Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: The NASS Cannot Amend the Constitution Through the Back Door (Pt. 2)

Published

on

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

SECTIONS 84 AND 318 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED (Continues)

Last week, we commenced our analysis of sections 84(12) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution. Today, we x-ray these sections further to demonstrate that the sections have been so gravely misinterpreted that the NASS could frontally assail the sanctity of the Constitution by enacting section 84(12) of the amended Electoral Act.

More significantly, we must look at the definition of “public officer” in part 1 of the 5th schedule of the Constitution. There, a “public officer” is defined as “a person holding any of the offices specified in part II of this schedule. The person holding the said offices specifically include, amongst others, the President; Vice President; Senate President and his Vice; Speaker of the House of Representatives; Governor; Deputy Governor; CJN; Justices of the Supreme Court; Appeal Court; Attorney General of the Federation and of States; Ministers and Commissioners; SGF; Ambassadors; Chairman; Members and Staff of CCB/CCT; of LGCs; Statutory corporations and companies in which the federal or state Governments or LGCs have controlling interest.”

This category of persons therefore fall within the scope of “public officers” and “public servants”. I humbly submit therefore that political appointees fall within the scope of public servants, such as to enjoy whatever favours are granted to persons within the public service of the Federation or of the State. “Service” is defined by by the Cambridge Dictionary as “as helping or doing work for someone”; “or providing a particular thing that people need”.

The word “includes” as defined Meridian Webster Dictionary, means “to take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group”. It becomes clear therefore that section 318 did not exhaustively list all those envisaged as “public servants”. Those listed merely comprise of “a part of a whole or group”, and nothing more. Can anyone seriously argue that ministers, Commissioners and such persons who are in the “service” of the Federation and States in different capacities are therefore political appointees not then in the public service of such governments? I humbly submit that the cases of DADA V ADEYEYE (2005) 3 NWLR (920) 1; ONI V FAYEMI (supra);  WILSON V AG FEDERATION (supra); AG BENDEL STATE  v AIDEYAN (supra); ADAMU V TAKORI (supra); have been grossly misapplied and misinterpreted exponents of the now struck down section 84(12).

In any event, why should the NASS be involved in legislating for political parties as to who should be their contestants or voting delegates, thus restricting their constitutionally guaranteed rights?  In deepening the plenitude and amplitude of democracy, are the political parties not entitled to be accorded the freedom and latitude to regulate their own activities? I think they are.

Why then should the NASS make a law discriminating against political appointees when they themselves are free to contest, vote and be voted for as delegates at the same congress and conventions? How fair is that, on both moral and legal grounds, aside its unconstitutionality as I have strenuously pointed out above?

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOTING AT GENERAL ELECTIONS AND VOTING AT POLITICAL PARTY CONGRESSES OR CONVENTIONS

I have heard the argument that the eligibility to vote or be voted for only affects general elections, and not elections at party congresses or conventions. I humbly disagree. Voting is voting; and election is election, whether at a general election, or at an election to elect candidates of political parties at party conventions or congresses. Both have to do with exercising one’s right to make a choice as between two or more candidates at an election through the ballot, or a show of hands. This is clear from the provisions of sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended). As in any general election, election by a political party at its congress or convention is invalid without the involvement of INEC. “Every registered political party shall give INEC 21 days notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of ‘merger’ and electing members of its executive committee, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified in this Act” (section 82(1)). See also sections 82 (2) and 82 (4).

The clincher is found in sections 82 (5), which provides that “failure of a political party to notify the Commission as stated in subsection 1 shall render the convention, congress, conference or meeting invalid”.

The non-observance of this critical provision was part of the reasons both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court declared the votes cast at the 2015 APC primaries in Zamfara state “wasted votes”. I personally handled both cases against the APC. The Supreme Court agreed with my invocation of the doctrine of “consequential relief”, which I had commended to it, and ordered that the CANDIDATE of the political party (NOT the POLITICAL PARTY) that had the next highest number of votes and constitutional spread in the local Government Areas of Zamfara State should produce the next Governor. That was how Dr Bello Mohammed Matawalle became Governor of Zamfara State under the platform of the PDP. See APC & ANOR VS. KABIRU MARAFA & 170 ORS (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt 1721) 383; APC & ORS VS KARFI & 2 ORS (2017) LPELR – 47024 (SC).

