The presidency has said that President Bola Tinubu is ready to fire underperforming ministers who fail to deliver on their targets.

The President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, revealed to Sunday PUNCH that the President has yet to decide on the ministers’ performances. 

Nevertheless, he has mandated them to meet the administration’s eight-point agenda, warning that those who fail to meet expectations will be dismissed.

Onanuga also rated the administration’s performance high as it approaches its first year in office, giving it a score of 70 percent.

He pointed out that under President Tinubu’s leadership, Nigeria was initially using 97 per cent of its revenue for debt servicing and borrowing for recurrent costs, such as salaries. 

He emphasized that the administration prevented economic collapse by implementing decisive actions like removing the fuel subsidy and unifying the exchange rate.

President Tinubu, during the inauguration of his 48 ministers, advisers, and other aides, urged them to set aside personal interests and concentrate on the government’s urgent goal of lifting Nigeria out of poverty.

The President gave this advice at the end of a three-day retreat for ministers, permanent secretaries, presidential aides, and other top government officials at the State House in Abuja last year after their appointment.  

Meanwhile, President Bola Tinubu, in commemoration of his first anniversary in office, on Wednesday, directed forty-seven ministers in his cabinet to present their performance reports to Nigerians.

The directives was relayed by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, during a press briefing in Abuja.

[NaijaNews]

There are currently protesters on the streets of Gaya, one of the five emirates affected by the repealed Kano Emirates Council Law.

The New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) controlled House of Assembly had repealed the law which ex-Governor Abdullahi Ganduje used to dethrone Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II in 2020.

While assenting to the law on Thursday, Governor Abba Yusuf announced dissolution of the four extra emirates created by Ganduje.

The emirates are Rano, Gaya, Karaye and Bichi.

The governor also directed all the monarchs, including Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim Abdulkadir, Emir of Gaya, to hand over to Comrade Abdulsalam Gwarzo, Deputy Governor, who oversees the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affair.

Residents told Daily Trust that the dethroned Emir vacated the palace at midnight on Thursday.

There was no sign of any form of violence or resistance in the town as there was the presence of armed security personnel.

A resident, Abubakar Shuaibu, had said some people were not happy with the development.

But on Sunday morning, residents trooped to the streets to reject the dissolution of the emirate.

Wielding placards and chanting anti-government songs, the protesters alleged injustice, saying the dissolution of the emirate has political undertone.

Details later…

[DailyTrust]

Manchester United legend, Roy Keane has called on the club to support manager Erik ten Hag after he led the team to victory in the FA Cup final on Saturday amid speculations the Dutchman could be sacked in the coming days.

Ten Hag’s future at Man United is still unclear despite winning the FA Cup after his side’s 2-1 win over Man City in the final at Wembley Stadium.

Speaking to ITV Sport, Keane stated, “We don’t know if a decision has been made, we know the pressure the manager is under and the questions before the game.

“It’s always difficult when you are preparing for a cup final. In football you have to enjoy these moments, the staff, the players, the supporters. And then cross the bridge when it comes to it.

“The manager has done his job today. Beating Man City in an FA Cup final is an extra bonus. Fingers crossed they support the manager.”

Recall that two goals from Alejandro Garnacho and Kobbie Mainoo gave Ten Hag’s side the victory over City as Jeremy Doku’s goal was not enough for the Premier League champion.

[DailyPost]

At the climax of the Nigerian Air Force 60th anniversary, President Bola Tinubu has promised that his administration will procure more state-of-the-art aircrafts and equipments to combat insecurity ravaging the country.

This was even as he pledged his administration’s unwavering commitment to prioritising national security and the welfare of the armed forces.

The president, who was represented by his vice, Kashim Shettima at the Ceremonial Parade to Commemorate the 60th anniversary in Kaduna said, he is standing with the armed forces through challenges, triumphs, and grief, not as repayment but as an assurance of the nation’s unwavering support.

The president while hailing the NAF’s six decades of service, sacrifice, and patriotism said: “I bear with me today the gratitude of a nation that has watched your transformation into a formidable and resilient organisation, vigilant of the dynamics and complexities of security threats within and outside our borders for this long.”

President Tinubu praised the critical role played by the Nigerian Air Force in maintaining regional and sub-regional peace and security, expressing pride in the institution’s formidable and resilient transformation over the years.

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has urged President Bola Tinubu to use his first year in office as an avenue to publish his assets declaration form.

SERAP asked the President to “use the anniversary of your first year in office as an opportunity to demonstrate your oft-expressed commitment to democracy, accountability, and openness in government by immediately publishing your asset declaration form,” the organisation said in a statement issued on Sunday by its deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare.

SERAP urged Tinubu “to encourage your Vice-President Kashim Shettima, ministers, and state governors to also widely publish their asset declaration forms.”

