HOW TAIGA ERRED IN PROCLAMATIONS OVER UPU UK AFFAIRS
HOW TAIGA ERRED IN PROCLAMATIONS OVER UPU UK AFFAIRS
OGHENETEJIRI NYERHOVWO
The national executive council, Board of Trustees(BOT) and members of Urhobo Progress Union(UPU), United Kingdom chapter have rejected in its entirety various recent proclamations by Olorogun Moses Taiga, President-General, Urhobo Progress Union(UPU) Worldwide at a meeting held recently in London.
In a statement made available to National Reformer by the Executive Council of UPU-UK Chapter signed by Olorogun Ted Ochuko Arayki and Deacon Darosha Saseri, National Secretary and Publicity Secretary said that Olorogun Taiga erred according to UPU-United Kingdom Chapter bye-laws by unilateral dissolution with immediate effect of the UPU- UK National Executive Council headed by Olorogun (Barrister) Emmanuel Okpako Ganiga contrary to Article 6(a) which states that all officers ‘shall hold office for three years and 6(d)(1) officer shall hold the office until a successor takes the oath of that office.’
UPU United Kingdom insisted that the unilateral suspension of its Bye-laws with immediate effect by Olorogun Taiga is contrary to the preamble section that states that “this Bye-law shall be the GROUNDNUM, the basic rule book, guiding the activities of the union in the United Kingdom. Any other guidelines or rules, however named of this union and any other associated with it, or incorporated by this union, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution shall be null and void. This Bye-law shall remain in force and shall not be repealed en-bloc, but shall be amended in accordance with the guidelines set out herein. By the suspension, the Bye law can longer remain in force which is also contrary to Article 31 of UPU UK Bye-laws.”
They further posited that the inauguration of a caretaker committee with immediate effect by OlorogunTaiga is contrary to Article 6(d) (1) and 9(A) (1) as stated ,adding, “there is no provision for a caretaker committee in the headquarters’constitution and a recent case is Chief Ofotoku vs Chief Omene, and therefore UPU UK Bye-laws do not also provide for a caretaker committee but rather a smooth transition of power. Furthermore, Article 32 of UPU UK Bye-laws states that ‘…The Urhobo Progressive Union UK shall not dissolve itself’.Thus, the Inauguration of Electoral committee with immediate effect to conduct UPU- UK General Elections is contrary to Article 5 (3) of UPU UK Bye-laws.”
They accused Olorogun Taiga of setting up an illegal Electoral Committee comprising of non UPU-UK members for the purpose of conducting an election for UPU -UK members which is contrary to Article 5(3) of the unions Bye-law which states that, “the National President in consultation with the National Executive Council and General House shall constitute an ad hoc Electoral Committee of 5 members with a chairman and secretary only for the conduct of the election at least four months before the expiration of tenure of officers of the union or three months before the date of the election”
They averred that instead of following due process as stipulated by their Bye-laws, Olorogun Taiga went on to provide a date for the said elections to take place, which according to them is contrary to the provisions of Article 32(2) of the Bye-laws that states, “an Election date shall be fixed at a general meeting of the union at least four months to the expiration of the tenure of officers of the union”.
UPU United Kingdom disclosed that the aforementioned actions of Olorogun Taiga are not permitted in his duties as President-General of Urhobo Progress Union (Wordwide) under Article 10(1-12) of the Headquarters’ constitution nor UPU UK Bye-laws and is therefore, ultra vires (acting outside his powers) and is illegal and consequently null/void and of no effect.
They posited that Urhobo Progress Union-United Kingdom chapter as a branch is a legally constituted body that is registered under the laws of the United Kingdom and as such, no one individual can unilaterally dissolve it by a decree, adding, “in this circumstance, we call on Olorogun Taiga to advise his illegal caretaker committee through Chief Phillips Emagbetere and the head of the Electoral committee, Chief Godwin Ogholo to refrain from acting on his proclamations.In the same vain, the committees headed by Chief Phillip Emagbetere and Chief Godwin Ogholo are advised from parading themselves as officials of UPU UK.”
They spoke further, “we believe the President General was misled by those who had hijacked his activities upon his arrival in United Kingdom from the UPU-UK branch for selfish interest. We also believe that if he had consulted with his legal team in his National Executive Council in Nigeria, he may have acted differently and in good faith.
UPU-UK is a properly constituted and registered body in the United Kingdom, and is therefore protected by the laws of the United Kingdom. We believe again that the PG was misinformed by a few individuals who have little or no background of the United Kingdom laws and equally failed to consult on same.”
While noting that the issue can still be properly managed without recourse to litigation, UPU, United Kingdom said that they hope that Olorogun Taiga may wish to review his proclamations and look for better alternative way to resolve the issue now that the true position has been made clear.
They added, “we hope this matter can still be properly managed without recourse to the court, therefore it is our sincere hope that from the foregoing, the PG may wish to review his proclamations and look for an alternative resolution mechanism such as full involvement of parties to the dispute themselves rather than an imposed caretaker and electoral committees.”
END
