Urhobo Historical Society
Vanguard (Lagos)

December 14, 2005

Report of Investigation Panel That Impeached Alamieyeseigha


Pursuant to the pro-visions of Section 188 (7) (b) of the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which states  thus:

“ A Panel appointed under this section, shall, within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of  Assembly”

We hereby present to you the FIRST PART of our proceedings and findings regarding the above:

At our first sitting on Tuesday, the 06th of December, 2005,   the provisions of Rule 2 (a) of the Bayelsa State House of  Assembly Impeachment Procedure Rules were invoked to enable The Panel sit in camera.

The said rule states as follows:

“The panel shall have and may exercise any of the following powers, that is to say:

a. Direct where and when the panel may sit and conduct its inquiry and shall have the power in its absolute discretion, to admit  or exclude the public or any member of the public or press from the venue of any sitting of the panel.”

An examination of the allegations levelled against Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, Executive Governor of Bayelsa State would  reveal that there are a total of ten Items. These can be conveniently categorised as:

(i) Those allegations, the facts supporting which are so self-evident, that they do not require any proof;

(ii) Those allegations, proof of which must require varying degrees of fact-finding.

An allegation under category (i) above, dispenses with the necessity for proof because, it goes without saying. In that  category, the facts are said to be “axiomatic”. The adjective “axiomatic” derives from the word ‘axiom’. Webster’s  Encyclopaedic Unabridged

Dictionary of the English Language 1989 defines “axiom” as:

i. a self evident truth
ii. a universally accepted principle or rule
iii. a proposition which is assumed without proof for the sake of studying consequences that flow from it.

What is required is an evaluation of the facts and their juxtaposition with the requirements of the law.

On the other hand, an allegation under category  (ii) above, intrinsically requires  exhaustive fact-finding that is bound to take a  lot of time, resources and effort. Visits shall have to be arranged to the Corporate Affairs Commission in Abuja, Land  Registries in Abuja and other parts of the Country. Witnesses will have to be summoned from all over the world; physical  inspection of assets allegedly purchased with diverted State funds, will be imperative. In that event, the time required could  well exceed the three months stipulated by the Constitution.

In the present circumstance, where, owing to non-availability of funds due to the freezing of bank accounts of the Bayelsa  State Judiciary, the Panel has had to independently arrange its own funds for its hotel accommodation and day-to-day  operations, a practical, down-to-earth approach is inevitable. Common sense therefore dictates that we commence with those  allegations in category (i), before addressing allegations in category (ii).

ALLEGATIONS IN CATEGORY (i), i.e. Allegations for which proof is unnecessary:


Contained in Additional ground to the notice of impeachment of his Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, JP, the  Executive Governor of Bayelsa State of Nigeria, pursuant to section 188 (2)  of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of  Nigeria, dated 18th November, 2005. (note that the additional ground itself is dated 22nd November, 2005).

“His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, while standing trial for money laundering offences in a court in London, the  United Kingdom, smuggled himself out of London and illegally returned to Yenagoa, Bayelsa State of Nigeria on the 21st day  of November, 2005, contrary to the conditions of Bail granted him by the court in London which had restricted him to  London, and thereby bringing the exalted office of the governor of Bayelsa State to disrepute, odium and ridicule.”

It must be observed that despite the clear and unequivocal words of the above allegation, His Excellency, Chief D.S.P.  Alamieyeseigha failed and or neglected to offer any facts or averment in rebuttal thereof in his Statement Made in Reply to The  Purported Notice of Impeachment. The practical effect of this is that the said allegation remains untraversed, and therefore  stands admitted. In simple terms, the allegation of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly is to the effect that the Governor  jumped bail. In his defence, the Governor was silent on the issue. It is trite law and logic that facts admitted need not be  proved; and averment unchallenged, is gospel truth.

Consequences of the Failure to Abide by the Conditions of the Bail Scotland Yard could issue a warrant of arrest against  Chief Alamieyeseigha and further embarrass the people of Bayelsa.

Chief Alamieyeseigha has become a fugitive liable to be arrested whenever he returns to the United Kingdom, or any where  else in the civilised world.

By his ignominious con  duct Bayelsans and indeed all Nigerians have been scandalised, embarrassed and depicted as people whose word  cannot be relied upon.

Chief Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and besmirched the reputation of Nigerians living in or visiting The United  Kingdom.

Chief Alamieyeseigha has jeopardised the safety and free movement of the present-day Governor of Bayelsa  State or his successor in office.

Chief Alamieyeseigha has severely hindered the capacity of the Governor of Bayelsa State to transact international  business whether now or in the future, as he can no longer travel overseas.

  Chief Alamieyeseigha has dealt a severe blow to the Ijaw Nation of which Bayelsa is part, who traditionally take  great pride in the meaning of their name – Ijaw ---- truth, which name has now been bastardised owing to the profligacy of  Chief Alamieyeseigha.

It is instructive to note that in the Oath of Allegiance he swore to in accordance with the provisions of the Seventh Schedule of  the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Cap C23 to at his swearing ceremony in May 2003 he swore to  “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

This is further reaffirmed by his swearing to the Oath of Office of Governor pursuant to the same Seventh Schedule, as  follows: “will strive to preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the  Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria…. and that I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official  conduct or my official decisions.”