This point becomes clearer when one reads section 84 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2020, as amended. It prohibits a political party from imposing nomination qualification or disqualification criteria, measures, or conditions on any aspirant or candidate for any election in its Constitution, guidelines, or rules for nomination of candidates for elections, except as prescribed under section 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177 and 187 of the Constitution. Why will the same NASS audaciously ignore section 84 (3) and make section 84 (12) and (13) in the same Act to bar certain persons from contesting in those same elections which it had warned political parties not to go into, when the Constitution itself has not specifically provided for such? Respectfully, the provision of section 84(12) is not only strange, but bizarre.

We must bring in here the rule of statutory interpretation, to the effect that the provisions of the Constitution are to be read as a whole; and not in parts. Can such critics argue that the same Constitution will take away with the left hand in sections 84 (12) and 318 what it has itself donated in sections 40, 42, 65 (1) and (2), 66 (1), 106, 107 (1), 137 (1) (g), 147 (4), 182 and192 (3), thereof? Can it be argued that the same section 84 which in it sub-section (3) forbade political parties from imposing nomination qualifications or disqualifications criteria, or impose conditions on aspirants or candidates for any election, will turn around in subsections 12 and 13 to outrightly ban such candidates from voting or being voted for, simply because they are political appointees? I think not. See the cases of Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC-130; Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015) LPELR-24588 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the need to read provisions of the Constitution together as a whole and not in parts.

Some people have cited in aid of their arguments the provisions of section 228(a) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that:

“The NASS may by law provide guidelines and rules to ensure INTERNAL DEMOCRACY within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions”.

This section actually encourages INTERNAL DEMOCRACY within political parties, which is designed to open up the political space and give every member a feeling of belonging. It was never designed or intended to restrict such members from voting and being voted for. The section actually frontally defeats section 84 (12) and (13) of the Electoral Act, 2022, as amended, and renders them unconstitutional, null and void.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN UMUAHIA

It is with the solid background of the law and constitutionalism espoused above that I totally agree with the judgment recently delivered by Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court, Umuahia Division. She scored the bull’s eye in striking down the offensive subsection 12 of section 84 of the new Electoral Act in Suit No. UM/CS/26/2022: CHIEF NDUKA EDEDE V AG FEDERATION.

Most critics have never even cared to read the full order made by Justice Anyadike, so as to understand its true import and purport. She did not just restrict her order to only political appointees as is erroneously widely believed. She actually extended it to “any political appointee, political or public office holder”, as envisaged (according to these critics) in sections 84 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution. She actually aligned her order with these sections with the intention to deepen, widen and liberalize the political space. She thus held as follows:

“1. I Declare that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, cannot validly and constitutionally limit, remove, abrogate, disenfranchise, disqualify, and oust the constitutional right or eligibility of any political appointee, political or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any Convention or Congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office, at least 30 days before the date of the election”.

2. I Declare that the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which limits, removes, abrogates, disenfranchises, disqualifies, and ousts the constitutional right and eligibility of any political appointee, political or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any Convention or Congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office, at least 30 days before the date of the election, is grossly ultra vires and inconsistent with Sections 6(6)(a) & (b), 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. I hereby nullify and set aside Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, for being unconstitutional, invalid, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
4. I hereby order the Defendant (The Attorney General of the Federation) to delete the provisions of Section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, 2022, with immediate effect.”

I respectfully agree with this judgment which remains valid until set aside by a higher appellate court. See the cases of AGBON-OJEME V. SALO-OJEME (2020) LPELR 49688(CA); NKWOKEDI & ORS V. OKUGO & ORS (2002) LPELR-2123(SC); EKPE V. EKURE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-24674(CA); UNITY BANK V. ONUMINYA (2019) LPELR-47507(CA). We shall continue our discourse next week, by God’s grace.

