When a conductor stands before a symphony orchestra, he is usually faced with the daunting task of streamlining a pool of gifted individual voices into a harmonious tone in pleasant unison. Lifting his hands in wild, incomprehensible gesticulation in all directions, it is not unusual to see a conductor sweating laboriously in the aftermath of a seemingly effortless duty of self-imposed convulsive stretches. This hard, convulsive labor, which on the façade seems so effortless, is precisely what it takes to keep scores of talented individuals functioning in music because divergent but complementary joints fit in harmony to ensure the smooth running of the engine of a symphony orchestra. In a democracy though, the inanimate conductor of the legal orchestra is basically the constitution, to which tune all other laws and their interpretation must dance.

In Nigeria however, it is still a major problem agreeing on what the constitution says amid an emotionally charged political dispensation. The phrase “419 Constitution” has been making the round in recent times with commentators highlighting numerous contradictory and inconclusive elements of the constitution on which the present Nigerian democratic experiment seeks to operate.

As if that was not enough, Judges have now openly adopted a highly controversial attitude that is arguably nurtured by the strength of dominant political sentiments. The symphony orchestra run by judges representing the Nigerian judiciary is proving impossible to be brought under control by the inanimate conductor named “constitution”.

In a casual conversation I had with a German friend just a few days back, I tried to paint a picture of the current political conflict between the President of Nigeria and his Vice President stating only that the Vice President has defected to another political party while still remaining Vice President. The reaction was prompt. It was also spontaneous. “That’s impossible!” she exclaimed. “There will be a conflict of interest.”

For a layman to the basic rationality of social contracting, which political representation is all about, it simply cannot make sense that a Vice President clings to his seat of power in open disagreement with his own power base. Its even more difficult to comprehend that he takes it some steps further by joining another political party, openly condemning the power base that has sponsored him till that point in time and still continuing to cling to the seat of Vice Presidency. In Germany, such a politician would be nicknamed “Pattex” in reflection of the trademarked extra-powerful instant glue. A politician glued inseparably to his seat of office.

For some representatives of the Nigerian judiciary though, this situation surprisingly makes much sense. They seek to declare the Vice President as absolutely independent of the President. This is simply so hard to comprehend when even in a purely parliamentary democracy (not parliamentary monarchy as in the United Kingdom), a Prime Minister who obviously holds an office that is functionally independent of the President is not constitutionally independent of the same President. The President may dissolve parliament and by implication, dismiss the Prime Minister. It can therefore, hardly fit into any psychological frame of reference to imagine a Presidency that is constitutionally built upon competition and rivalry with the Vice Presidency (that should logically only deputize as the name implies).

Funnily though, all arguments – no matter their distance from common sense – are usually based on the constitution. Since the details of legal jargons and legal complexities are not everybody’s cup of tea, a legal heavyweight in the person of Gani Fawehinmi simplified the logic and rationality behind all these troubles of President and Vice President in a manner that is and should be comprehensible to all and sundry. But not to hate-filled enemies of the prevailing establishment.

Then came the absurd desire to have the courts declare an Independent National Electoral Commission as incompetent to disqualify candidates for political offices, whose qualification it should have the right to verify. An Appeal Court overrules the previous ruling of a lower court and declares (logically and rationally) that the Commission shall have the right to disqualify candidates, which it finds to be unqualified in the aftermath of screening.

A lower court ruling on the same issue did not choose to avoid touching on this subject since a higher court has already ruled on it. No. The lower court pronounced that the Commission has no constitutional right to disqualify any candidate. This esthetic blunder committed by the lower court, made a mockery of constitutional order and the much-acclaimed rule of law. If the lower court had confined itself to ruling exclusively on the illegality or legality of disqualifying the Vice President from the Presidential race without straying into the field on which the Appeal Court had already treaded, there would have been a clear-cut equation. In addition to ruling on the specific case of the Vice President, the lower court however, went further to make ill-advised pronouncements on areas that merely exposed it to ridicule after all.

Haw far more can the symphony of discord be exemplified?

Latest in the chain of these catechismal legal pronouncements and tussles is the case of Senator Ararume of Imo State. A case in which the Apex Court of the land “The Supreme Court” has ruled that the Senator should not be substituted but fielded by the ruling party for Gubernatorial candidature. It is undisputable that the judgment does not and cannot compel the party to field a candidate for governorship in Imo State, as this remains the exclusive prerogative of every party. In the event however, that the party fields a gubernatorial candidate for the elections in that state, that candidate must be Ararume. That is the implication of this judgment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Much like a court can never rule to compel an individual to sleep if he/she does not wish to, it can hardly rule to compel a party to field candidates in any election.

Moreover, the ruling party contends that Article 21 (L) of its constitution, which denies members their constitutional rights of taking the party to court to redress injustices, has been breached. Since this absurd article contravenes every minor dimension of human and legal reasoning, I will therefore like to ask members of this party, who have till today failed to see their personal interests compromised, why they are not challenging this provision in court.

