egbe/Sola – normal short forms that carry the propriety of Yoruba onomastics.

It could also choose to take it all from the middle, and come up with something like “Gbese” as in the Yoruba pejorative, “Oni gbese!”

If you watched the famous ‘70s and ‘80s long running TV series, Masquerade, out of NTV Chanel 6, Aba, you’d have been familiar with a character called “Jegede” – a charming rogue played by the now late Claudius Eke, and his termagant wives, first, Apena, played by the now equally late Christie Essien who went on to pop stardom, and later Ramota played by Vero Njoku, who in heated moments of frustration with her husband, would call him, “oni gbese!” “Ala k’ori!” – such words.

Profiteering is “gbese.” Any governor who does not authorize the payment of the salaries of state workers for upwards of even one month of arear is “oni gbese” – they are profiteers from the adversity of workers vulnerable to their power. “Gbese” is the free use of trickery, and sharping, in taking advantage of another.

In effect, Justice Olamide Folahanmi Oloyede, of the Osun courts, in pure Yoruba terms has described Governor Rauf Aregbeseola – Gbese for short in this regard – as “oni gbese” who should be investigated for the mismanagement of the resources of Osun state in accordance with section 128 and 129 of the 1999 Federal Constitution.

Justice Oloyede submitted her petition to the Osun state House of Assembly to investigate the governor of Osun State on his inability to pay state workers, and about the general financial management of the state under his watch; and to impeach him appropriately following investigation.

The 30-page petition also urged the EFCC to join in the investigation of the governor. On the possible evidence or grounds for investigations, Judge Oloyede submitted in her petition, “I declare that in addition to the media-hype of Osun’s parlous financial condition, I have firsthand experience.”

This is powerful.The petition pointed the argument made by the governor that salaries cannot be paid from statutory allocations as faulty, and demanded that the House compel the governor to show contrary legal evidence or face impeachment for his incompetence.

The judge’s petition also claims that all funds allocations and expenditures are backed by legislation, and therefore therehas to be, in that regard, clear evidence of misappropriation of funds already approbated to cover state payroll. Inability to pay pensions, salaries and allowances for upwards of 8-11 months while still enjoying the security allowances of his office is a violation of the governor’s oath of office.

The judge submitted her petition on two very important grounds, as citizen and as judge,neither of which can be divorced from the other, and this is the part that has raised a lot of questions.

The Clerk of the Osun House of Assembly on receipt of the petition promptly passed it to the Speaker of the House, the honorable Najeem Salaam who quickly constituted a panel to ascertain the grounds of the judge’s order or petition, under the chairmanship of the honorable Adegboye Akintunde, representing Oshogbo constituency. What is not clear to me yet is the nature of this House panel: was it an established or standing committee of the house, or was it an extraordinary panel set up primarily for determining the grounds of the petition?

In my mind, I think that the speaker, Mr. Salaam, took the appropriate step in entertaining Judge Oloyede’s petition. But I think that establishing an extraordinary panel to examine the nature of that petition was the wrong move. Oloyede’s petition should have been read in the House, and fully debated; and the Osun State House of Assembly, to whom this petition was directed should have, as a body, mandated the House Judiciary committee to explore the grounds of the Judge’s petition from the bench, and determine its warrants or dismiss it. I think the panel had a very narrow view of the implications of the Judge’s petition, and bungled it.

The panel reportedly invited Justice Oloyede to submit evidence before it. The judge was right in demonstrating judicial sovereignty and in delegating her lawyers to represent her, in her personal capacity, and to pledge that she would appear before the house panel in her personal capacity to present evidence only on the grounds that she is presented an official refutal by the governor. Her claims do not seem outlandish.

The claims that governor Aregbesola has (a) not paid public sector salaries, pensions and allowance while he and his deputy, Mrs Tomori continue to draw from their own security allowances; (b) that the governor contravened financial laws which make him potentially impeachable given that the funds for workers salaries have already been budgeted and passed by legislation and therefore the governor owes the pubic some explanation with regards to issues of appropriation and misappropriation.

The panel dismissed the Judge’s petition on the grounds that it “lacked evidence!” But on what grounds? Because she did not appear personally before the panel. Nigerians must here bear in mind, that Judge Oloyede’s petition speaks to a far more general question about the roles and effectiveness of the various arms of government, and the principle of the separation of powers.

Can a judge petition another arm of government to do its job? I think the answer is yes. Justice Oloyede is correct in issuing a bench petition. But Dr. Itse Sagay, a Senior Advocate, former Professor and Dean of Law at the University of Benin, and Mrs Folake Solanke, also a Senior Advocate, both with distinguished careers in Law, have discountenanced Judge Oloyede’s move as a “reckless descent” from the bench; an“embarrassing and gross ignorance” of her judicial role, and as a result she has compromised the “dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.”

These are tough words, and they seek her sanction by the National Judicial Council. I think the two distinguished lawyers are fundamentally wrong, in their extremely conservative positions, and their literalist, romanticized reading of a judge’s role in law. Judge Olamide Oloyede is correct in issuing a bench petition to the House of Assembly as both a judge and a citizen.

She has called only for the investigation of the governor, and it is within her rights to make such a move, for as long as she does not, when it comes to the judicial panel that would ratify impeachment, should it come to that, exert undue influence. She must recuse herself to foreclose any conflict of interest. As for asking the House to commence investigations that might lead to impeachment, Judge Oloyede has shown what we must all recognize as judicial initiative, stemming from her constitutional role, principally as protector of the rights – both economic and political rights – of the citizen.

Her action cannot be considered unseemly interference, in so far as she did not compromise the process – only that she, bearing the burden of judicial advocacy, seeks to right a possible wrong. That is the sum of her oath as a judge. Those who are currently calling for sanctions against her for her bold action are the real problems affecting the development of the Nigerian judicial system which requires its judges to be statues of the law, rather than sentient beings, acting like the true Magisters of the law. Judge Oloyede’s petition basically sought to compel members of the Osun House to follow section 188 of the constitution – and make Ogbeni Rauf stop dancing “Skelewu” with the resources of Osun State and the rights of her suffering, unpaid workers. She is to be commended and not sanctioned.