Senate President Godswill Akpabio has hinted that the Electoral Act 2022 will be amended to include statutory delegates in political parties’ primaries slated for next year ahead of the 2027 elections.

Akpabio spoke in Abuja on Monday during a meeting with the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

The senate president said the omission of statutory delegates from primaries of political parties in the Electoral Act was a mistake that must be corrected before the next general election.

“There were defects in the last Electoral Act that was amended,” Akpabio said.

“So, we want to cure some of the defects that we found in our electoral system. I can tell you one.

“Without any particular intention of the parliament, in the 2023 elections and the 2022 primaries, we inadvertently, created what I may call super-delegates.

“Because all the statutory delegates, starting from the president, the vice-president, the governors, deputy governors, the senate president, deputy senate president, speaker, deputy speaker, members of parliament, national, sub-national, chairman of councils, and all, were omitted as delegates.

“These are areas that we think we can look at in order to make our democracy more participatory. Because democracy is all about numbers.”

Akpabio noted that with the current Electoral Act, a delegate is not welcome to the primaries, “unless you contested to be an ad hoc delegate to select flag bearers of the legislative houses, governorship, and then, of course, flag bearer of the presidential conventions in all the political parties across the country”.

He said the senate will also look at the powers given to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), “as the last arbiter as to who decides who is a candidate and not the political parties”.

The senate president said political parties should have the power to select candidates that will best serve their manifestos, “and have the integrity to represent their people and have a track record of performance to deliver the dividends of democracy to the people”.

Speaking earlier, Afam Osigwe, the NBA president, told Akpabio that the national assembly should ensure judicial reforms in the ongoing constitutional amendment.

[TheCable]

... lauds Gov Abiodun's Vision, Policies on attracting investment to Ogun State

President Bola Tinubu’s decision to end the roughly forty (40) years of subsidizing petrol pump prices on the very day of his inauguration—May 29, 2023—is a prime example of the use of executive orders, one of the three (3) legitimate tools of governance. Subsequently, the long-standing policy of maintaining a fixed exchange rate for the naira against foreign currencies, which had been in place for several decades, was also discontinued.

As a consequence of these two (2) drastic reform measures implemented through executive orders, the Nigerian economy went into a tailspin, recording an inflation rate of over 34%. However, stability is now gradually being restored, much to the relief of the current administration and the long-suffering people of Nigeria.

Below is how President Tinubu issued these two (2) executive orders in his inaugural speech on May 29, 2023, which triggered socioeconomic turmoil:

 "We commend the decision of the outgoing administration in phasing out the petrol subsidy regime which has increasingly favoured the rich more than the poor. Subsidy can no longer justify its ever-increasing costs in the wake of drying resources. We shall instead re-channel the funds into better investment in public infrastructure, education, health care, and jobs that will materially improve the lives of millions.

Continuing, President Tinubu stated:
"Monetary policy needs a thorough housecleaning. The Central Bank must work towards a unified exchange rate. This will direct funds away from arbitrage into meaningful investment in the plant, equipment, and jobs that power the real economy."

Then he concluded by saying "Interest rates need to be reduced to increase investment and consumer purchasing in ways that sustain the economy at a higher level.

"Whatever merits it had in concept, the currency swap was too harshly applied by the CBN given the number of unbanked Nigerians. The policy shall be reviewed. In the meantime, my administration will treat both currencies as legal tender."
It was not surprising that after the speech, hell was let loose as the price of petrol shot up as high as N1,300 per liter shortly after. But today it is selling for a little over N800 naira per litre.

In the twenty-two (22) months since President Bola Tinubu assumed leadership of Nigeria following his victory in the presidential election held on Saturday, February 25, 2023, he has directed the affairs of the country from Aso Rock Villa, Nigeria’s presidential seat of power. His policies, to say the least, have been revolutionary, leading to an unprecedented rise in the cost of living thankfully is currently on a downward slope heading towards stability.

Since taking office, as highlighted earlier, the president has leaned heavily on executive orders rather than relying on traditional legislative and judicial processes. Generally, President Tinubu’s preference for executive orders appears to have been proven to be more efficacious for his administration compared to conventional governance methods—or so it seems.