The ruling party further complains that Senator Ararume also breached an “oath of allegiance to abide strictly by the decisions of the party after the primaries.”

In consequence, he was dismissed from the party and the party made up its mind to withdraw from the governorship race of Imo State. What better news can opposition parties be presented with just a few days to the polls?

Now I hear exemplary legal luminaries crying foul! As a layman to Jurisprudence, I am unable to comprehend the underlying rationality. How does the dismissal of a candidate from a party amount to the disobedience of the court order? It is the inalienable right of a party to dismiss or promote the cause of any individual who is a member of its fold. If the implication of this action means a tricky way of evading the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is a legal trick. Such legal tricks are available to individuals that are conversant with the rule of law in democratic countries. Almost every citizen legally circumvents the law of the land year for year even at the fundamental level of tax declaration. Quite legally too.

If an individual however, disagrees with his or her dismissal from a party, the opportunity is seized to subject the entire constitution of the party in question to the test of the overriding national constitution through litigation.

The problem, as far as my logic takes me, is however, not the ruling party.

The situation perfectly illustrates the much acclaimed “419” character of the Nigerian constitution. It is till today, impossible to comprehend, why the authors of this constitution ruled out independent candidature. Dismissing a candidate from a party means he can ultimately no longer contest an election on the platform of the same party since Independents are not allowed. Dismissing the party after the closure of the registration of candidates and only a few days before the elections spells the ultimate death of the candidate’s aspirations. Simple.

Rather than lambasting the ruling party for perfectly misusing but taking due advantage of a loophole in the constitution, I guess the time is now, to start a vehement debate on the inadequacy of the present constitution. Given the exigencies of the electoral situation, it has become clear that the loophole of a rebellious Vice President has to be sealed in the constitution once and for all. The loophole of independent candidature must be addressed if this democracy is to stand a chance of surviving.

Unfortunately, these are two scenarios that have been exposed in the course of experimental implementation. How many more are we yet to see of constitutional inadequacies?

The greatest enemy of the current dispensation today is neither the President nor the ruling party. Any other President or party will also have the potential of guilt of the crimes for which the President and his party are being accused.

The combination of an inadequate constitution and overtly “incorruptible” judges passing queer and outlandish judgments in the aftermath of diverse influences is one of the real enemies facing the nation today.

The result is a judicial symphony orchestra singing conflicting tunes of ultimate political destruction. God save Nigeria!

Robot  Villager

# 1 When a conductor stands before a symphony orchestra, he is usually faced with the daunting task o...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 12.04.2007 06:11

ikechiji  Villager

# 2 For a layman to the basic rationality of social contracting, which political representation is all about, it simply cannot make sense that a Vice President clings to his seat of power in open disagreement with his own power base. For some representatives of the Nigerian judiciary though, this situation surprisingly makes much sense. They seek to declare the Vice President as absolutely independent of the President. The Nigerian people cannot be held hostage to the whims of party politics. What happens if a political party chooses to expel the President - does he cease to be President of Nigeria. What happens if a political party chooses to expel the Vice-President every three months? Should the Nigerian people deal with that garbage? Here we have a political party that expels governorship candidates one week before an election after the Appeals/Supreme courts ruled that their names were illegally substituted. We will gladly accept your nomination fees for the primaries but the party is supreme and we can do what we like afterwards. Oh - we don't like the color of your hair, you are out! Oh, we just received a damming security report -you are out! EFCC indicted you but have chosen not to prosecute you and present evidence in a court of law -you are out! Nigerian people cannot be held hostage to this ridiculous party politics garbage. If the VP does something wrong, present the evidence before a jury of his peers (the National Assembly) and impeach him. Then came the absurd desire to have the courts declare an Independent National Electoral Commission as incompetent to disqualify candidates for political offices, whose qualification it should have the right to verify. An Appeal Court overrules the previous ruling of a lower court and declares (logically and rationally) that the Commission shall have the right to disqualify candidates, which it finds to be unqualified in the aftermath of screening. Mark my words - The Supreme court will rule that INEC does not have the right to disqualify candidates that are validly nominated by their parties and have sworn affidavits stating that they are constitutionally eligible to contest the elections. The purpose of the sworn affidavits prescribed by the electoral act is to ensure constitutional eligibility. INEC cannot interpret whether a kangaroo "admin panel" is properly constituted, whether a court order quashing an indictment is valid or not, etc. That is for the courts. Latest in the chain of these catechismal legal pronouncements and tussles is the case of Senator Ararume of Imo State. A case in which the Apex Court of the land “The Supreme Court” has ruled that the Senator should not be substituted but fielded by the ruling party for Gubernatorial candidature. It is undisputable that the judgment does not and cannot compel the party to field a candidate for governorship in Imo State, as this remains the exclusive prerogative of every party. Hogwash. The electoral act clearly prescribes deadlines for nomination, substitution and withdrawal. In case you do not have a copy of the electoral act, I am quoting a few relevant sections: 34. (1) A Political Party intending to change any of its candidates for any election shall inform the Commission of such change in writing not later than 60 days to the election. (2) Any application made pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall give cogent and verifiable reasons. (3) Except in the case of death, there shall be no substitution or replacement of any candidate whatsoever after the date referred to in subsection (1) of this section. 36. (1) A candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered by himself to the Political Party that nominated him for the election and the Political Party shall convey such withdrawal to the Commission and which shall only be allowed not later than 70 days to the election. (2) Where the Commission is satisfied that a candidate has withdrawn as provided in subsection (1) of this section, his Political Party shall be allowed to nominate another candidate not later than 60 days before the date of election. It appears that you subscribe to the ideas that political parties can do what they want. That is fine until it involves outside agencies (INEC), the electorate etc. The electorate should clearly know who the candidates at least 30 days before an election. If INEC followed the electoral act (i.e. show me cogent and verifiable reason, deadline is 60 days, we are not court of law, etc), we would be one third of the way to "free and fair" elections. Odego Posted by ikechiji| 12.04.2007 08:48