FUN TIMES

“Four men are in the hospital waiting room because their wives are having babies. A nurse approaches the first guy and says, “Congratulations! You’re the father of twins.” “That’s odd,” answers the man. “I work for the Minnesota Twins!” A nurse then yells the second man, “Congratulations! You’re the father of triplets!” “That’s weird,” answers the second man. “I work for the 3M company!” A nurse goes up to the third man saying, “Congratulations! You’re the father of quadruplets.” “That’s strange,” he answers. “I work for the Four Seasons hotel!” The last man begins groaning and banging his head against the wall. “What’s wrong?” the others ask. “I work for 7 Up!”-Anonymous.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (Henry Kissinger).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Masquerade of Excellence: Celebrating Prof Mike Ozekhome’s Remarkable Journey @ 67

Published

on

By

By CDS Omon-Irabor Esq

Chief Prof. Dr. Mike A.A. Ozekhome SAN,
the only masquerade that dances in the farm without cutting a single reed of the yam tendrils.

The Gadfly is climbing the 67th rung on the ladder. From the hills of Agenebode down to the plains of the Iviukwe, the celestials, the principalities and the gods of Weppa and Wano Kingdoms are celebrating this colossus, who came in disguise as a little rough village boy; but very comely and handsome, his divine intelligence surpasses those of his peers.

Taking a sudden flight through primary and secondary schools casaded him into the land of Oduduwa. He anchored his life voyage at the ancestral home of the Yorubas, Ile-ife. Here his projenitors believed to have a temporary abode before sending the last born of the Ogisos Ile-ife (I ran and I became rich, Benin translation). Omonoyan (wrongly called Oromiyan) was sent to go to the land of Igodomigodo where today Chief Mike Ozekhome holds the title of Enobakhare of Benin Kingdom.

This great man had all his trappings, equipped himself and became a lawyer, taking abode in the Delphic Oracle (that is what we called the Chambers of Chief Gani Fawehim). There he became the Aristostle, tampering with the Apologia left at the eye of euroba.

He journeyed on, for no destiny, no chance, no faith, nor circumstance could hinder, control or circumvent the firm resolve of a determined soul in Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome as epitomised or postulated.

The great learned Senior Advocate of the masses grudges on, defending the most vulnerable and giving voice to the voiceless and muscle to the powerless.

The Okporokpo of Oleh kingdom, Delta State; the Aimotekpe of Okpeland, the Agbamofin of Ijanikinland, Lagos; the Ohamadike1 of Obibi Ochasi, Imo State; the Ada Idaha of Efik land and the great Akpakpa Vighi Vighi of Edo Land, the land of my ancestors, I salute you for it is morning yet.

There is no space here,for my ink is running dry; but before I drop, I remember your words to me while I was in the dock of the Warri High Court on the 12th day of July, 2013, “Omon, you look worried; mind you, those who think that they can cover the shinning sun with their palms will soon find the heat unbearable”.

Those who stopped you from becoming our Governor in 2003 indirectly made you Governor of all Governors.

In all these odyssey you traversed, behind the dìm unknown standeth God, watching over you, His own.

Obokhian, amonghon, iyare iyare, mooooooh.

CDS Omon-Irabor Esq writes from the hill and the cave of Ebudinland

Continue Reading

Opinion

Mr. President: Affordable Fuel is Possible at Zero Subsidy

Published

on

By

By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde

Yesterday evening, I listened attentively to a panel of experts and stakeholders on the BBC program Ra’ayi Riga, anchored by Umaima Sani Abdulmumin. The program ended with a big doubt in my mind regarding a matter purported to be a provision of OPEC and crucial to the price of petrol in Nigeria.

Tyranny

I could not fathom how particularly the representatives of NNPC and IPMAN stressed that Nigerians will be at the mercy of two variables: the international market and the price of the US Dollar in Nigeria. They said OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell allocated domestic crude at international rate even if refined locally. One of them even said the Iran-Israel conflict can cause domestic price of petrol in Nigeria to rise.

So we should expect higher fuel prices anytime the rate of the dollar appreciates in Nigeria and also when, for any reason, there is a rise in the cost of crude in the international market. It is the rule, according to them. Our fate, they claim, is sealed, regardless of our OPEC membership and Dangote refinery. Nigerians will no longer have a stable fuel price.

