PLATEAU STATE GOVERNMENT CLEARS AIR ON MISGIVINGS ABOUT PYEM CHIEFDOMS.
By Moses Gbande
The Plateau State Commissioner for Information and Communication in Plateau State,
Comrade DAN MANJANG has reacted on misgivings being padled by several Media Organizations, (NASARAWA Reporters, Not Inclusive), where they claime that the Governor of Plateau State, His Excellency Governor Simon Bako Lalong, allegedly on the basis of some undisclosed sentiments, is in defiance of the Judgment and Order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria mandating him to install Architect Hudu Ibrahim Manomi as the rightful Sum Pyem to the throne of the Pyem Chiefdom.
Dan Manjang in a statement said, “This unfounded allegation is attributed to one Auwalu Haruna Magaji, said to be the Leader of some Concerned members of the Gindiri Community.
“We make bold to say that nothing could be farther from the Truth. Governor Lalong’s antecedents clearly vindicate him as a Man of Peace, a true Believer and Advocate of the Rule of Law and a Bridge-builder par- excellence.
“The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in question delivered on 1st February, 2019, in Appeal No: SC/883/2015 in ARCHITECT HUDU IBRAHIM MANOMI & ANOR AND JOSEPH D. MATO DAKAT & 3 ORS. merely restored the Declaratory Judgment of the High Court of Plateau State of 13th day of April, 2006, CORAM JUSTICE J.H. SANKEY (as he then was). It was not an executory Judgment on the basis of which the Governor of Plateau State, or anyone else for that matter, was mandated to do anything in respect of the Stool of Sum Pyem.
“THE FACTS
1.1 Following the demise of the then Sum Pyem, Mamman Gargadi, in October, 2003, a selection exercise to fill the vacancy was conducted on 17th May, 2004 in which Arc. Hudu Ibrahim Manomi (1st Appellant) was declared selected as the new Sum Pyem.
1.2 Two of the contestants, Joseph Mato Dakat and J.C.K. Mallum (1st and 2nd Respondents) as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the outcome, by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, commenced Suit No. PLD/J285/04 before the High Court of Justice Plateau State sitting in Jos, against the said Arc. Hudu and 14 Others as Defendants, in which they claimed a number of declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
1.3 As a result of the commencement of the Suit, other statutory steps required to take the selection process, beyond the declaration of the result of the Selection exercise could not proceed to conclusion, to wit: the requirement of Paragraph 9 of the “APPOINTMENT AND DEPOSITION OF CHIEFS (APPOINTMENT OF SUM PYEM) ORDER 1992, GAZETTE NO. 4 VOL. 17 OF APRIL, 1992 (as Amended). The said Paragraph provides thus:
“9. The Presiding Officer shall communicate the result of the selection in writing to the Governor for his approval after due consultation with the Council of Chiefs.”
1.4 The High Court of Plateau State dismissed the Case of the Plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial High Court, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal Jos. The Appeal succeeded with the Court of Appeal in a Judgment delivered, on 26th January 2012, nullifying the Selection exercise of 17th May, 2004 and ordering the conduct of a fresh Selection exercise.
1.5 The Plateau State Government in compliance with the Order of the Court of Appeal, on 26th November 2013, conducted a fresh selection exercise in respect of the Stool. The exercise resulted in the selection of a new entrant into the race who was not part of the previous exercise or the Case in Court, in the person of the present occupant of the Stool, His Royal Highness Charles Mato Dakat.
1.6 After duly complying with all the requirements of the provisions of the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs (Appointment of Sum Pyem) Order, Gazette No. 4 of 23rd of April, 1992 Vol. 17 (as Amended), the then Governor of Plateau State, David Jonah Jang on 26th November, 2013 issued His Royal Highness Charles Mato Dakat the instrument of Office of Sum Pyem, thereby conferring on him the authority to function in that behalf with effect from 26th November, 2013, with the formal Staff of Office given to him as the Sum Pyem of Pyem Chiefdom, at a Public function held at Gindiri on 1st August, 2014. There was no pending Suit or any restraining order of Court against the conduct of the exercise.
1.7 It is noteworthy that Arc. Hudu Ibrahim Manomi did not at anytime either before or after the Contest deem it fit to challenge this evidently Official acts of the then Governor of Plateau State, from the issuance of the Instrument of Office on 26th November, 2013 to the Installation and issuance of Staff of Office on 1st August, 2014!
1.8 Architect Manomi’s Notice of Appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 2nd March, 2016 was only filed on 4th March, 2016, upon the grant of Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court, on 23rd February, 2016.
1.9 Before the Supreme Court, Arc. Hudu sought for about 4 reliefs which were, in Summary:
- An Order setting aside the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.
- An Order restoring the Judgment of the High Court which upheld his selection as Sum Pyem.
- An Order declaring the fresh selection of 26th November, 2013 as null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever.
- Consequential order for his installation and payment of all benefits with effect from 17th May, 2004.