In view of the foregoing, the issue that has arisen for consideration is whether the acts of the Governor do not amount to a  failure on his part to keep to the Oath he swore to at his swearing-in ceremony in May 2003. To resolve this issue, recourse  has to be made to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 13, which deals with the  Fundamental Obligations of the Government, provides that it shall be the:

“duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or  judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this Chapter (that is, Chapter II dealing with the  Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) of  this Constitution”

Under the Foreign Policy Objectives provided in Section 19 (d) Chief Alamieyeseigha is enjoined to have respect for  international law. It is settled in international law that a foreign state can exercise criminal jurisdiction over someone who is not  her citizen if the alleged crime was committed within her jurisdiction. By jumping bail Chief Alamieyeseigha is in breach of his  oath to respect international law.   He has by this, committed an act that amounts to gross misconduct in line with the definition  of the term “gross misconduct” as given in Section 188 of the Constitution which defines ‘’gross misconduct’’ as a grave  violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House  of Assembly to gross misconduct.

An act is said to be misconduct if it falls below the standard of behaviour expected of a person and in this particular instance a  Governor. The failure of Chief Alamieyeseigha to abide by the conditions of bail amounts to gross misconduct apart from  being a grave violation of the Constitution. This is anchored on the fact such conduct falls below the standard of behaviour  expected of a Governor.

Also worthy of note is the fact that in the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant bail, provision was made for sureties.  These sureties are eminent persons within the jurisdiction of the court who would vouch for the character and integrity of the  recipient of the Court’s discretion to grant bail. In Chief Alamiyeseigha’s case, three prominent and distinguished persons held  him out to be a man of honour, a man who would stand his trial, a responsible and trustworthy person. They were willing to  place, and did place, their reputation and property on the line to prove this point. However, by debasing himself to the extent  of jumping bail, he has held himself out to be a man without integrity, without morals and no sense of decency. This indeed  constitutes a misconduct which renders him unfit to govern a state. His conduct is infradig, and most unbecoming of a person  adorning the exalted title of “His Excellency”.

By virtue of the aforesaid, this investigative panel is of the considered opinion AND HEREBY GIVES THE VERDICT that  the above act of the Governor is tantamount to “gross misconduct” and therefore renders him liable to the provisions of  Section 188  of  The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.


“Failing, refusing and/or neglecting to formally notify the Government of Bayelsa State, particularly The Bayelsa State House  of Assembly of his arrest, detention, and arraignment and trial in court in London for the offence of money laundering but  instead deceptively wrote (sic) to the Bayelsa State House of Assembly a letter, obviously backdated to the first day of   September, 2005 requesting to be away for 120 days to enable him recuperate from a surgery he underwent in Germany, thus  deliberately and mischievously attempting to keep away from the government and people of Bayelsa State, the fact of his  arrest, detention and trial in London of money laundering charges, a fact that is now house-hold knowledge all over the  world.”

Upon exhaustive examination of the above allegation, the following incontrovertible deductions were arrived at by our Panel:

(i) That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha failed, refused and or neglected to notify the Bayelsa State  House of Assembly of his arrest, detention, and arraignment and trial in court in London for the offence of money laundering in  contravention of Section 190 of the 1999 Constitution.

(ii) That  His Excellency, Chief  D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha wilfully and deliberately engaged in suppression of material  facts when he failed, refused and or neglected to notify the Bayelsa State House of Assembly  of  his arrest, detention, and  arraignment and trial in court in London for the offence of money laundering.
(iii)  That His Excellency, Chief D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha sought to deceive the Bayelsa State House of Assembly and the entire  people of Bayelsa, by virtue of the spurious letter addressed to the Speaker, Bayelsa State House of Assembly ostensibly  dated 01st September, 2005, but in actual fact made in reaction to an event which occurred on 15th day of September, 2005,  namely his arrest and detention with the prospect of long stay in the United Kingdom.

(iv) That the deceit referred to in (iii) above, is borne out by the fact that close associates cum advisers of the  Governor were caused to issue a statement immediately after news of his arrest and detention to the effect that the governor  was having “extended bed rest” in London, following surgery in Germany.

(v) That flowing from the foregoing is the fact that His Excellency, Chief  D.S.P. Alamieyeseigha, must have written  that letter AFTER, NOT BEFORE his arrest, but wilfully and deliberately dated it to create the impression that it was written  before — a fact which by itself, is indicative of  a fraudulent propensity.

By virtue of (i) to (v) above, this investigative panel is of the considered opinion that the above acts of the Governor are  incompatible with his dignified status as “HIS EXCELLENCY”, tantamount to “gross misconduct”. The Investigative Panel  therefore HEREBY GIVES THE VERDICT that the above act of the Governor renders him liable to the provisions of  Section  188  of  The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Mr. Speaker sir, having thus submitted this FIRST PART of our report, we shall now proceed with deliberations on the other allegations.

Barrister David Serena-Dokubo Spiff

Lady (Mrs.) Mercy Alagoa
Barr. Collins Boleigha
Wing Commander Gladys Brisibe (Rtd)
Dr. (Mrs.) Bolere Ketebu-Nwokafor
Col. Rufus Apulu (Rtd)
Mr. Benson Agadaga