Frisky Larr  Villager

# 3 Ikechiji Sir, Thanks for your factual objections. I believe the questions you raised about the validity of the Presidency after eventual expulsion from a political party are one of such issues that the constitution should deal with exhaustively and explicably. Brainstorming on logical implications can only polarize and end nowhere in particular! As for INEC Sir, if the Supreme Court declares that it shall have no right to disqualify candidates, that will definitely be a misplacement of logic in my own views. I read an article somewhere today, in which a supporter of the VP also opined that ridding INEC of the weapon to disqualify will simply amount to removing a bulldog's teeth and maintaining it to keep guard of a treasured property! I do not know if the affidavits they are swearing to are ever duly verified. As for the case of the substitution of candidates, I guess that was duly resolved by the supreme court. That is not being debated Sir. What is being debated is dismissal from the party. Any party has that right, which is also subject to challenges in court. My problem is that the PDP's clause denying members the right to take it to court is a clear violation of members' rights. Why doesn't any member challenge this clause? Why did the constitution forbid independent candature? If a party chooses to dismiss a candidate, the candidate should have the right to run as an independent just like the treacherous Joe Liebermann of the democrats successfully exemplified in the USA. Once again, thanks a lot for confining your arguments to facts! God bless Posted by Frisky Larr| 12.04.2007 09:18

ikechiji  Villager

# 4 Frisky, The constitution does not confer any power or INEC to "qualify" or "disqualify" candidates. The electoral act does however provide a logical flow-through process. 32. (1) Every political party shall not later than 120 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the Party proposes to sponsor at the elections. (2) The list shall be accompanied by an Affidavit sworn to by each candidate at the High Court of a State, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office. (3) The Commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election. (4) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the Affidavit is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the Affidavit is false. (5) If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the Affidavit is false the Court shall issue an Order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election. The initial nominations with sworn affidavits occur 120 days before the elections. The electorate/political parties/INEC have ample time to go to the courts to "disqualify" candidates if they feel that the affidavits contain false information, i.e. the candidates perjured themselves (e.g. Obanikoro in Lagos). What you have today is INEC playing hanky-panky up until the last minute (30 days to election) to publish the names of "qualified" candidates. "Excluded" candidates then do not have enough time to pursue their legal rights. That is not and cannot be the intent of the electoral act. In terms of the political parties rights to expel members, they have that right. Expelling a member, however, does not equate to withdrawal from an election. Prior to the 60-day deadline for substitution, the party can expel a member and in essence use that as a "cogent and verifiable" reason for substitution. However, once that deadline has elapsed, that person becomes a candidate sponsored by that party. My humble opinion is that any expulsion beyond the 60-day deadline is irrelevant just as any expulsion after the election is irrelevant. The party sponsorship required in the constitution occurs when the candidate's name is initially submitted by the party to INEC. Obviously, the judiciary is going to be very busy to resolve all these issues created by INEC/political parties trying to carve their ways around the electoral act/constitution. Odego Posted by ikechiji| 12.04.2007 11:03

Temisan  Villager

# 5 Doh, I want to wish my fellow villagers a very happy "Sh*t on Atiku/AC" day(s)! (i.e. April 12th and 13th). Public holidays as a partisan tool? What next? Naija never ceases to amaze me The PDP administration has continually made a travesty of the constitutional process (e.g. declaring PDP decampee seats vacant). It would be great to see the Nigerian polity evolve once those charlatans advising Baba Iyabo have been evicted from Aso Rock. Regards, Mr. Temisan West (The Deltabian) Posted by Temisan| 12.04.2007 11:15

ikechiji  Villager

# 6 =ikechiji;167799> Mark my words - The Supreme court will rule that INEC does not have the right to disqualify candidates that are validly nominated by their parties and have sworn affidavits stating that they are constitutionally eligible to contest the elections. Odego Frisky - The Supreme Court has finally ruled. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6558801.stm Posted by ikechiji| 16.04.2007 09:21