By Obianuju Kanu-Ogoko

It is deeply alarming and shameful to witness an elected official of an opposition party openly calling for the continuation of President Tinubu’s administration. This blatant betrayal goes against the very essence of democratic opposition and makes a mockery of the values the PDP is supposed to stand for.

Even more concerning is the deafening silence from North Central leadership. This silence comes at a price—For the funneled $3 million to buy off the courts for one of their Leaders’, the NC has compromised integrity, ensuring that any potential challenge is conveniently quashed. Such actions reveal a deeply compromised leadership, one that no longer stands for the people but for personal gain.

When a member of a political party publicly supports the ruling party, it raises the critical question: Who is truly standing for the PDP? When a Minister publicly insulted PDP and said that he is standing with the President, and you did nothing; why won’t others blatantly insult the party? Only under the Watch of this NWC has PDP been so ridiculed to the gutters. Where is the opposition we so desperately need in this time of political crisis? It is a betrayal of trust, of principles and of the party’s very foundation.

The leadership of this party has failed woefully. You have turned the PDP into a laughing stock, a hollow shell of what it once was. No political party with any credibility or integrity will even consider aligning or merging with the PDP at this rate. The decay runs deep and the shame is monumental.

WHAT A DISGRACE!

By Obianuju Kanu-Ogoko

At 26 years, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) should have been a pillar of strength, a beacon of hope and a testament to the enduring promise of democracy in Nigeria.*

Yet, as we stand at this milestone, it is clear that we have little, if anything, to celebrate. Instead, this anniversary marks a sobering moment of reflection, a time to confront the hard truths that have plagued our journey and to acknowledge the gap between our potential and our reality.

Twenty-six years should have seen us mature into a force for good, a party that consistently upholds the values of integrity, unity and progress for all Nigerians.

But the reality is far from this ideal. Instead of celebrating, we must face the uncomfortable truth: *at 26, the PDP has failed to live up to the promise that once inspired millions.*

We cannot celebrate when our internal divisions have weakened our ability to lead. We cannot celebrate when the very principles that should guide us: justice, fairness and accountability,have been sidelined in favor of personal ambition and short-term gains. We cannot celebrate when the Nigerian people, who once looked to the PDP for leadership, now question our relevance and our commitment to their welfare.

This is not a time for self-congratulation. It is a time for deep introspection and honest assessment. What have we truly achieved? Where did we go wrong? And most importantly, how do we rebuild the trust that has been lost? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, not just as a party, but as individuals who believe in the ideals that the PDP was founded upon.

At 26, we should be at the height of our powers, but instead, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The path forward is not easy, but it is necessary. We must return to our roots, to the values that once made the PDP a symbol of hope and possibility. We must rebuild from within, embracing transparency, unity and a renewed commitment to serving the people of Nigeria.

There is no celebration today, only the recognition that we have a long road ahead. But if we use this moment wisely, if we truly learn from our past mistakes, there is still hope for a future where the PDP can once again stand tall, not just in name, but in action and impact. The journey begins now, not with *fanfare but with resolve.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, CON, OFR

Many Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike have repeatedly asked me if the Supreme Court was not wrong in its interpretation of section 162(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution and what happens to the allegedly wrong judgement. They want to know if the judgment is superior to the said “clear” provisions of the Constitution and if it is ENFORCEABLE or capable of being enforced. They also want to know how,in the event that I say it is enforceable.My simple answers to both questions are yes, yes and yes. Let’s take them one after the other.

1. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IS SUPERIOR TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

A law is only what the courts interpret it to be, not what it says on bare paper. That was why Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr, a very influential civil rights Jurist, Brevet Colonel during the American Civil War and longest serving Justice of the US Supreme Court (1902-1932), who retired from the US Supreme Court at 90, once famously declared that, “the prophesies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law”.

In other words, the law (whether constitutional, substantive, statutory, or adjectival) remains what it is-inanimate and dead on paper-until the life and the oxygen of interpretation are breathed into it by a court of law. Consequently, it is thus the interpretation which was given by the Supreme Court to the entire section 162 of the Constitution on the sharing procedure between the Federal government, states and the LGCs, and not the bare provisions of the Constitution that prevails.

