While every Nigerian jubilates today at the right to express views openly and confidently, many weep and shed tears amid the pleasure of democracy, on the best way to carry the very same democracy forward. A lot has been opined on several forums, about Nigeria’s own weaknesses in the practice of democracy. No doubt, one of such weaknesses is the personal dispute between the President and his deputy. A global novelty. In recent world history, a Vice President was removed in South Africa by the President of that country not because of a personal dispute, but because the Vice President was to face indictment for immoral activities that were not deemed worthy of the exalted office of Vice President. In fact, an accused person (Vice President or not) is usually given the benefit of the doubt and considered innocent until proven otherwise in the law court. Unfortunately however, the unwritten laws of morals and ethics prevail most often, over the written laws of the judiciary. Even though presumed innocent, former Vice President Zuma of South Africa paid the ultimate price even before proceeding to win all the battles in court. He was stripped of the Vice Presidency. This is a reflection of moral and ethical accountability not the triviality of the office of Vice President.

Since the ruling of an Abuja Appeal Court on the changing of parties by the Vice President of Nigeria, while still seeking to remain Vice President, a lot has been written and said. A large majority of voices commenting on the issue, has applauded the judgment as victory for democracy. Very few have however, had the courage to vent their frustrations against this majority opinion with very serious concerns that are still waiting to be addressed.

Three different analyses are quite worthy of time-consuming analysis as the debate rages on. One of such analyses opined that the Nigerian constitution left the learned judges of the Appeal court no other choice but to declare the Vice President’s victory in changing parties, even though the consequence of the judgment is indeed dangerous for the future. Another illustrated the situation on the basis of simple logic and likened the situation to a soccer pitch, in which each team features eleven players. Since hierarchy is no rarity these days in soccer teams, the deputy captain of one side suddenly decides to turn around (out of one disgruntlement or the other) and start playing against his own team. He catapults each pass that reaches him into his own net. When the team coach decides to substitute him, the referee rejects the request because the rules of soccer do not explicitly forbid any player from playing against his own team. One third view explicitly challenged my position on the issue and stressed that the position of Vice President is not a trivial one that can be replaced at will.

All these three opinions have their inherent consistencies and credibility. Nowhere in the world is the Vice President’s position considered trivial. Neither is that of the President. The ease of removal of the Vice President of South Africa as stated above underscores the far-sightedness of the authors of the South African Constitution. If this was to happen in Nigeria, the Vice President rather than being easily kicked out to forestall any moral damage to the exalted office, would have preferred to file several cases against the President in court alongside the actual ethical and moral cases of rape and corruption and fight legal battles on a thousand front amid the applause of passionate admirers. That is the moral side of the Vice President’s responsibility.

Even though the Nigerian constitution does not explicitly state that a Vice President cannot change party after coming to office, it does not explicitly permit it either. On the other hand, the same constitution does not explicitly permit the President to declare the Office of Vice President vacant if the Vice President changes party. The actions of the President and that of the Vice President were both based on the convenient interpretation of the constitution to suit their own ends, each hoping that he was right in the final analysis.

The closest the constitution came to addressing the issue at stake is contained in the clause of eligibility laid down for qualification to be elected into the office of Vice President. A President is duly elected after choosing a running mate (potential Vice President) from the same party. On the basis of this eligibility, the election is validated. As in every profession, an engineer who is eligible for a job posting and is employed on the basis of his eligibility cannot claim that this qualification ceases to be of relevance to the performance of his duties once employed. If he finds a more appealing job elsewhere or intends to pick up a new profession, he quits his present job. If he alternatively waits to be caught by his employer doing a parallel job or studying for a different profession, he would be risking summary dismissal in the spirit of a valid employment contract.

On the other hand, while a President may toy with the idea of replacing his Vice President (rightly or wrongly), the Vice President can never think of replacing the President for disloyalty to him/her. This defines a major flaw in the judgment of the Appeal Court, which explicitly denies that the Vice President should be having any loyalty whatsoever to the President because the Vice President swore to the constitution. Loyalty to the constitution should not interfere with loyalty to one’s own boss. This basic prerequisite of loyalty to the constitution is incumbent upon every citizen – President or not. In fact, even Ministers do not swear to destroy the constitution. That does not require the Appeal Court’s interpretation. However, going out of its way to emphasize that the Vice President owes the President no allegiance (whether the President is Obasanjo or not) is the actual trivialization of the Presidency. The judiciary as the third arm of government is indeed, the legislature through the back door. It interprets existing laws and seeks to seal loopholes. In short, its judgment becomes law. Therefore, each law considers far-reaching consequences in the prevailing democratic system. A law that encourages disloyalty to the President by conveniently highlighting loyalty to the constitution is by implication encouraging an autonomous Vice Presidency. An autonomous Vice President may proceed to appoint a shadow cabinet and play an opposition within the government because the Vice President is accountable to no one. After all, the constitution does not explicitly forbid the appointment of a shadow cabinet by the Vice President. The whole issue is indeed, a delicate balancing act, of which the Appeal Court seems to have sought the easiest and most simplistic way out.