It noted that to “promote public trust and establish a system of transparency, accountability and public participation,” Tinubu should “urgently propose a constitutional amendment to include provisions on the creation of asset declaration database to publish government officials’ asset declaration forms before, during, and after serving in public office.”

SERAP, in its statement, indicated that “openness and transparency in the details of asset declaration forms of high-level public officials would strengthen the country’s democracy and promote accountability at all levels of government.”

The statement partly read, “You promised in your inaugural speech on May 29, 2023, ‘to take proactive steps to discourage corruption’, and to ensure that ‘Nigeria is impartially governed according to the constitution and the rule of law’.

“We urge you to use your first anniversary in office as an important opportunity to underscore and reaffirm your oft-repeated commitment to democratic governance, openness and public accountability by immediately taking concrete steps to implement the proposed recommendations.

“Transparency in the details of asset declaration forms would also enable Nigerians to scrutinise the forms and verify the financial situation of public officials and alert about possible conflicts of interest and corruption.”

SERAP stated that the declaration of assets by public officials is a “matter of public interest and your government ought to provide the leadership,” noting that one of the ways through which “corrupt politicians in the country have perpetuated corrupt practices is through hiding assets.”

“Our requests are brought in the public interest, and in keeping with the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended]; and Nigeria’s international anticorruption and human rights obligations.

“Information regarding the property and economic interests of public officials ought to be accessible to the public through a website created for this purpose,” SERAP said.

It stated further that “because asset declaration forms are public documents, public officials cannot claim that publishing their assets would violate their privacy rights.

“There is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information on the assets of public officers who are trustees of Nigeria’s wealth and resources.

“Publishing your asset declaration form and encouraging your Vice-President, ministers and state governors to also widely publish their asset declaration forms would enable Nigerians to scrutinise the assets and worth of public officials before taking office and at the end of their term of office.”

SERAP highlighted sections of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, contained in Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended], the Tribunal Act, the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption and Articles 7(4) and 8(5) of the UN Convention against Corruption, among others, as supportive of assets declaration by public officers.

“We hope that the aspects highlighted will help guide your steps in taking steps to publish your asset declaration form and to encourage others to do so,” the organisation urged.

As part of his resolve to ensure maximum efficiency in his administration, the Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to the President, Bayo Onanuga, told Sunday PUNCH of Tinubu’s readiness to fire underperforming ministers who fail to deliver on targets set for them.

Onanuga also rated the performance of the administration high as it approaches its first year in office, giving it a score of 70 per cent.

[Punch]

The Federal Government has instituted a legal action against the Governors of the 36 States of the Federation at the Supreme Court over alleged misconduct in the administration of Local Government Areas, LGAs.

FG, in the suit marked: SC/CV/343/2024, which was filed by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, is seeking full autonomy for all LGAs in the country as the third tier of government.

It specifically prayed the apex court to issue an order, prohibiting state governors from embarking on unilateral, arbitrary and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected local government leaders.

As well as for an order permitting the funds standing in the credits of local governments to be directly channeled to them from the Federation Account in line with the provisions of the Constitution as against the alleged unlawful joint accounts created by governors.

Besides, FG, prayed the Supreme Court for an order, stopping governors from further constituting Caretaker Committees to run the affairs of local governments as against the Constitutionally recognized and guaranteed democratic system.

It equally applied for an order of injunction, restraining the governors, their agents and privies, from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefits of local governments when no democratically elected local government system is put in place in the states.

Governors of the 36 States were sued through their respective Attorneys General.

In the 27 grounds it listed in support of the suit, FG, argued that Nigeria, as a  federation, was a creation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, with the President, as Head of the Federal Executive Arm, swearing on oath to uphold and give effects to provisions of the Constitution.

It told the apex court: “That the governors represent the component states of the Federation with Executive Governors who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution and to at all times, give effect to the Constitution and that the Constitution, being the supreme law, has binding force all over the Federation of Nigeria.

“That the Constitution of Nigeria recognizes federal, states and local governments as three tiers of government and that the three recognized tiers of government draw funds for their operation and functioning from the Federation Account created by the Constitution.

“That by the provisions of the Constitution, there must be a democratically elected local government system and that the Constitution has not made provisions for any other systems of governance at the local government level other than democratically elected local government system.

“That in the face of the clear provisions of the Constitution, the governors have failed and refused to put in place a democratically elected local government system even where no state of emergency has been declared to warrant the suspension of democratic institutions in the state.

“That the failure of the governors to put democratically elected local government system in place, is a deliberate subversion of the 1999 Constitution which they and the President have sworn to uphold.

“That all efforts to make the governors comply with the dictates of the 1999 Constitution in terms of putting in place, a democratically elected local government system, has not yielded any result and that to continue to disburse funds from the Federation Account to governors for non existing democratically elected local government is to undermine the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution.