Trust me, in Nigeria, the equation will be simultaneous. At any given moment, a reason will be found to use either or both parameters to increase pump price. The target of government is to extract more revenue from citizens while the businessmen in Dangote, Major Marketers, NNPCL and IPMAN continue to feed their greed for endless profit with our blood.

One would wonder why OPEC would be so oppressive in inflicting such tyranny on the citizens of its members. Senator Ndume, who was in the panel, said if he cannot understand why, how would they expect a commoner sitting under the tree to do so?

The truth

The truth is that there is no provision like that in OPEC agreements. In fact, the very idea of domestic crude quota arose in realization that citizens of member countries may need to enjoy cheaper oil than the international market price. That is why those citizens have been enjoying cheaper fuel for the past five decades in different countries. Many still do. Why not Nigerians?

If you ask ChatGPT whether OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell crude for domestic consumption at international market price only, this is the answer you get:

“OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) does not directly compel member countries to sell crude oil for domestic consumption at international market prices. OPEC’s primary role is to coordinate and unify petroleum policies among member countries to stabilize oil markets and secure a steady supply of oil.

“However, OPEC’s production quotas, agreements on output levels, and policies can indirectly influence domestic oil pricing. In practice, many OPEC members choose to sell crude oil domestically at subsidized rates or prices lower than the international market. This decision is made at the discretion of individual member countries, often as part of national energy policies aimed at supporting domestic economies and industries. Nonetheless, these policies may vary from one member country to another depending on domestic priorities and economic strategies.

“There is no formal OPEC rule that requires domestic sales to match international prices, though it can be influenced by international agreements and market pressures.”

The Truth

The truth is that the President and Minister of Petroleum can sell our 445,000 barrels a day to Dangote at even N50,000/barrel after taking into consideration the cost of extraction and OPEC will not raise any eyebrow. Dangote can charge the cost of refining, add his profit and sell to NNPCL and IPMAN at, say, N300/litre. On their part the marketers will add their cost of transportation, storage, profit, etc., and sell it to Nigerians at N400/litre. And—boom—we all will be happy.

It is entirely the discretion of the President and his government. So whoever wants to sell our locally produced fuel by that simultaneous equation is on his own. There is no OPEC in the equation.

The Squeeze

Also, among those who would fight against Nigerians enjoying affordable fuel rates are the IMF, World Bank and the West generally. They want the government to squeeze us the more such that we can service our debts and collect more loans from the Shylock. The age long philosophy is: our poverty, their wealth; our pain, their joy.

Added to these are local liberal economists who believe in high taxation, claiming that the blood money will be used to develop our infrastructure, health, education, etc. It is just the same old bunkum selling since 1986 at the debut of Naira devaluation while our infrastructure, hospitals and schools continue to deteriorate in rebuttal of that thesis.

A Call

I call on the President to consider the low income status of our citizen. Only affordable fuel price will hold together our social fabric, ensure our prosperity and guarantee our security. It is zero subsidy because we are not buying it from anyone. It is our oil.

The President must keep in mind that the IMF and oil magnates are not his partners in 2027. He is on his own. They will be there to outlive him and work with the next President. Let this sink into his psyche. Tam!

Continue Reading

Opinion

Happy 64th Independence Day!

Published

on

By

By Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya

From July 2011 to May 2015, it was my honour to serve the government and people of Lagos State as General Counsel to His Excellency, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN CON, the Governor of Lagos State. As one of my tasks, I had the honour of being the Governor’s speechwriter, and early this morning, as the clock chimed midnight, ushering in yet another October 1, I found myself reflecting on how far we have come as a nation. “Does our progress reflect our age?”, I asked myself. I really don’t know. My thoughts then turned to 10 years ago and I remembered the Governor’s 54th Independence Day speech, the 1st draft of which I was privileged to pen. The Governor’s words on October 1, 2014, ring as true today as they did then and I thought it was worth sharing excerpts from his speech. Happy reading!

