By Mike Ozekhome
In these trying times of our beleaguered Nation, the NASS should concentrate more on creatively making laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria. The recent amendment to the Electoral Act has caused too much needless national hoopla and ruckus. It ought not have been at the centre stage in a sane society. Is barring certain classes of persons from contesting elections simply because they are government appointees Nigeria’s bane at the moment? I think not.
Earlier, the NASS had, by its earlier proposed section 52(3) the amendment bill, sought to strip INEC of its control over elections and subject INEC to the control and supervision of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) on the critical but sore issue of electronic voting and transmission of results.
This fatal step was later reluctantly reversed after Nigerians rose against it. I had spilled buckets of ink and made several television appearances, advocating to get it extirpated, root and branch, from the amendment bill. The NASS had ignored the fact that under section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, INEC “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person”. They comfortably forgot that it is INEC and INEC alone that is responsible for organizing and supervising all elections to political offices; registering, monitoring of political parties; and conducting voter and civic education, including promotion of sound democratic processes. See also section 153 (f).
THE ALBATROS IN SECTION 84(12), (13) OF THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
The NASS while amending the Electoral Act inserted subsections 12 and 13 into section 84 which, unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally disenfranchised serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of political parties. The offensive section 84(12) had provided thus:
“No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.
Section 84 (13) drives this home, more pungently, thus:
“Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for the election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue”.
THE ALARMING OUSTER CLAUSE IN THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
I am surprised that all the critics of the Federal High Court judgement in Umuahia delivered by the Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike have not adverted their minds to the more worrisome provision in section 84 (15), which, after granting the Federal High Court jurisdiction in section 84 (14), to entertain cases from “an aspirant who complains that the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”, went on to oust the jurisdiction of all courts on matters concerning primaries, thus:
“Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pending the determination of a suit”.
Interpreted in another way, section 84(15) is saying:
“Courts, please, allow political parties to first do maximum damage during their primaries and general elections, and subsequently entertain emerging suits thereafter after the wrong candidates would have emerged and after resources, time and energy would have been wasted by individuals, political parties, INEC and the electorate to conduct sham elections”. I am worried by this obnoxious ouster clause.
I believe that the above subsections are totally unconstitutional. They are ultra vires the powers of the NASS. What the NASS intended to do by subsections 12 and 13 of section 84 is to amend the Constitution through the backdoor, without going through the tortuous process prescribed in section 9 thereof; which deals with the mode of altering the provisions of the Constitution.
PRESIDENT BUHARI’S EARLIER OBJECTION
President Muhammadu Buhari had initially kicked and refused to assent to the Electoral Bill as initially amended by the NASS, which contained the above sub section. To escape from the avalanche of criticisms that trailed his initial withholding of assent, Buhari later reluctantly signed the Bill into Law; but with a caveat vide a letter to the NASS, to consider amending section 84(12) subsequently. He believed that subsection 84(12) imported into the Constitution extraneous matters such as blanket restriction and disqualification of political appointees who ought to be accorded protection. His argument is that a public officer could resign his office, withdraw or retire from service 30 days before the date of election in accordance with section 66(1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution. I think his handlers should have simply done an Executive amendment bill to the NASS; not a mere letter. But, I agree with his serious reservations about section 84(12).
WHY SECTION 84(12) AND (13) ARE OFFENSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Sections 66 and 107 of the 1999 Constitution provide for circumstances under which certain public officers are qualified or disqualified from contesting for election.
QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Let us start with sections 65 (1) and (2) and 106 of the Constitution which deal with qualification for election, as a member of Senate and House of Representatives; and House of Assembly respectively. See also sections 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution.
These sections provide that such a person for Senate or House of Representatives or member House of Assembly of a state shall be qualified to contest election if he is a citizen of Nigeria and has attained the age of 35 years (30 years for a House of Representatives members; and 25 years for a House of Assembly member); is educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent; and he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party.
DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
By virtue of sections 66 (1) and 107 (1) respectively any of the above the Constitution, persons also is disqualified if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria; adjudged to be a lunatic or a person of unsound mind; is under a sentence of death, imposed on him by a court of competent jurisdiction; or a sentence of imprisonment or fine involving dishonesty or fraud. Such a person is also not qualified if he is an undischarged bankrupt; is a member of any secret society; or he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
The most critical subsection for our discussion here, is section 66(1) (f) which provides that if such a person is employed in the “Public service of the Federation” or “Public service of a state” and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment THIRTY DAYS before the date of election for a State, he shall be disqualified from contesting or being voted for.
Sections 107 (1), 147 (4) and 192(3) deal with offices of ministers of the Government of the Federation and Commissioners in a state, respectively. A minister or Commissioner shall be deemed to have “resigned” his membership of the National Assembly or a state House of Assembly upon taking the Oath of office as a minister or Commissioner.
THE EXTANT LAWS
It is therefore clear, per adventure, that aside the circumscribing and inhibiting factors restricting a public appointee from contesting offices as described above, section 84 (12) and 13 are unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever in so far as they import other extraneous disqualifying factors not provided for or envisaged by the Constitution. The NASS cannot import into the Constitution other additional disqualifying factors.
SECTION 84(12) & (13) ALSO CONTRAVENE SECTIONS 40 AND 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution grants every Nigerian the right to assemble and associate freely with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. See Motorcycle Transport Union of Nigeria & ors vs. Delta state Motorcyclist Assoc & ors (2010) LPELR 4503 (CA); Lafia LG vs. Executive Governor Nassarawa state & Ors (2012) LPELR 20602 (SC).
In addition to the above, section 42 accords every Nigerian the right to freedom from discrimination. See Okafor & ors vs Ntoka (2017) LPELR – 42794 (CA); NMCN vs Adesina (2016) LPELR – 40610 (CA) The question is, why will any Nigerian be prevented or barred from being “a voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or Congress of any political party for the nomination of candidates for any election” when the Constitution (the supreme law) has exhaustively outlined factors barring a person from contesting?
SECTIONS 84 AND 318 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED
Section 66(1) (8) only provides for “public service” of the federation or the “public service of a state”. Do political appointees such as ministers, commissioners and personal aids qualify to be protected by these sections. I believe so.
Some people have argued that it is only public servants envisaged in section 84 and as defined in section 318 of the Constitution that are covered by the 30 days resignation notice. Political Appointees who hold offices at the pleasure of their appointor are not public servants within the meaning and intendment of sections 84 and 318 of the Constitution, they pontificate.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal in ONI v. FAYEMI & ORS (2019) LPELR-46622(CA) held that:
“A Minister, being a mere political appointee, cannot be regarded as an employee in the Public Service of the Federation and is consequently not constitutionally caught by the 30 days resignation rule imposed on employees in the Public Service”.
See also the following apposite cases:
Wilson v. Ag, Bendel state & Ors. (1985) LPELR-3496 (SC); PPA v. PDP & ORS (2009) LPELR-4865(CA); Shitta-Bey v. AG Federation & Anor (1995) LPELR-3055 (SC); Abubakar v. The Executive Governor, Gombe state & Ors (2002) LPELR-1124 (CA); MILITARY GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE V. ADEWUNMI (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 280; Ojukwu v. Yar’ Adua (2008) 4NWLR (Pt. 1078/435; AG BENDEL STATE V. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646; ADAMU V. TAKORI (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt 540) 1387 (CA).
I earnestly believe the attention of these courts was NEVER specifically drawn to the definition of “Public Service of the Federation” and “Public Service of a State”. The definition of “Public Service” of the Federation means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes…….”. The definition of “Public Service of the State” means the service of the State “in any capacity in respect of the Government of the state and includes service as …..”.
Thus, in both cases, the clause “any capacity” is used for both the Federal and State governments. Can anyone plausably argue that ministers, commissioners and other appointees of Mr president or a Governor of a State who draw their salaries, allowances and other perquisites of office from the Federal or State treasury are not engaged in “any capacity” in “respect of the Government of the Federation and State Government”? The other offices lined up in this interpretation section of 318 are merely in addition to, as the section specifically states that the specie of public officers outlined therein is merely in addition to those employed in “any capacity” in both the Federal and state Governments. (To be continued next week)
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
“If you want to achieve something, you have to forget the boundaries that people create. No one knows your capabilities more than you” – (Anonymous).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (Henry Kissinger).