“That in the face of the violations of the 1999 Constitution, the federal government is not obligated under section 162 of the Constitution to pay any State, funds standing to the credit of local governments where no democratically elected local government is in place.”

Consequently, FG, prayed the Supreme Court to invoke sections 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that the State Governors and State Houses of Assembly are under obligation to ensure a democratic system at the third tier of government in Nigeria and to also invoke the same sections to hold that the governors cannot lawfully dissolve democratically elected local government councils.

It also prayed for the invocation of sections 1, 4,  5,  7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that dissolution of democratically elected local government Councils by the Governors or anyone using the state powers derivable from laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly or any Executive Order, is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.

In a 13 paragraghs affidavit that was deposed to by one Kelechi Ohaeri from the Federal Ministry of Justice, the AGF said he filed the suit under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the FG.

The deponent averred that local government system recognized by the Constitution is a democratically elected local government councils, adding that the amount due to local government Councils from the Federation Account is to be paid to local government system recognized by the Constitution.

Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya probably believed he was a commodities trader who happened also to moonlight as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. To him, both vocations seemed to provide mutually reinforcing revenue streams. Sometimes, he transacted business as one while doing the other. In keeping with this tendency, it was an unsuccessful transaction in the sale of beans that brought his vocation as a judge to an untimely end.

The story began with the 2015 elections. In Abia State, south-east Nigeria, the parliamentary elections in 2015 were not without controversy. Nnamdi Iro Oji, a losing candidate in those elections, filed a petition with the National Judicial Council (NJC) in January 2016 levying serious allegations of misconduct against Ladan Tsamiya. What follows is from the 19-page report of the NJC investigation committee into these allegations. Sunday Akintan, a retired Supreme Court Justice, chaired the NJC’s investigation committee into Oji’s complaint. The other members of the committee were Hakila Yalla Hemman, then Chief Judge of Gombe state; and Aloy Nweke Nwankwo, Chief Judge of Ebonyi State.

Oji complained that around October 12, 2015, after the conclusion of first instance proceedings in his case at the Abia State Election Petition Tribunal in Umuahia, the capital of Abia state, he got introduced to someone “who was in the system”, who took him to a house in Sokoto, north-west Nigeria, where they met with Ladan Tsamiya. After condemning the election petition tribunal as having been “influenced”, Ladan Tsamiya advised Oji to write a petition to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a change in the composition of the Court of Appeal panel in Owerri. His application was granted but he was “shocked when he saw that Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya was one of those sent to Owerri Judicial Division to handle the appeal.”

Over a sequence of encounters which occurred in Sokoto, Gwarimpa (Abuja), and Owerri in Imo state, according to Oji, Ladan Tsamiya requested him to provide ₦200 million “to enable him to discuss with the three (3) justices who were to handle the appeal to influence the court’s decision in his favour.” When he seemed reluctant, the Justice of Appeal warned Oji that failure to deliver the requisitioned sum or a substantial part thereof “may bring a shocking outcome to the appeal.” Specifically, Ladan Tsamiya advised Oji that “the funds which should be in foreign currency should be brought to him in his private residence in Owerri, Imo State, which was where they met.” Despite having a strong case on the facts, the decision in Oji’s appeal went the way that Ladan Tsamiya had predicted after he failed to deliver the funds demanded.

These allegations may have been staggering in their substance, but Ladan Tsamiya’s response was not lacking in invention or audacity. According to him, this was a tale of a sale of beans gone awry. Sometime in November 2015, he said, three persons “one Hausa and his two Igbo friends met him in Sokoto and the Hausa man introduced himself as a buyer of beans and ginger which His Lordship said he had in commercial quantities.” He reportedly “assumed that the two Igbos were also interested in buying the commodities.” It was in the course of these conversations, according to Ladan Tsamiya, that “one of them” reportedly asked for his assistance in connection with a pending case at the Court of Appeal. He claimed he declined, telling them that he could not help because he was not their lawyer. The discussions over the sale of beans – according to Ladan Tsamiya – subsequently broke down and could not be consummated.

Unsurprisingly, Ladan Tsamiya’s story of mixing commodity trading with judging proved to be unconvincing. In their report delivered on September 22, 2016, the committee of investigation found the case against Ladan Tsamiya to be “credible” and recommended sanctions against him. Eight days later, on September 30, 2016, the NJC announced its decision to compulsorily retire him from judicial service.