“…Today, October 1, 2014, we are once again celebrating the anniversary of our independence from British colonial rule. Today marks 54 years since Nigeria became an independent sovereign nation, following the germination of a seed that had been sown seven years earlier, when in 1953, Anthony Eromosele Enahoro introduced a private member’s bill demanding self-government. When the British “Union Jack” flag was lowered for the last time and the green-white-green Nigerian flag was hoisted in its stead, the crowd went wild with jubilation, filled with high expectations of a greater tomorrow.

We can only imagine the exultant joy felt by our first Prime Minister. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, when he mounted the podium on October 1, 1960. In his first Independence Day Speech he said:-

“This is a wonderful day, and it is all the more wonderful because we have awaited it with increasing impatience, compelled to watch one country after another overtaking us… when we had so nearly reached our goal.”

Indeed he mirrored the views of millions of Nigerians and echoed their thoughts. Independence Day soon became easily the most significant day in our national life, accorded a pride of place that was difficult to surpass. Independence day became synonymous with sights of the President and the State Governors in open-top vehicles inspecting Guards of Honour, of beautiful parades, exciting fireworks and National Day Award ceremonies. October 1 also became the day on which political batons changed, and elected officials handed over to their successors. A day for inspiring speeches and sober reflection on our growth as a nation.

As a school boy, I remember struggling hard to get selected to march for my school in the National Day Parade, the endless rehearsals, and the keen anticipation of waiting to see if I would be picked. There was no prize given and none was expected. It was enough that your school had participated.

“Left, Right, Left, Right, Eeeyes Right!” And on the sidelines, children cheering us on with their own rhymes – “dem dey look una, make yanga, dem dey look una, make yanga, Left Right, Left Right!

Filled with excitement, we would add more ‘yanga’, trying hard, but not quite suceeding, to match the synchronisation of the armed forces. After it all, bursting with pride, those of us fortunate enough to have been selected to march for our school would milk our success for weeks afterwards, wearing our school uniform with pride, basking in the recognition as we went to and from school in public transportation and displaying a sense of superiority over our “less fortunate” schoolmates. Such was the depth of our civic pride.

Today, sadly, the excitement has waned. October 1 appears to have now become a hollow ritual and regrettably, no more than just another work and school-free day. The flame of our national pride seems to flicker. This is not how it should be.

What is the importance of a day like this? What does it mean to you? What should it mean to you? All over the world, Independence Day anniversaries are celebrated with great fanfare, splendour, respect for the nation and a deep sense of patriotism.bln some countries, festivities leading up to Independence Day start up to three weeks earlier. Some hold Independence Day beauty pageants; some re-enact their independence, others play the National Anthem on the dot of midnight on all radio and TV stations. All put country before self, at least for that day. We should not be any different.

In that historic Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa also said:

“Words cannot adequately express my joy and pride at being the Nigerian citizen privileged to accept from Her Royal Highness, these Constitutional Instruments which are the symbols of Nigeria’s independence. It is a unique privilege, which I shall remember forever, and it gives me strength and courage as I dedicate my life to the service of our country.”

Noble words indeed, and the words upon which the foundation of our nation was built. It seems to me that there is no better time to rekindle the flame of Nigeria’s promise than now. We should reflect on Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa’s words and re-dedicate ourselves to the service of Nigeria. In other words, we ought to see October 1 as a day to rekindle our national pride.

Let us patriotically reaffirm in our hearts that, Christian or Muslim, we are one nation under God; that North or South, we are one indivisible people; that whatever our political affiliations, we are all Nigerians, and that what binds us together far outweighs what little divides us.

We will yet attain those great lofty heights we sing so gustily about in the second stanza of our National Anthem. And I pray it will happen in my lifetime.

So help us God.”

Happy 64th Indepencence Day anniversary, dear colleagues. Please spare a prayer for Nigeria on her 64th birthday post independence. May God help us to build a nation where no man is oppressed so that with peace and plenty, Nigeria may be blessed. Amen.

Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, FCIArb,
was General Counsel to the Governor of
Lagos State from July 2011 to May 2015.

Continue Reading

Trending