Magodo: How Sanwo-Olu erred By Akinloye Oyeniyi

The tussle over Magodo land took another turn yesterday when Gov. Jide Sanwo-olu illegally albeit without success tried to vacate the police detachment dispatched by the Inspector-General of Police on advice of the Attorney-General of Federation to execute a judgement of the Supreme Court.

Though he claimed to be the Chief Security Officer of the State while issuing the order to the Chief Superintendent of Police who is the leader of the team, but unfortunately such is a non-existing power as the Commissioner of Police is the only constitutionally recognized Chief Security Officer of a State.

Section 215 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is very clear as to lines of command in Police and taking order directly from a governor is not one of them.

215 says

(1) There shall be –
(a) an Inspector-General of Police who, subject to section 216(2) of this Constitution shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Nigeria Police Force;

(b) a Commissioner of Police for each state of the Federation who shall be appointed by the Police Service Commission.

(2) The Nigeria Police Force shall be under the command of the Inspector-General of Police and contingents of the Nigeria Police Force stationed in a state shall, subject to the authority of the Inspector-General of Police, be under the command of the Commissioner of Police of that state.

(3) The President or such other Minister of the Government of the Federation as he may authorise in that behalf may give to the Inspector-General of Police such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary, and the Inspector-General of Police shall comply with those direction or cause them to be compiled with.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Governor of a state or such Commissioner of the Government state as he may authorise in that behalf, may give to the Commissioner of Police of that state such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state as he may consider necessary, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with:

Provided that before carrying out any such directions under the foregoing provisions of this subsection the Commissioner of Police may request that the matter be referred to the President or such minister of the Government of the Federation as may be authorised in that behalf by the President for his directions.

(5) The question whether any, and if so what, directions have been given under this section shall not be inquired into in any court.”

The Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office of Governor of a State in the Seventh Schedule which the governor took pursuant to Section 185 are also clear. The governor under the allegiance solemnly swore/affirmed that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Under the Oath of Office, he did also swore/affirmed same and also that he will discharge his duty faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution and law.

He also swore/affirmed to exercise the authority vested in him not to impede or prejudice the authority lawfully vested in the President and do right to all manner of people, according to law. Section 287.(1) saying the decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part if the Federation by all authorities and persons is also clear.

That of “authority” and “decision” are also clear under Section 318.(1). Now, can it be said that the CSP actually disobeyed order of the governor?

Other angles are:

Does the Attorney-General of Federation as an authority not have anything to do with execution of a decision of the Supreme Court?

Does the Inspector-General of Police as an authority have powers to enforce a decision of the Supreme Court?

Does a State governor as an authority have powers to disobey the Constitution and decision of the Supreme Court?

Can stalling the execution of decision of the Supreme Court for the benefits of the judgement creditors be said to be doing right to all manner of people according to law?

Is preventing the execution of decision of the Supreme Court not unconstitutional and impeding or prejudicing the authority lawfully vested in the Supreme Court and President?

(Akinloye Oyeniyi is a Legislative Expert and Public Affairs Commentator)