This article seeks to assess the veracity of that assumption by conducting a comparative analysis of the three primary approaches to governance in a democratic setting: leveraging executive, legislative, and judicial instruments. To achieve this objective, we must examine the merits and demerits of these tools, particularly in the context of Nigeria under President Tinubu’s leadership.

Before delving further into the effectiveness of these governance tools in Nigeria’s democratic environment, it is appropriate to take a brief look at how executive, legislative, and judicial powers have been applied in democracies around the world.

For a holistic assessment and understanding of governance tools, it is pertinent to trace their origins back to ancient times—specifically, to Cleisthenes in Athens, Greece, in the 6th century BC, where democracy was first introduced. It was later nurtured by thinkers like Aristotle and Cicero.

We will also examine France, where democracy was further refined under the influence of Enlightenment philosophers such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Next, we will consider India, the world’s largest democracy with a population of 1.4 billion. Finally, we will reflect on the United States of America (USA), the world’s foremost democratic nation and leader of the free world, from which Nigeria borrowed its current presidential system of governance.

To carry out this analysis effectively, below is a comparison of the three (3) well-established governance tools in democratic settings: Executive Orders, Legislative Procedures, and Judicial Actions.

Executive Orders
1. Definition: Official directives issued by the head of state or government, outlining policies, decisions, or actions. A notable example is the United States, where President Donald Trump extensively leveraged executive orders to fast-track the implementation of his far-reaching policies under the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda.
2. Purpose: Enables swift decision-making, bypassing legislative delays.
3. Characteristics: Binding, enforceable, and often irreversible without subsequent orders or legislation.
4. Examples: Executive orders issued by US and Nigerian Presidents. US President Donald Trump issued an avalanche of executive orders in less than 60 days of occupying the White House as president. So also, president Tinubu in Nigeria issued at least two well-known executive orders with highly consequential effects.

Legislative Procedures
1. Definition: The formal processes by which laws are created, amended, or repealed by elected representatives.
2. Purpose: Ensures representation, deliberation, and accountability in lawmaking.
3. Characteristics: Involves debate, voting, and potential amendments.
4. Examples: US Congressional lawmaking, Nigerian National Assembly legislative processes.
5. Observation: Notably, policies processed through this method—such as the four (4) tax reform bills—are still stuck in the National Assembly, awaiting legislative approval. This aspect will be examined further later in this discussion.

Judicial Actions
1. Definition: Decisions, rulings, or orders issued by courts to interpret laws, resolve disputes, or enforce rights.
2. Purpose: Uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and provide checks on the executive and legislative branches.
3. Characteristics: Binding, precedent-setting, and subject to appeal or review.
4. Examples: US Supreme Court decisions, and Nigerian Supreme Court judgments.
5. A typical example in Nigeria is the Supreme Court judgment on local government financial autonomy. Long after the ruling, local governments’ financial autonomy has yet to be implemented. The Punch newspaper reported yesterday, Monday, March 17, that state governors are lobbying the federal government to delay implementation. We will delve deeper into this issue later in this discussion.

To fully grasp how the three (3) governance tools function in a democracy, it is essential to analyze their characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Different presidents apply these tools based on a needs assessment, balancing efficiency with democratic accountability.

Comparison of Governance Tools

Executive Orders
• Definition: Swift, binding, and enforceable directives issued by the head of state to expedite decision-making.
• Advantages: Efficient, allows rapid crisis management, bypasses legislative gridlock.
• Disadvantages: Can be abused or misused as it bypasses legislative oversight.

In the US, former President Donald Trump issued a raft of executive orders on his first day in office, a practice that critics viewed as an abuse of power. However, his supporters—who were in the majority, as he defeated his opponent Kamala Harris in the November 5, 2023, presidential election—argued that he needed speed to fulfill his agenda within the four (4) years of his term. Given the constraints of time, Trump prioritized executive orders over legislative or judicial processes to deliver on his campaign promises.

Legislative Procedures
• Definition: The process by which laws are created, amended, or repealed through debate and voting in a legislative body.
• Advantages: Ensures representation, deliberation, and accountability.
• Disadvantages: Can be slow, prone to gridlock, and influenced by special interests.

A key example in the US is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a landmark ruling that guaranteed women the right to make reproductive decisions without government interference for over half a century. The influence of special interests was evident in this decision.