12 years earlier, it was arguably their inclination to do what Nigerians call “chopping alone” that ultimately ended the careers of two other senior Justices of Appeal, Okwuchukwu Opene and David Adeniji. In 2004, the NJC recommended the dismissal of both Justices of Appeal after they collected sundry items of bribery, including ₦15 million and ₦12 million respectively to award the contest for the Anambra South senatorial constituency in the 2003 general election to Ugochukwu Uba, who was not a candidate in the contest. James Ogebe, the senior Justice of Appeal then who headed the Court of Appeal panel drafted to Enugu to replace them after the scandal broke recalls in his memoirs that “there was clear evidence of bribery…. They brought a bag containing the money that was not properly closed. A cook who was cooking for them inside the official house even saw it. He was the one who carried the bag inside. They just gave him ₦10,000 from it.”

Eight years after the end of Ladan Tsamiya’s experiment in occupational cross-dressing ended his career, in May 2024, the NJC announced that they “cautioned” Amina Shehu, a judge of the High Court of Yobe State “for issuing Writ of Possession Conferring Title on the Defendant in Suit No YBS/HC/NNR/1cv/2020 when there was no subsisting judgement (sic) of any Court to enable His Lordship issue the Writ.” In ordinary parlance, the issuing of a writ of possession in the absence of an underlying judgment would be a felony crime of burglary, theft, conversion, or stealing. If committed by an ordinary citizen, such a crime would almost certainly have an additional element of fraud. Any person who can commit such an act surely should have no place in any judicial service worth its name. By concluding that the appropriate sanction in such a case is a mere “caution”, the NJC makes it difficult to distinguish a judge from the criminals whom they are supposed to hold to account.

These three cases discussed here hardly differed in terms of gravity. Instead of accountability, the judiciary especially under the outgoing Chief Justice, Olukayode Ariwoola, has converted the myth of judicial independence into a charter for judicial impunity. In the case of Ladan Tsamiya, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) launched an investigation after the conclusion of the disciplinary process by the NJC, leading to his arrest. He was later arraigned for trial before the High Court of Imo State in Owerri in July 2019. Five months before the trial, however, in February 2019, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Abuja presided over by the recently deceased Noelita Agbakoba as judge, set aside the decision of the NJC for having been reached in violation of relevant provisions of the Judicial Discipline Regulations. Under Olukayode Ariwoola – as a discerning tweep has pointed out – “Someone who sprayed Naira got 6 months. Someone who issued a warrant of possession without a preceding judgement got a warning.”

Over the 20-year period that separates the disciplinary cases concerning Okwuchukwu Opene and David Adeniji in 2004; Ladan Tsamiya in 2016; and Amina Shehu in 2024, the sanction issued by the NJC for judicial misconduct of a criminal nature became attenuated from dismissal through compulsory retirement to a mere love letter, signalling the collapse of judicial discipline and accountability in the country under Olukayode Ariwoola as Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Over that time horizon, the judicial process in the public perception became somewhat tarnished to a mere transaction in which outcomes are more likely than not to be determined by a quid pro quo between litigants and the presiding officers, and not by the strength of the evidence or a fair and dispassionate application of the norms. At the special session of the Supreme Court to usher in the new legal year organized on November 27, 2023, Ebun Sofunde, SAN, who addressed the court on behalf of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), captured this well when he warned that judicial reputation “is at an all-time low… to a point where it may no longer be redeemable.” This sums up the state of Nigeria’s judiciary 25 years into elective government.

Time flies. It does. Our latest experience of democracy is almost a quarter of a century old. I was in Abuja on May 29, 1999 when Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar handed over power to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Well, I was not at the Eagle Square. I was in the THISDAY backroom team that coordinated the coverage. From a hotel room, we monitored proceedings on TV. That was the second military-to-civilian transition, the first having taken place on October 1, 1979, when Gen Olusegun Obasanjo handed over to Alhaji Shehu Shagari at the Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos. The parade commander at the 1979 handover ceremony was a certain Lt Col Abdulsalami Abubakar. You can’t make that up!

I was born under military rule and started primary school under military rule. Although Shagari was president when I entered secondary school, the military was soon back in power and I spent my teenage years as a subject of military dictatorship. I did my national service under military rule. I started my journalism career under military rule. The long and short of it is that for most of my life until 1999, I had known no other form of government apart from military rule. I was brought up hearing command-and-control expressions like “order” and “with immediate effect”. I was used to seeing Nigerians being chased off the road for convoys. I was used to curfews on election days.

At the handover, which the CNN took live, Obasanjo promised to fight corruption. I liked the determination on his face, but that was probably where he, or we, began to get it twisted. Whereas the president, as the country’s leader, has to set the right tone and signal in the anti-corruption war, it cannot be entirely on his shoulders. In a country that has 36 governors, 469 federal lawmakers, 993 state legislators and 8,809 councillors as well as thousands of federal and state judges, how did fighting graft become the duty of one person? It was probably because of the “strongman” mindset that we had. This later became a powerful weapon that helped install Afrodemocracy in Nigeria.

