Professor Mahmood Yakubu, INEC Chairman
-By Abba Dukawa
For the principle of fair justice allowing political appointees to remain in office while contesting could present a conflict of interest in terms of using public funds to run campaigns. One may recall President Buhari had, while signing the electoral act amendment bill into law on February 25, expressed dissatisfaction saying it contravenes the rights of political office holders to vote and be voted for in political party conventions and congresses and asked the National Assembly to delete the clause on the basis that it contravenes the rights of political office holders.
Why president wants for the removal of clause even though the removal is not for citizens interest but for the sake of some ministers and aides who are said to be planning to run for different offices, Why they want to hold on to their office as a political appointee and at the same time be a candidate in an election? What are they afraid from resigning the appointment?
Against the backdrop, there is nothing wrong if government appointee want to run for election that officer would need to resign. This will strength country’s electoral process at same time bar an appointees from utilise his or her office manipulating state resources in running for election.
Why the Court ordered the office of the AGF and Minister of Justice to delete Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 which bars political appointees from voting or being voted for, runs contrary to the 1999 constitution. Already some governors had issued circulars calling on their appointees who had political ambitions to resign before March 30 in accordance with the Section 84(10) of the Act.
Swift acknowledging the order it shows the selfishness of the public office holder particularly for the office of the chief law officer whose job is to defend the constitution which he swore to protect. Nigerians and legal practitioners across the country faulted judgement, and wondered why AGF’s office who is not keen on obeying court judgements, was seeking to implement this particular order immediately. Nigerians began to be curious about basis for this order.
Immediate response to the judgment sounding like it was an arranged case and AGF and co who has invested interest in having that section removed. Through a statement by AGF’s office commending the court for the judgment promised to swiftly gazette the judgement. Adding that the verdict would be carried out clearly and the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 is not part of our law and will be so treated accordingly. As the judgment would be recognised by the government printers in printing the Electoral Act.
Still there are lingering questions in the lips of Nigerians who is the plaintiff in this matter? What is his personal interest? Why were the necessary parties like the National Assembly, which made the law, and INEC, which ought to implement this provision, not joined in this suit?
How can one “nullify” an Act without joining the institution that made the Act, the Electoral Act is an act of the National Assembly so that they can be heard concerning what they did? If FG is going ahead to implement such orders it’s clearly proof that both the executive and justice Evelyn’s order will bringing problems on the country.
Mr Adegboruwa (SAN), encouraged political parties and others to challenge the judgment, saying , “the Electoral Act is an act of the National Assembly. How can you ‘nullify’ an Act without joining the institution that made the Act, so that they can be heard concerning what they did? Another legal practitioner Mr Kayode Ajulo advised the All Progressives Congress not to allow appointees to take part in its forthcoming conventions as it could mar the exercise if the Court of Appeal upturns the judgment.
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Robert Emukpoeruo, said, “A juxtaposition of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, Section 228 (a) of the constitution on the one hand with other provisions of the constitution dealing with qualifications and disqualification to contest election will reveal that they deal with different subject matters. Put bluntly, a political appointee is not (and cannot be) a person employed in the public service of the federation or of the state. There is a sharp difference between a public servant and a public officer.
We know there is no law until the coming into being of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, which regulated political appointees’ participation in congresses or convention for the nomination of party candidates. And to this extent, that subsection cannot rationally be held to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already released a time table for Party primaries and the General Election therefore where a candidate contest on a platform of a political party and the party wins an election with a candidate affected by the Section , the votes will be declared as wasted votes in line with the decision in Bello Matawalle’s case by the Supreme Court in 2019 where all the APC candidates who won election on the platform of the party lost their respective offices and PDP candidates in the election took over.
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has described the judgment as an aberration and vowed to appeal against the verdict. Green Chamber is contending that the court has no right to interfere with the powers of the national assembly to make laws. The most important thing for any political appointees willing to contest for an election is to step down on his own regardless of the decision to avoid being caught by the amendment. A word is enough for the wise. May Evelyn’s order on Section 84(12) not turn political catastrophe.
Dukawa can be reach at abbahdydukawa@gmail.com
Comment here