Similarly, in Nigeria, some northern leaders fear that the proposed tax reform bills—particularly the provision allowing about 60% of Value Added Tax (VAT) revenue to remain in the states where it is generated—would disadvantage their region. This has led to opposition to the reform, despite assurances from the Tax Reform Committee Chairman, Taiwo Oyedele, that these concerns are unfounded.

Judicial Actions
• Definition: Court rulings that interpret laws, resolve disputes, and check the powers of the executive and legislature.
• Advantages: Binding, precedent-setting, upholds the rule of law, and protects individual rights.
• Disadvantages: Can be slow, dependent on judicial independence, and open to interpretation.

For example, the legal battle over local government autonomy in Nigeria went from lower courts to the Supreme Court. Yet, despite the ruling, implementation has been stalled. Another example is the controversy over the rightful Emir of Kano between Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Ado Bayero. The multiple interpretations of court rulings in that case resulting in a lacuna highlight the challenges of relying on judicial decisions for governance.

Interplay of the Three Governance Tools

As the analysis above reveals, each governance tool has strengths and weaknesses. A skilled and politically savvy president must know when to apply each tool to achieve the desired outcome.

Ideally, in a democracy, these tools interact and balance one another:
• Executive Orders can be challenged or overturned by legislative or judicial actions.
• Legislative Procedures can be influenced by executive orders or judicial interpretations.
• Judicial Actions can be affected by executive orders or legislative changes.

This dynamic is currently playing out in the US, where courts have suspended several of President Trump’s executive orders. Given that he has only one term to implement his policies, he is using the governance tool that allows him to act swiftly—though these decisions remain subject to legal challenges.

The balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches ensures that no single branch dominates, thereby promoting accountability, representation, and the rule of law.

Tinubu’s Use of Executive Orders: A Case Study

Against this backdrop, Nigerians should critically assess President Tinubu’s decision to declare “petrol subsidy is gone” during his inaugural speech on May 29, 2023. It is a statement that he has revealed was unscripted and spontaneous.

Many Nigerians have criticized him for not consulting widely before making such a declaration, given the profound impact it has had on both rich and poor citizens. However, in light of the governance tools discussed above, would Tinubu’s critics—those who opposed the decision for genuine, non-partisan reasons—still hold the same view?

Tinubu’s reliance on executive orders to remove the petrol subsidy and float the naira must be evaluated against the slow pace of legislative and judicial processes. For instance:
• The tax reform bills, first introduced in the National Assembly on October 8, 2024, remain stuck in the legislative process.
• The Supreme Court ruling on local government autonomy, delivered on July 11, 2024, is yet to be implemented.

In contrast, Tinubu’s executive actions on fuel subsidy removal and exchange rate unification were swiftly executed and are now yielding positive economic results. Given that Nigeria’s economy was on the brink of collapse, he likely saw no alternative but to act decisively to prevent further decline.
This is the point some of us have been strenuously trying to put across to critics over the past 22 months of Tinubu’s watch.

Conclusion

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of governance tools helps in evaluating a leader’s decisions. While legislative and judicial processes ensure democratic accountability, they can be slow and prone to political interference. Executive orders, though expedient, carry risks of overreach.

However, in Tinubu’s case, his controversial approach but a display of political adroitness is arguably necessary to avert the economic disaster that was imminent in our country.
With the benefit of hindsight, Nigerians must ask: Did Tinubu act recklessly, or was his decision a necessary intervention to stabilize the country?

Ultimately, governance is about making tough choices, and the effectiveness of any leader depends on their ability to navigate the complex interplay of executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
By and large executive orders have proven to be a more efficacious governance tool if time constraints are a significant factor as they save time and allow a dynamic president to cut through the bureaucratic bottlenecks to quickly achieve set goals.
The above strategy is exactly the methodology that President Tinubu has adopted to achieve success in his deep reforms which peaked in less than 18 months after which the negative consequences petered out and the positive gains began to manifest before the midterm of his administration which is coming up on 29 May- mere two months.
Imagine if Tinubu had applied the legislative or judicial option in governance to the issue of petrol subsidy removal, and elimination of multiple naira exchange rate windows, they would still be in operation and Nigeria would be mired in retrogression as it has been in the past four (4) decades (1984/5) or so since the nation was advised by development experts and institutions against retaining the obnoxious subsidy on petrol and buffeting the naira which we all agree were wrong-headed policies but which no leader in the past had the guts or gumption to end.