Afrodemocracy is the pseudo democracy widely practised in many African countries. It imitates core features of popular democracy such as elections and representation. In reality, Afrodemocracy is a glorified monarchy, with the president sometimes referred to as “Baba” — roughly translated “father” or, more appropriately, “demigod”. This “babarism” enables despotism. Afrodemocracy easily falls under what Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, political science scholars, call “competitive authoritarianism” where “formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority” but is effectively a diminished form of authoritarianism.

I have quoted Levitsky and Way a number of times in this column because their words are so spot on, and I will do it again: “Although incumbents in competitive authoritarian regimes may routinely manipulate formal democratic rules, they are unable to eliminate them or reduce them to a mere facade. Rather than openly violating democratic rules (for example, by banning or repressing the opposition and the media), incumbents are more likely to use bribery, co-optation, and more subtle forms of persecution, such as the use of tax authorities, compliant judiciaries, and other state agencies to ‘legally’ harass, persecute, or extort cooperative behaviour from critics.” Touche!

In Afrodemocracy, elections are mostly superficial. They are meant to impose legitimacy. Elections are patently incomplete without rigging, vote buying and varying degrees of violence, including killing. State institutions often compromise the process, based on either “instructions from above” or financial inducement, or both. Many voters expect some form of inducement or reward too. The electoral system is stained from start to finish. Virtually all the political parties rig in their strongholds. Indeed, the competition is always about not being outrigged. But we have successfully deceived ourselves into thinking it is only the winner that rigs and the losers are saints. So it goes.

Conversely, in a mature democracy, every vote counts, at least in most places. Elections, by and large, reflect the wishes of the majority. Democratic institutions, such as the legislature and judiciary, function without being subservient to the executive. There is freedom of association. State institutions do not make themselves available to be used to persecute citizens because of political affiliation. There are enough in-built guarantees of independence in the system, faithfully and patriotically implemented by the operators. There is freedom of speech. The voice of the people is heard loud and clear. Press freedom is recognised and respected as a major plank of democracy.

May I swiftly add here that “liberal” democracy is not perfect — we can all see how President Donald Trump is stretching American democracy to the limit — but the system is robust enough to take care of the shenanigans. Moreover, the concepts of separation of powers (in a presidential system) and checks and balances allow democracy to self-correct its own ills. The good thing is that the people have a voice that cannot be stifled and the elected representatives are constantly on their toes. Everyone with power knows that it comes with responsibility. Above all, there is rule of law and constitutional order. These are not the sort of practices under dictatorships or military rule.

Like millions of Nigerians, I looked forward to the propagation of democracy in our land with the exit of military dictatorship in 1999. Regrettably, what we ordered was not what we got. Nigeria started descending into Afrodemocracy during the first term of Obasanjo, who started taking a number of unilateral actions, disobeying court orders and infiltrating the National Assembly to install and uninstall the leadership. During his second term in office, he found a legal leeway for repression by setting up the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to witch-hunt those who were not in his camp. Dissenting governors were regularly removed — against the constitutional order.

The EFCC template became a tool for subsequent administrations: going after political opponents or those considered to be politically expendable. This sits well with many Nigerians who love media trial and jungle justice, even if the corruption allegations are weak or spurious. It also helps that the politicians themselves are not above board, so everything done to them is kosher in the eyes of many Nigerians. Afrodemocracy takes root under such circumstances, as a despotic president will simply cow opposition into submission. It is not uncommon for opposition figures to defect to the ruling party — some for economic reasons, some out of fear of being targeted by the EFCC.

Persecution, repression and co-optation weaken competitive democracy because of the likely absence of robust opposition. This can, in turn, deprive the citizens of good governance since the basic elements of accountability and transparency will be virtually non-existent. How then can democracy dividends be delivered to the people? In most cases, citizens are reduced to nothing and they are ever ready to trade their dignity for crumbs from the table of power. What should be their right will be passed to them as a privilege. Politicians, unable to use their track record to win support, will prey on the citizens by playing up sectional interests to good effect, especially at election times.

The good news is that what we call “liberal democracy” today also had elements of Afrodemocracy — such as rigging, vote buying and political violence — centuries ago. It has evolved to what it is today. That is why democracy is often described as a journey, a continuum. And that is why we should celebrate our progress in 25 years. For one, Nigerian presidents have not been able to reduce the federal judiciary and legislature to mere rubber stamps. This is a glimmer of hope. There is still the occasional nudge to put the executive in its place, even if often cosmetic. But that the nudge exists at all shows that we can yet liberalise our democracy. We can fan the flame into fire.

Another landmark to celebrate: in 2006, we survived a sinister self-succession scheme by truncating an amendment to the constitution. It was designed to give the president — and, accidentally, the governors — a third term in office. On the surface, the plan was to award Obasanjo an extra term of four years since the constitutional limit is two terms of four years each. But, as it goes with Afrodemocracy, changing the constitution is the first step to life presidency — one step at a time. The failure of the third term agenda was a major victory for the current democratic order. When we complain about how slow the democratisation project has been, we should not forget this win.