1.10 Although the Supreme Court entered Judgment for the Appellants, setting aside the Judgment of the Court of Appeal and in its place restoring the Judgment of the High Court dated 13th April, 2006, the Court made no pronouncement on the Appellants’ reliefs 3 and 4 which sought the nullification of the selection of the new Sum Pyem held on 26th November, 2013. The Court was also silent on the consequential Order sought, to direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents (Mangu Local Government Council and Plateau State Government respectively) to install the 1st Appellant as Sum Pyem with the payment of all accrued benefits and entitlements from 2004 till date.
1.11 The Leading Judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Amiru Sanusi, J.S.C., the operative part of whose Judgment was as follows:
“The instant appeal therefore succeeds and is accordingly allowed by me. The judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside and in its stead, the judgment of the Trial Court delivered on 12th April, 2006 is hereby restored. I make no order as to costs, so each Party should bear his/its respective costs.”
1.12 The silence of the Supreme Court on Architect Hudu’s Reliefs 3 and 4 did not come as a surprise because those Reliefs were aimed at affecting the rights of a person who was not a Party to the Suit at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In addition the Appellants sought no Leave of the Supreme Court to raise and argue those fresh issues which were not canvassed at either the Trial Court or the Court of Appeal.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT RESTORED BY THE SUPREME COURT
1.13 The operative part of the Judgment of the High Court of Plateau State restored by the Supreme Court reads thus:
“I enter judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants for totally lacking in merit. I uphold the election of the 1st defendant as the duly elected Sum Pyem of Pyem Chiefdom. In addition, it is hereby DECLARED that the selection of an eligible candidate to the throne of the Sum Pyem can only be in accordance with Legal Notice No. 1 of 1992 contained in the Plateau State Gazette dealing with the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs (Appointment of Sum Pyem) Order, 1992 and dated 23rd April, 1992 (as amended).
… … …”
1.14 It is evidently incontestable that the above quoted Judgment of the High Court contains no Order nullifying the selection of the current Sum Pyem conducted on 26th November 2013; it also contains no Order directing the Mangu Local Government and the Government of Plateau State or any of its Agencies to install the 1st Appellant Arc. Hudu Ibrahim Manomi as Sum Pyem with payment of any benefits and entitlements. The High Court could not have made such Orders because Architect Hudu Manomi had no Counter-Claim before the Court on the basis of which mandatory Orders could have been made in his favour.
1.15 The Trial Court made only declaratory Orders, to the effect that Arc. Hudu was eligible to contest for the stool and was duly selected in the exercise conducted on 17th May, 2004. The position of our Law is crystal clear that Declaratory Orders are unenforceable reliefs. See:
(1) AKUNNIA V. A.G -ANAMBRA (1977) NSCC 256 at 262- per IDIGBE JSC:-
“The end result of an action, whatever its nature and no matter how framed, is that the party who approaches the Court obtains the order he seeks, the order he seeks may be declaratory or executory. It is executory where the order declares the rights of the party before the Court and then proceeds to enjoin the defendant to act in a certain way. It is declaratory where it merely proclaims the existence of a legal relationship, but contains no specific order to be carried out by or enforced against the defendant.”
(2) CARRENA V. AKINLASE (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 262 SC at 278-279, Paras F – E.
1.16 Those who want Governor Lalong to remove the incumbent and in his place, install Architect Hudu without due process of the Law have conveniently forgotten that ours is a society governed by the Rule of Law.
1.17 In the Selection and Installation of His Royal Highness Charles Mato Dakat as Sum Pyem, the acts of Selection and Installation were Official acts, carried out pursuant to Gazette No. 4 of 23rd April 1992, which acts enjoy a presumption of regularity under Section 168 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. The Section provides thus:
“168 (1) when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.
(2) when it is shown that any person acted in a public capacity it is presumed that he had been duly appointed and was entitled so to act.”
See UDEH V. STATE [1999] NWLR (PT. 609) 7 NWLR (PT. 609) 1 @ 23 Paras. B – D, Per Iguh, J.S.C:
“The arraignment of the appellant was both a judicial and an official act and having been executed in a manner which was substantially regular, the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium upon which it is presumed that Judicial and Official acts have been done rightly and regularly until the contrary is proved becomes fully applicable.”
1.18 It should be obvious from the foregoing that the Governor of Plateau State, without a mandatory Order of a competent Court of Law, lacks the power to remove the incumbent Sum Pyem, a beneficiary of the exercise of Official acts by the then Governor of Plateau State, which acts the Law presumes to be regular until the contrary is proved. Therefore, for now, the occupation of the Stool of Sum Pyem by His Royal Highness Charles Mato Dakat is presumed to be regular in Law until the contrary is proved.
1.19 Consequently, Architect Hudu Manomi is advised to seek judicial determination of the real Status of the Judgment of the Supreme Court being relied upon by him in his demand for installation as Sum Pyem of Pyem Chiefdom.
1.20 In the meantime, the Plateau State Government appeals to all Citizens to continue to be Law abiding and to continue to maintain the hard-earned relative Peace in the State. Plateau State Citizens should also rest assured that his Excellency Governor Simon Bako Lalong will continue to be Governor to all Citizens of the State in Fact and in Deed, irrespective of Tribe or Creed”.
LONG LIVE PLATEAU STATE!
LONG LIVE THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA!
DAN MANJANG
HON. COMMISSIONER FOR INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
October 23, 2019
Nasarawa Reporters 