Being the astute political strategist that he is, my prediction is that President Tinubu will not introduce any new policies that would discomfit Nigerians until he seeks re-election in 2027 and returns to Aso Rock Villa as the winner of the 2027 presidential election. Thereafter, he will tackle the challenges of industrialization which will be driven by a revolution in electricity power generation, transmission, and distribution which is a necessary precondition to industrial take-off that we all crave since it is the only sure path to prosperity for all Nigerians.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy alumnus, and former Delta State commissioner (2003-2007).

Even with friends in high places, crypto’s instability is showing as investors respond to President Donald Trump’s trade war and reports of deal talks between Binance U.S. and the Trump family. Amidst the market chaos tariffs have wrought, here are some cryptocurrencies to watch this week.

BNB

Binance’s crytocurrency BNB popped after two reports that the Trump family was in talks to snap up a stake in the Binance U.S. exchange (which pleaded guilty to enabling money laundering in 2023). The reported talks apparently touched on the idea of the two parties co-developing a stablecoin. Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao denied the reports, but said he wouldn’t “mind a pardon.” Still, BNB was sitting around $615 as of Sunday evening, up 8% from its price five days prior.

TRUMP

Meme coins are so out this season (well... mostly), and the Trump family’s token is no exception. The token was trading around $11.32 as of Sunday evening, down about 47.9% from a month ago. On Inauguration Day, TRUMP’s market cap was around $14.5 billion; it now sits at roughly $2.2 billion.

XRP

Talk of an end to the legal battle between the SEC and Ripple is drawing attention to the payment company’s token, XRP.

Bitcoin

After a dip below $80,000 last week, Bitcoin staged a minor recovery over the weekend. The leading cryptocurrency was still down 10.9% from Jan. 1 as of Sunday evening, and that means the folks who flocked to it after witnessing the post-election boom are still seeing red. The early days of Trump’s second term have spelled chaos for Bitcoin, the price of which loosely correlates with the stock market. Given the tariffs to come and uncertainty surrounding AI stocks, more stock market carnage could drag Bitcoin down with it.

Cronos

A vote on reissuing burned tokens thrust Crypto.com-backed Cronos further into the spotlight. The cryptocurrency popped 3% in 24 hours to around $0.085 as of Sunday night.

[Quartz]

In my book Court and Politics: Chronicling my Experience in the Nigerian Theatre, I brought to the fore my personal experience on the unwholesomeness of some judgments of the Nigerian courts on certain critical political matters affecting our democracy. Because I am seen as a marginal player, my testimony went unheeded. But lately, it seems the chicken has finally come home to roost.

2. In the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings in Nigeria, particularly in cases such as those involving Imo governorship, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, former Senate President Ahmed Lawan, PDP Chairman Uche Secondus, Rivers State legislators, etc. legal and political circles have reignited one critical issue I raised in my book – i.e. a long-standing debate on judicial supremacy in presidential democracy! These cases have attracted widespread criticism because of the central figures involved, but they represent only a fraction of the judicial decisions that I have raised concerns about. Numerous other rulings affecting lesser-known individuals remain buried in law reports, yet their implications on the destruction of our democracy are no less consequential.

3. The real question, however, is not just about the correctness or otherwise of these judgments but about the very structure that grants the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, the final say in constitutional interpretation. In essence, should courts hold ultimate authority over the meaning of the constitution and the law in a presidential democracy? Or should constitutional interpretation be a shared responsibility among the branches of government?

4. To answer these questions appropriately, it should be clearly understood that the judicial supremacy in a democracy itself is basically of political foundation. The very idea that the judiciary is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution and the law is not a self-evident truth but a political arrangement. In democratic presidential systems, particularly of the American system that we copied, judicial supremacy exists largely because political actors – executive and legislative – have historically volunteered to cede interpretative authority to the courts, allowing them to assume the role of final arbiters of constitutional meaning. This voluntary surrender of interpretative power has been sustained by, and on the condition of, the judiciary’s ability to maintain public confidence in its impartiality, reasoned judgment and fidelity to justice.