Without a doubt, the Nigerian people deserve better than what they are getting. Democracy is built around the people. In fact, the people are the object and subject of democracy. Conversely, Afrodemocracy is built around the political elite. They lord it over us. They become tin gods when they get into office and make themselves extremely comfortable first before remembering the purpose for which they were elected into office. But we still have the right to ask questions and we have used our power to vote them out in the past, be they president, governor, lawmaker, councillor or council chair. That is some comfort. We had no such authority or privilege under the military.

As we commemorate 25 years of democracy in Nigeria, our biggest challenge is how to make it work for the people. How can we demand and entrench good governance at all levels — federal, state and local? Our focus is always on elections, so our energies peak when it is time to vote. Thereafter, we switch off and begin to groan. Yet, we have to consciously organise ourselves to hold democratic institutions accountable and responsible on a daily, not seasonal, basis if we are going to help the process grow to our own benefit. It shouldn’t matter if our preferred candidates win or not. Nigeria belongs to us all. Good governance is not a gift to be home-delivered to us — we must demand it.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

GAME OF THRONES

Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II has been controversially restored to his throne as Emir of Kano, four years after he was deposed by Dr Abdullahi Ganduje, then-governor of Kano state. I pity Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, his now deposed successor. He was a pawn on the chessboard. I think Ganduje went too far when he broke the Kano emirate into pieces clearly for political reasons. But the restoration of Sanusi could have been tidier given that there was a court injunction stopping it. No matter how bad an injunction is, it has to be obeyed until vacated or quashed. Ordering Bayero’s arrest, as Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf did, baffles me. I wonder what these governors will do with state police. Scary.

ANNEXING BANEX

The Nigerian military has virtually relocated to the Banex Plaza, a favourite market for phones and computers in Abuja, after some traders assaulted two soldiers in uniform following a disagreement over a faulty mobile phone. I will say this again: under no circumstances should anyone assault uniformed officers. It is an attack on the state. If any civilian is wronged by soldiers, there are processes of seeking redress. But the same thing applies to the military: why shut down dozens of businesses because of the offence of a few? The culprits could have been fished out. For those canvassing a return to military rule, that is just a taste of the tyranny we suffered for decades. Brutal.

2023 REPEAT

I know I am getting ahead of myself, but since we are already discussing the 2027 presidential election (evidently, Nigerians were created for elections), I am here to predict that it will be a rematch of 2023: Bola Tinubu vs Atiku Abubakar vs Peter Obi. Atiku has just said he will run for president for as long as he is healthy. He recently denied plans to endorse Obi in 2027. Obi himself is already playing retail politics in the core north, where he fell short in 2023. And Tinubu’s associates are openly talking about mobilising the president’s re-election. It will not be the first rematch. We watched Goodluck Jonathan vs Muhammadu Buhari in 2011 and the rematch in 2015. Intriguing.

A train moving from Kaduna to Abuja has reportedly derailed at Jere.

Daily Trust reports that the train departed Kaduna around 8:05am and derailed about an hour later.

Three carriages were said to have gone off the tracks.

Security operatives are currently on the scene to watch over the dozens of stranded passengers and offer support.

More to follow…

INTRODUCTION

Few days ago, the Court of Appeal held a capacity building workshop for Justices of the Court of Appeal and members of Election Petition Tribunals nation-wide. No doubt, the Nigerian Judiciary is a major player in holding any credible elections, being the third arm of government that resolves disputes and interprets the law. My Ozekpedia (modeled after Wikipedia, Legalpedia, Encyclopedia, Europedia, Glottopedia, Physiopedia, etc) once described the Judiciary’s recent role in election matters as “Judocracy - form of government where presidents, governors, Senators, House of Representatives members, House of Assembly members, chairmen of local government, Councilors, etc., are incubated, midwifed and delivered in the hallowed courts of law rather than through the ballot box” (See https://www.premiumtimesng.com/opinion/603439-how-buharocracy-put-nigeria-in-throes-by-mike-ozekhome.html?tztc=1, June 9, 2023; https://independent.ng/2023-pept-pronouncement-a-judocracy-against-nigerians-ozekhome/, September 7, 2023).

OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP

To attain pure and undiluted justice, there is the urgent need to take a second hard look at the Constitution and statutory provisions dealing with elections and electoral disputes in Nigeria. To inquire into building capacity for Judges via training on election-related matters and improve mechanisms for case management, the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) headed by ace rights activist, Clement Nwankwo (we were in the trenches together in the 80s and 90s), in collaboration with the International Foundation for Electoral System (IFES) and the Court of Appeal, organized the capacity-building programme to support and strengthen the work and role of the Judiciary as it relates to election matters generally. The workshop aimed at promoting judicial excellence, electoral integrity and democratic governance.