IS THE JUDGMENT ENFORCEABLE?

The answer is also in the affirmative. Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution comes to our rescue by providing that “the decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced by in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts of subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court”.

Even if the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of section 162 dealing with the State Joint Local Government Account, the judgement remains binding on all and for all times.It is only an amendment of the Constitution under section 9 thereof that can override the decision. No person or authority can decide,whimsically and arbitrarily to disobey the judgement, or pick and choose what portions of the judgment to obey or which to discard. In Rt Hon Michael Balonwu & Ors V Governor of Anambra State& Ors (2007) 5 NWLR ( Pt 1028) 488, the intermediate court held that “an order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or lightly placed in the society. This is what the rule of law is all about, hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience to court orders”. It therefore does not matter that the judgment is downright stupid, illogical, or not well researched; or that parties affected do not like it. That is what the rule of law dictatesb and is all about. See AG Anambra v AG FRN (2008) LPELR-13(SC); Abeke v Odunsi & Anor (2013) LPELR-20640( SC); Ngere v Okuruket & Ors ( 2014) LPELR-22883 ( SC).

Right or wrong therefore, court judgements must be obeyed until set aside by a higher court, or a challenged section is amended by the Legislature. Since no court is higher than the Supreme Court of Nigeria, only an amendment to the Constitution by the NASS under section 9 can override the judgment: Obineche & ORS v. Akusobi & ORS (2010) LPELR-2178 (SC); Anchorage Leisures LTD & Ors V. Ecobank (NIG) LTD (2023) LPELR-59978 (SC) . That was why the same Supreme Court, acutely aware that it is susceptible to mistakes and errors being constituted by mere mortals and not almighty God or angels, once famously declared through late venerable Socrates of the Nigerian Bench, Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, in the causa celebre of Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) NWLR ( Pt 109) 250, that “the Supreme Court is final not because it is infallible, it is infallible because it is final”.

2. ON HOW THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IS IMPLEMENTABLE

The answer is equally simple. The FG, states and LGCs should now meet (and I am told they have been meeting) at FAAC and decide on modalities and procedures of opening up accounts for LGCs so that their allocation under section 162 is paid directly to them and not to the joint state LG account that is oftentimes waylaid by state Governors and fleeced without the helpless and hamstrung LGCs being able to raise a finger.

This is not rocket science. That refusal by state governors to remit to the LGCs was the ugly mischief the apex court judgment sought to cure; and it did so perfectly, loud and clear, in my own humble opinion. Inter alia, the apex court had declared emphatically that, “by virtue of section 162(3) and (5) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, the amount standing to the credit of LGCs in the Federation Account shall be distributed to them and be paid directly to them”; that “a state, either by itself or Governor or other agencies, has no power to keep, control, manage, or disburse in any manner, allocations from the Federation Account to LGCs”.

The apex court also granted injunctive orders restraining “Governors and their agents, officials or privies from tampering with funds meant for the LGCs in the Federation Account” ; and further ordered “immediate compliance by the states, through their appointed officials and public officers with the terms of the judgment and orders”.

The apex court further ordered the “Federation or Federal Government of Nigeria through its relevant officials, to forthwith commence the direct payment to each LGC of the amount standing to the credit of each of them in the Federation Account”.

The content, terms and directives contained in this judgement, are in my humble opinion, very straight forward, unambiguous and are as clear and clean as a whistle. All parties concerned, – FG, states and LGCs- must therefore obey and enforce this judgement IMMEDIATELY. There is no option.I had earlier made public this same opinion of mine. I had written and stated on several TV stations that in my humble understanding of the principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court was right in the interpretation it gave to section 162 of the Constitution, so as to prevent continuation of years of wanton abuse of the provisions of section 162 by state governors. (See “LG Autonomy: Supreme Court’s verdict timely, regenerative-Ozekhome”, www.vanguard.com., 11, July, 2024 ). I still stand very firmly by this my earlier opinion.

God bless Nigeria as we collectively seek true fiscal federalism and not the present unitary system of government that we are currently operating under the thin guise of federalism.