Hon. Michael Dapianlong & Ors v. Chief (Dr.) Joshua Chibi Dariye & Anor (2007)

Background & Parties

This landmark constitutional case addresses the limits of legislative power and the sanctity of the impeachment process under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The central conflict arose from the purported impeachment of the 1st Respondent, Chief (Dr.) Joshua Chibi Dariye, the then-Governor of Plateau State, by a faction of the State House of Assembly. The Appellants were Hon. Michael Dapianlong, who had become the new Speaker, and other members of the faction that carried out the impeachment. The case scrutinizes whether a legislative body, depleted by defections, retains the constitutional authority to perform its most severe function: the removal of a democratically elected governor.

Material Facts

• The Plateau State House of Assembly was originally composed of 24 members.
• In July 2006, 14 of these members, including the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD). By operation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, their seats became vacant, reducing the House to only 10 members.
• On October 5, 2006, a notice of allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Dariye was issued, signed by 8 of the remaining 10 members of the House.
• This faction of 8 members proceeded with the entire impeachment process, culminating in the purported removal of Governor Dariye from office on November 13, 2006.
• Governor Dariye challenged his removal at the Plateau State High Court. The matter eventually proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which nullified the impeachment and reinstated the Governor.
• The Appellants, dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal's decision, brought this final appeal to the Supreme Court.

Real Issue

The core legal problem was not merely about counting votes but about the fundamental character of a legislative house in a constitutional democracy. The real issue was whether the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority for impeachment refers to the full membership of the House as established by the Constitution (24 members), or if it could be dynamically interpreted to mean two-thirds of the existing members at any given time (10 members). This question pits the principle of legislative expediency against the high threshold designed to protect the executive from removal by a small minority.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the Court's jurisdiction to review the impeachment proceedings is ousted by Section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. Whether the impeachment of a State Governor by 8 members of a 24-member House of Assembly, where 14 seats were vacant, satisfies the procedural and numerical requirements of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court, in a leading judgment delivered by Onnoghen, JSC, first confronted the jurisdictional challenge posed by the ouster clause in Section 188(10). Relying on the precedent of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007), the Court established that the ouster clause is not absolute. It held that the jurisdiction of the courts is only ousted when the House of Assembly complies fully with the mandatory procedural steps laid out in Section 188(1)-(9). Where there is a failure to follow these steps, the process is a nullity, and the courts have a duty to intervene to prevent a violation of the Constitution.

The Court then turned to the substantive issue of the required majority. It held that the phrase "all the members of the House of Assembly" in Section 188(4) and (9) is an unambiguous reference to the total number of seats constitutionally prescribed for that House, which in this case was 24. The Court reasoned that the defection of 14 members did not reduce the constitutional composition of the House, it only created vacancies. To hold otherwise would create a perverse situation where a small fraction of a legislature could remove a governor, a result that would undermine the principles of democracy and separation of powers. The Court found that the required two-thirds majority was 16 members, and the 8 members who conducted the impeachment fell far short of this constitutional minimum.

Decision & Outcome

The Supreme Court found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed it. It affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had declared the impeachment proceedings null, void, and unconstitutional. Governor Joshua Chibi Dariye was ordered to be reinstated to his office with all rights and privileges.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding principle established is that the requirement of a two-thirds majority of "all the members of the House of Assembly" for the purpose of impeaching a Governor under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution refers to two-thirds of the full, constitutionally stipulated membership of the House (in this case, 24), not two-thirds of the members remaining after some have vacated their seats. Non-compliance with this numerical requirement renders the entire impeachment process a nullity and strips it of the protection of the ouster clause in Section 188(10).

Significance

This judgment is a cornerstone of Nigerian constitutional law, reinforcing the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law over political recklessness. It serves as a powerful judicial check on the legislature, preventing the impeachment process from being used as a political tool by a minority faction. The decision clarifies that legislative vacancies do not diminish the high constitutional threshold required for removing an elected executive, thereby safeguarding the stability of government and the mandate of the electorate. It firmly establishes that ouster clauses do not protect unconstitutional actions from judicial review.