At the workshop, the intermediate court’s jurists discussed and made many far-reaching and salutary recommendations that will go a long way in sanitizing and deodorizing our warped electoral process, after INEC had woefully failed in its duty to carry out free, fair, credible and transparent elections. The learned jurists should know better because they constituted the pivot and linchpin of adjudication during the 2023 electoral disputes era. Many judgements were applauded; but some were met with public anger, outcry and ruckus as a result of the perceived injustice and unfairness midwifed by such judgements.

The workshop which targeted Justices of the Court of Appeal and Judges/Members of the Election Petition Tribunal provided an avenue to build their skills on effective resolution of election disputes ahead of the upcoming 2027 General Elections, and to correct past errors. Also considering a new legal framework for elections in place, the Justices/Judges were trained on the application of the new Electoral Act, 2022, as well as on Practice and Procedure in Election Petition Tribunals.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MY HUMBLE PERSPECTIVES

I agree with many of the recommendations arrive at during the workshop as they aim to enhance the efficiency, fairness and transparency of the present warped electoral process which I had spoken so often about. (See https://newtelegraph.com/2023-general-elections-and-a-fractionalised-electoral-process-part-4/, July 10, 2022; https://www.tvcnews.tv/2017/03/nba-ozekhome-disagree-on-election-reform/, March 31, 2017). However, I hold a differing opinion on some of the recommendations. For example, the recommendation that the Court of Appeal should be the final arbiter in governorship election disputes cannot be supported having regard to the sensitive nature of the gubernatorial seat. I will explain anon. Following are my humble thoughts on each point of the recommendations:

1. ELECTORAL DISPUTES SHOULD BE DECIDED BEFORE SWEARING-IN

I completely agree with this salutary and commendable recommendation. Ensuring that all post-election disputes are resolved before the winners take office would promote stability and ensure legitimacy in governance. It would also prevent situations where elected officials face multiple legal challenges and hurdles during their embryonic stages in office. These are invariably disruptive and serve as a major distraction to elected persons who bellyache as to whether or not they would eventually sail through. They lose concentration thereby and focus more on their court battles, all to the detriment of governance.

2. ALL PRE- AND POST-ELECTION DISPUTES SHOULD NOT TERMINATE AT THE COURT OF APPEAL:

While expediting the resolution process is important, I humbly suggest that governorship and Senatorial election matters should undergo an additional layer of scrutiny by the Supreme Court, the final court of the land. Given the significant impact of governorship and Senatorial elections on the various States and Senatorial zones in Nigeria, it is crucial for the highest court of the land to provide a final, definitive ruling on such matters, to ensure comprehensive justice and avoid premature stultification of litigation.

This my humble opinion is particularly relevant in the light of the recent 2023 elections, specifically the Plateau State Election Petitions, where the Court of Appeal invalidated the victories of more than 23 lawmakers from Plateau State, elected under the People's Democratic Party (PDP). I had critiqued this. (See https://independent.ng/ozekhome-enumerates-reasons-acourt-should-have-reviewed-plateau-legislators-judgment/, March 2, 2024; https://dailypost.ng/2024/01/17/ozekhome-supreme-court-judgement-plateau-lawmakers-dilemma-reignites-calls-for-electoral-act-amendment/ , January 17, 2024; https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/13/your-judgments-on-kano-plateau-zamfara-perverse-supreme-court-blasts-acourts-election-panels/, January 13, 2024). The nullifications were based on alleged irregularities in the nomination and sponsorship processes of the candidates by their political party (the PDP), which was said to “have no structures” (whatever that meant). These decisions were perceived as unjust and legally untenable by both legal pundits and political observers for several reasons. Firstly, the Court of Appeal's judgements appeared to have arbitrarily overturned settled judicial precedents regarding who has the locus standi to challenge alleged irregularities in a candidate's emergence at a party’s primaries. Secondly, there was significant debate over whether such complaints could be cognized by an Election Petition Tribunal, given its narrow jurisdiction under Sections 285 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, especially as they are pre-election matters.

Thirdly and more importantly, these decisions were seen as unjust and unfair because the Court of Appeal served as the final court in these matters, leaving the candidates without the opportunity to further appeal to the Supreme Court in their search for justice. The electors and voters’ preferences were jettisoned and substituted by the Court’s own preference. The votes were counted quite alright and the Legislators won. Oxymoronically, the same votes did not count; so the Legislators lost. It amounted to judicial disenfranchisement. This situation underscores the need for both governorship and senatorial election disputes to reach the Supreme Court, to ensure fairness and uphold democratic principles.