So far, no credible explanation has been provided for the constitutional clause seeking the nomination of the Vice President from the President’s party. The American constitution, which we foolishly sought to copy, does not contain any such clause. In other words, the authors of the Nigerian constitution, wanted to avert conflicts of the nature that was fomented by Atiku by seeking to ensure unison in program and governmental coherence. They did not go into further details because they did not conceive a problem like this ever happening. There is no known precedence of a rebellious Vice President in the world that I am aware of. To claim that it was deliberate on the part of the authors of the constitution not to have elaborated on where membership of a common party stops, in order to allow the Vice President change party at will after coming into office, is logical reasoning in reverse.

In fact, Nigerian lawmakers are not rascals because they fail to impeach Atiku. They are rascals because they make a lot of noise each day and seem more focused on self-enrichment than good governance. It is not news that money frequently changes hands in attempts to force legislation through the National Assembly on several occasions. The pathetic aspect of it all is that these claims (as far as I am aware) have never been officially refuted by the legislators. This was most notoriously rumored during the lobby for the Third Term Agenda.

Furthermore, the argument that the Vice President disqualifies himself from the Vice Presidency by changing parties, was not advanced by counsels for the President alone. Atiku’s own defense counsel Professor Ben Nwabueze (Senior Advocate of Nigeria) also advanced the same argument as private views in his book titled “Constitutional Democracy“. Views that differ radically from his statement of defense. The Nigerian media and Atiku apologists conveniently ignore this scandalous development because it doesn’t suit their purpose. If it happened the other way round, there would have been some much-ado about the stunt and a lot of hullabaloo!

Finally, there are obviously two sides walking down the aisle. Each side has a passionate belief in what it thinks is right. There are few however, who are capable of advancing their views without personal abuses and derogation. That is one good tribute I’d like to pay to the person of Engineer Atsar Terver in his matured and factual disagreement with my views. I will nonetheless advise every detractor of Gani Fawehinmi to however desist from attributing his unpalatable but highly logically simplified illustration to old age. This derogatory remark does not provide answers to the cogent questions he has raised. No constitution on earth will legalize a coup d’etat unless Nigeria’s will be first of its kind. If the present President dies (much to the pleasure of many of his detractors), PDP will be replaced in the Executive by an AC government, which no electorate ever voted for. That would be a constitutional coup d’etat. Consequences like this should form a part of considerations in passing court judgments of constitutional consequences in many advanced countries of the world. Constitutional courts are therefore, carefully filled with judges of enormous job experience and distinguished intellectual standing!

Robot  Villager

# 1 While every Nigerian jubilates today at the right to express views openly and confidently, ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 28.02.2007 18:08

DoubleWahala  Villager

# 2 As far as I'm concerned, this analysis is neither based on a judicious interpretation of our constitution, nor on universally recognised tenets of jurisprudence. All legal analysts do a 'double-take', before proceeding to give an opposing analysis of an unanimous judgement at an appelate level. The situation is further compounded, when the so-called analyst apparently has neither legal training/qualification, nor legal experience. The appeal court cannot 'invent' our laws. They interprete them. Allegiance is first to the constitution of our land, before any other consideration. That is how it has always been. That is how it will always be. The legal and political constructs of the appeal court judgement have been analysed severally and exhaustively in other threads. This article offers no fresh angle or further insight into what essentially remains the law of our land, until set aside by the supreme court, or amended by an act of the National Assembly. DW Posted by DoubleWahala| 28.02.2007 18:59

