GOVERNOR, EKITI STATE AND ORS. V. PRINCE SANMI OLUBUNMO AND (2016)

Background

This case centers on the dissolution of the Local Government Councils in Ekiti State by the Governor. The respondents, who were chairpersons of the councils, contested the legality of the dissolution, arguing it violated their constitutional right to serve their elected three-year term from December 20, 2008, to December 19, 2011. They claimed the Governor's actions undermined the electoral mandate granted to them by the Constitution of Nigeria.

Issues

The Supreme Court was tasked with determining two key issues:

1. Whether the provisions of section 23B(i) and (ii) of the Ekiti State Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law, 2001 are inconsistent with the Constitution.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to invoke its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to award consequential reliefs in favor of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

1. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law inconsistent with it is void.
2. The actions taken by the Governor were unconstitutional as they contradicted section 7(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the existence of democratically-elected Local Government Councils.
3. The Court of Appeal rightly invoked its powers to grant consequential reliefs, which included payments to the respondents for their remaining tenure.

Court Findings

The court found that:

1. The Governor's dissolution of the local councils was arbitrary and not supported by evidence of emergencies or public interest.
2. The legislative powers of the state must align with the Constitution, and any breach renders that legislation null.
3. By not addressing potential emergencies or public interest, the appellants failed to justify their actions legally.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment and ordering that the respondents be compensated for their unexpired term as local government chairpersons.

Significance

This case underscores the supremacy of the Constitution over state laws and the protection of democratic governance at the local level. It reiterates that elected officials can only be removed under strict conditions that uphold the rule of law and democratic principles.