To prevent frivolous appeals and crowding of the apex court’s docket (the understandable fear of many), while maintaining the right to approach the Supreme Court review, a heavy non-refundable pre-filing deposit fee of 10 million Naira should be imposed on the Appellants. This measure would deter and heavily minimize, if not completely halt frivolous appeals and ensure that only serious constitutional cases get to the highest court. This balances the need for thorough judicial scrutiny with the necessity to streamline the legal process.

3. ADR MECHANISM FOR PRE-ELECTION MATTERS

This is a positive and commendable recommendation by the Workshop. Applying Alternative Dispute Resolution for pre-election matters as opposed to adversarial court litigation would help resolve disputes more quickly and amicably, thereby reducing the burden on the courts. This will foster a collaborative approach to resolving electoral conflicts.

4. AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE DISQUALIFICATION OF A DEPUTY DOES NOT AFFECT THE GOVERNOR:

It is important to ensure that the candidacy of a governor is not unduly affected by issues relating to the deputy governorship candidate. I believe that this amendment would provide clarity and stability in the electoral process. An ugly scenario that played out in the 2019 governorship election in Bayelsa State must be avoided. David Lyon of the APC had been declared governor-elect. He won square. He celebrated. He was live on television practising how to take the salute on a mounted daise for his inauguration the following day when news filtered in that a 5-man panel of the apex court had sacked him. His offence was that his Deputy, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, had presented false information to INEC in aid of his qualification as Lyon’s running mate. Thus, Degi’s sin was visited on an innocent Lyon whose own qualification was unquestionable. In my humble opinion, the judgement may have been based on technical law, devoid of justice.

5. INCORPORATING PARAGRAPH 25 (2) OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT INTO THE CONSTITUTION:

This ensures continuity in the hearing of election petitions even if the original presiding officer is unable to continue. It is a practical and necessary amendment to prevent delays and future challenges to the validity of judgements emanating from such tribunals.

6. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 285(7) & (12) REGARDING THE TIMELINE FOR APPEALS:

Clarifying the timeline for when the 60-day period for appeals begins is crucial for ensuring timely justice. I believe that Section 285(7) & (12) of the Constitution should be amended to specify that the countdown starts “from the date an appeal is entered in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.” This adjustment would streamline the process, providing a clear and unambiguous timeframe. It ensures that all parties involved have adequate time to present their arguments and that the courts can deliver their judgments efficiently and timeously. Remember that the Supreme Court has laid it down in Maku & Anor v. Sule & Ors (2019) LPELR-58513 (SC) that the requirement to file a petition within 21 days, relying on section 285 (5) of the 1999 Constitution, was a constitutional requirement and that the time frame was “just like the Rock of Gibralta or Mount Zion” which cannot be moved. Timeline in electoral matters, come nearer home, are like the Olumo Rock of Abeokuta and Zuma Rock of Abuja that cannot be moved.

7. REVIEWING THE STATE OF THE LAW ON THE TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS:

Revisiting and reviewing the laws on result transmission is crucial to prevent controversies such as we witnessed during the 2023 elections that put Nigerians on tension and tentacles as to whether or not there were “glitches” or breaks in transmission. Ensuring clear, transparent and reliable procedures for transmitting results will enhance the credibility of the electoral process. The difference between “transmit” and “transfer” and how they are exercised should be clearly defined and demarcated.

8. ALLOWING SUBPOENAED WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE:

This amendment would ensure that relevant testimonies are not excluded simply because they are not frontloaded with the petition itself, thereby supporting a thorough and fair examination of the facts in election disputes. How does a Petitioner frontload documents denied him by INEC even after a court or tribunal had granted permission for inspection and use of such electoral materials? What happens even if INEC releases them? The current position in law is that such evidence, having not been frontloaded, goes to no issue. This ugly spectre should be removed.

9. DELETION OF SECTION 137 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022:

Section 137 has not effectively altered the burden and standard of proof as defined in Sections 131-136 of the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act remains what it is - the law governing all evidential matters in any proceedings whether criminal, civil or electoral. Consequently, it is sensible to delete section 137 of the Electoral Act, so as to prevent confusion and maintain consistency with the established provisions of the Evidence Act of 2011 (now amended). This would ensure clarity in Electoral proceedings and uphold the integrity of the evidentiary standards already in place.

10. INCREASING THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL:

Increasing the number of Judges on the bench is a necessary step to making justice more accessible, and managing the workload more effectively. This measure would ensure timely resolution of cases by allowing more hands on deck to address the large backlog. By adding more judges, the judiciary can handle the volume of cases more efficiently, reducing delays and improving overall judicial performance. This improvement is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the legal system and ensuring that justice is delivered promptly.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while I support most of the recommendations arrived at during the Court of Appeal’s workshop, I firmly believe that governorship and senatorial election disputes should ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court, to ensure thorough and final adjudication. This would uphold the integrity of the electoral process and enhance public confidence in the judicial system.