Exxcuzme  Villager

# 3 =DoubleWahala;158286>As far as I'm concerned, this analysis is neither based on a judicious interpretation of our constitution, nor on universally recognised tenets of jurisprudence. All legal analysts do a 'double-take', before proceeding to give an opposing analysis of an unanimous judgement at an appelate level. The situation is further compounded, when the so-called analyst apparently has neither legal training/qualification, nor legal experience. The appeal court cannot 'invent' our laws. They interprete them. Allegiance is first to the constitution of our land, before any other consideration. That is how it has always been. That is how it will always be. The legal and political constructs of the appeal court judgement have been analysed severally and exhaustively in other threads. This article offers no fresh angle or further insight into what essentially remains the law of our land, until set aside by the supreme court, or amended by an act of the National Assembly. DW Mr Frisky may not be a lawyer but is arguement is COMMON SENSE which is better than your lawyerly abracadabra. Whether Athiefku is right or wrong, he should have resigned to avoid the embarassment their fight is having on the niga-nation. Posted by Exxcuzme| 28.02.2007 19:52

ula-lisa  Villager

# 4 The Court of Appeal Justices can be unanimously wrong! 1. The constitution being a legal document, is also a political document. 2. The allegiance to the constitution can be had without foisting on us an absurd scenario. 3. This same constitution envisaged that the President and his VP be in the same party and stated so. The VP although on a joint ticket, is for practical purposes, selected by the President and invited to the marriage... It makes sense that they should belong to the same party...This same constitution deliberately gives the VP no set functions...It leaves that to the President to do. 4. The court declares the law, even as it interprets. PDP Vice-President/AC Presidential Candidate is rather unwholesome and was never contemplated by the Nigerian Constitution. We hope a more courageous court can declare what fate Atiku already chose for himself. The constitution was not meant to be operated in absurdity. The law may be an ass, but the purpose of a Declaratory Judgment is that the Court would have the gumption to declare the Law and its intents!!! The declaration that is logical is that Atiku willfully and willingly constructively resigned in fact and in law when he took the mantle of a rival party while abandoning the position of PDP VP. They should be free to replace him with one of their own. Yes, I am a trained lawyer, qualified in Nigeria with double-digit court room experience! And I can respectfully disagree with their Lordships on points of Law and fact even if they are unanimous. So there. Posted by ula-lisa| 28.02.2007 20:11

DoubleWahala  Villager

# 5 =ula-lisa;158294>The Court of Appeal Justices can be unanimously wrong! 1. The constitution being a legal document, is also a political document. 2. The allegiance to the constitution can be had without foisting on us an absurd scenario. 3. This same constitution envisaged that the President and his VP be in the same party and stated so. The VP although on a joint ticket, is for practical purposes, selected by the President and invited to the marriage... It makes sense that they should belong to the same party...This same constitution deliberately gives the VP no set functions...It leaves that to the President to do. 4. The court declares the law, even as it interprets. PDP Vice-President/AC Presidential Candidate is rather unwholesome and was never contemplated by the Nigerian Constitution. We hope a more courageous court can declare what fate Atiku already chose for himself. The constitution was not meant to be operated in absurdity. The law may be an ass, but the purpose of a Declaratory Judgment is that the Court would have the gumption to declare the Law and its intents!!! Yes I am a trained lawyer, qualified in Nigeria with court room experience! And I can respectfully disagree with their Lordships on points of Law and fact even if they are unanimous. So there. In that case, you're obviously wasting your 'talents' in far-away America, by only resorting to arm-chair quarter-backing. Nigeria needs a "trained-lawyer" with "court-room experience" like yourself. Imagine how our judiciary would be the better for it by having someone as incredibly intelligent as yourself, as one of its staunch members. After all you are a "senior lawyer" with "eighteen years" post-call experience, abi? I'm dead serious; give it serious thought. :neutral: DW Posted by DoubleWahala| 28.02.2007 20:25

Showcase  Villager

# 6 =DoubleWahala;158286> The legal and political constructs of the appeal court judgement have been analysed severally and exhaustively in other threads. This article offers no fresh angle or further insight into what essentially remains the law of our land, until set aside by the supreme court, or amended by an act of the National Assembly. DW You have my back right there. It'll be interesting to hear what the supreme court has to say. For now, no high blood pressure over this matter. Court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by Showcase| 28.02.2007 20:48