5. However, this equilibrium is fragile, and certainly not sacrosanct. When courts repeatedly issue rulings that appear arbitrary, politically motivated or legally dubious, the foundation of this judicial supremacy becomes precarious, and threatened. A judiciary that oversteps its bounds or consistently delivers judgments that defy legal logic risks eroding the very deference upon which its authority rests. If judges become political actors in robes, then the logic of their supremacy collapses, inviting a political response that could diminish their interpretative monopoly.

6. It therefore becomes the right of citizens to look for an alternative to judicial supremacy. Taking cue from the United States, alternative to judicial supremacy is departmentalism, a constitutional doctrine championed by Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States. Jefferson rejected the idea that the courts alone had exclusive authority to interpret the constitution and the law. Instead, he argued that each branch of government – the executive, legislature and judiciary – should independently interpret the constitution as it applies to its functions.

7. Under departmentalism, the President, Congress and the Courts all have equal authority to determine what the law means within their spheres of influence. This doctrine maintains that courts may issue rulings, but their interpretations do not necessarily bind the executive or legislative branches beyond the particular cases at hand. While this approach has never gained traction to supplant judicial supremacy in the United States, it has still remained a recurring theme in American constitutional thought, resurfacing whenever the judiciary is perceived as overreaching. For instance, President FD Roosevelt also espoused the idea, leading to his bitter feud with the Supreme Court.

8. Given the troubling trend of judicial decisions in Nigeria today, might it be time to consider departmentalism as a safeguard against judicial excesses? The foundational argument for judicial supremacy is that it provides legal stability and prevents the executive and legislature from arbitrarily shaping the law to suit their interests. But what happens when it is the judiciary itself that subverts the law, bending it to political interests or delivering rulings that are manifestly unjust and illogical?

9. Judicial supremacy in Nigeria is sustained by two pillars: (1) the belief that courts are neutral arbiters, and (2) the willingness of political actors to abide by judicial interpretations. If either pillar weakens, the system automatically faces crises of legitimacy.

10. The aforementioned judgments by the Supreme Court, and those in my book, which many perceive as legally unsound or politically motivated, are already testing these foundations. If this trend continues, Nigerian politicians and legal scholars must begin to seriously explore departmentalism as a viable counterweight. The judiciary’s authority, after all, is not self-enforcing; it exists only so long as the political system accepts its decisions as legitimate. If public trust in the courts deteriorates beyond a certain threshold, calls for judicial reform – or even a fundamental restructuring of constitutional interpretation – should very well start gaining momentum.

11. Lately, the situation in the United States demonstrates how judicial supremacy can be challenged when the judiciary is perceived as an extension of political interests. President Trump’s repeated attacks on the U.S. legal system, particularly on Supreme Court rulings he viewed as biased, have fueled broader skepticism about the neutrality of the judiciary. This skepticism, on his return to power, is now translating into a more pronounced debate over the limits of judicial power in a democratic system.

12. The time has come for an intellectual and political debate on the efficacy, desirability or otherwise of judicial supremacy in Nigeria’s presidential democracy. Should judges have the final say in interpreting the constitution, even when their rulings contradict the spirit of democracy, public interest or common sense? Or should constitutional interpretation be a shared function among all branches of government, as departmentalism suggests?

13. If the judiciary continues to issue questionable rulings without accountability, Nigeria’s political actors are duty bound to re-evaluate the balance of power in constitutional interpretation. The consequences of such a shift could be profound, altering the very structure of Nigeria’s democracy. The judiciary must hence recognize that its authority is not absolute but contingent upon its ability to uphold the law fairly, speedily, consistently and independently.

14. A legal system that prioritizes power over principle is unsustainable. If decisions of the Nigerian courts continue to undermine public confidence, Nigeria may find itself at a constitutional crossroads, where the Jeffersonian school of thought should gain prominence and surface as a counterbalance to an increasingly unaccountable judiciary.

15. The debate is overdue.

The Rivers State Government has accused the State House of Assembly of obstructing Governor Siminalayi Fubara from fully implementing the Supreme Court judgment.

Speaking at a press conference in Port Harcourt on Monday, the state Commissioner for Information, Joseph Johnson, stated that Governor Fubara had remained committed to implementing the court’s verdict, despite its unfavorable outcome.

Details soon…

[DailyPost]