ula-lisa  Villager

# 7 DW: What I chose to do with ma life is mine. I chose to do what I am doing as a vocation; and whatever kind of law I practice now, you will not know until I tell. Even in the Law, there are stages and gears and career shifts. Some were professors, now they are solicitors; others were advocates, now they are consultants; some end up judges or some just retire early. All who had the love of the profession still exercise their options. These are the words written by you that I was replying to: The situation is further compounded, when the so-called analyst apparently has neither legal training/qualification, nor legal experience. In my opinion, that was added to show that the writer, not being a trained lawyer and without legal experience, does not have the standing to persuade the readers. I added my qualification to say that according to your yardstick, I qualify. Call it Quarterbacking or what you will, when you write I guess you are just analyzing but others are 'wasting their talent' if they confront your arguments. Just so you would know, you have written more on law here than I have and you are not in Nigeria. We do not all have to be in Nigeria to contribute. If I was in Naija, with NEPA, it may be harder to reach the www. One of the ethics of the legal profession in Nigeria is civility and respect. I choose to respect you even if in Nigeria you would be my junior if ever you went to NLS. Impeach my argument anytime; pls do not make it personal. Please do not patronize me. You are my younger brother's age and yes, he is a lawyer too. What else do you want to know??? I had school mates and colleagues in Lagos courts and the NBA. I definitely do not take all your contributions personal or I will have 1,011 to draw from. Posted by ula-lisa| 28.02.2007 20:49

DoubleWahala  Villager

# 8 =ula-lisa;158299>DW: What I chose to do with ma life is mine. I chose to do what I am doing as a vocation; and whatever kind of law I practice now, you will not know until I tell. Even in the Law, there are stages and gears and career shifts. Some were professors, now they are solicitors; others were advocates, now they are consultants; some end up judges or some just retire early. All who had the love of the profession still exercise their options. These are the words written by you that I was replying to: The situation is further compounded, when the so-called analyst apparently has neither legal training/qualification, nor legal experience. In my opinion, that was added to show that the writer, not being a trained lawyer and without legal experience, does not have the standing to persuade the readers. I added my qualification to say that according to your yardstick, I qualify. Call it Quarterbacking or what you will, when you write I guess you are just analyzing but others are 'wasting their talent' if they confront your arguments. Just so you would know, you have written more on law here than I have and you are not in Nigeria. We do not all have to be in Nigeria to contribute. If I was in Naija, with NEPA, it may be harder to reach the www. One of the ethics of the legal profession in Nigeria is civility and respect. I choose to respect you even if in Nigeria you would be my junior if ever you went to NLS. Impeach my argument anytime; pls do not make it personal. Please do not patronize me. You are my younger brother's age and yes, he is a lawyer too. What else do you want to know??? I had school mates and colleagues in Lagos courts and the NBA. I definitely do not take all your contributions personal or I will have 1,011 to draw from. Oops...seems like I touched a raw nerve there. :lol: Actually, for your information, I'm not your junior. I'm actually your senior by one year. So much for all your needless talk about "seniority". I suppose, when all else fails, we must resort to the tried and tested Naija cop-out; "am I your mate?" Words fail me....:rolleyes: DW Posted by DoubleWahala| 28.02.2007 21:22

Exxcuzme  Villager

# 9 Ula-Lisa, I am disappointed that you bring seniority into this argument and you let DW got to you. You should have stopped here: "....... Impeach my argument anytime; pls do not make it personal. Please do not patronize me." Objoke is and the arrogant 9ja big men are the one that like to tell people "I senior u, u are my junior, th erefore, dont talk to me " I will forgive u this time.:biggrin: Posted by Exxcuzme| 28.02.2007 21:45

ula-lisa  Villager

# 10 Regarding cop-out, Just a reminder, we are at the NVS. This again is the very ad hominem javelin you threw at me Nigeria needs a "trained-lawyer" with "court-room experience" like yourself. Imagine how our judiciary would be the better for it by having someone as incredibly intelligent as yourself, as one of its staunch members. Completely out of context. I believe you are deliberately being sarcastic. Call it cop-out. You know ma names, reveal your real names so we may do a check. I have friends in LA who can authenticate you. Yes I am older than you and a senior lawyer. You can check when I was called; it is public knowledge that I was called in 1988, 19 years ago. You can check for ya self. What else do you need to touch a nerve, since that gives you pleasure? I have endured your deliberate attempts at needling anyone who disagrees with you on Atiku. I deliberately avoided debating the Atiku gang after a while. I displayed my ignorance of the law in court in Nigeria, did you? I only occasionally comment on law on the net. What more do you want to know about this person so you can attack??? Any more answers to make you gloat??? Posted by ula-lisa| 28.02.2007 21:51

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---