SECTION 134 (1) of the 1999 CONSTITUTION provides that in order to be declared the winner of an election, a candidate running for the office of the President of Nigeria must:
a. Have majority of the votes cast in the election; and
b. He has not less than one-quarter of the votes [25%] cast in each of at least two-third of all States of the Federation [24 States] and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The 2023 General Federal Elections conducted on the 25th of February 2023, resulted in Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Presidential Candidate of the All Progressive Congress as the winner of the election. However, the results as released by the Independent Electoral Commission [INEC] shows that he was not able to win up to 25% of the votes cast in the F.C.T. This has led to a debate on whether or not, he should be declared the winner, going by the interpretation of Section 134 (b) of the Constitution. There are 2 schools of thought on this:
1. A candidate needs to score 25% of the total votes in 24 States including the F.C.T.
2. A candidate needs to score 25% of the total votes in 24 States and 25% in the F.C.T too.
Section 6 of the Constitution establishes the Judiciary as the machinery charged with the interpretation of laws. Hence the Supreme Court, being the Apex Court is burdened with this enormous responsibility. In the celebrated decision of Awolowo v. Shagari [1979] Sc 62/1979, the locus classicus which establishes the use of Literal Rule in interpretation of statutes, the Supreme Court held that laws should be given their literal interpretation, especially where there is no ambiguity of any kind.
“When interpreting statutory provisions, it is correct, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, that the words used must be given their natural and ordinary meaning except where, to do so would lead to absurdity.”
However, in this instance, the words of the Constitution, though look simple, are quite capable of two different interpretations. As we all know, simple punctuations can render several meanings to a sentence. In the same vein, a statute can be drafted in such a way that it is capable of having different meanings. In such a situation, what should the Courts do? In the same Awolowo v. Shagari, the Court said:
It is also relevant, we think, to point out that anybody called upon to interpret any kind of statute should not, for any reason, attach to its statutory provision, a meaning which the words of the statute cannot reasonably bear. If the words used are capable of more than one meaning, then the person interpreting the statute can choose between these meanings, but beyond that he must not go…. “Judges are not called upon to apply their opinions of sound policy so as to modify the plain meaning of statutory words, but where, in construing general words the meaning of which is not entirely plain there are adequate reasons for doubting whether the legislature could have been intending so wide an interpretation as would disregard fundamental principles, then we may be justified in adopting a narrower construction.“
The Court was basically saying whenever a provision is capable of having two meanings, it would resort to picking one in so far as it is not going beyond both of them.
Furthermore, in a plethora of cases, the Courts have said that the intention of the draftsmen should be considered while interpreting laws, hence, a statutory provision is not given a wrong meaning. The Court of Appeal in P.D.P V. Edevbie [2022] Lpelr-58656 [CA], relying on Saraki V. F.R.N [2016] 3 Nwlr [Part 1500] Page 531, stated that the main object of statutory interpretation is to discover the intention of the lawmaker, which is to be deduced from the language used. But, the question is, how can we truly know and decipher their intentions especially in this particular situation?
The interpretation of Section 134 would have been so much easier if it used the word “including” rather than “and”. In this way, the meaning would be the candidate scoring 25% of the votes in 24 states including the FCT; thereby counting the FCT as the 37th State. But, it does not. Hence, this is subject to an alternative interpretation.
The buck stops at the desk of the Supreme Court. It can elect any of the possible meanings of Section 134 and it would be deemed right. This is because the plain interpretation of the Constitution can result to more than one meaning and in such scenario, the Court is enjoined to make a choice as long as it does not go beyond the possible meanings.
As said earlier, the Supreme Court has a heavy duty to discharge here. English Language is the latest hard nut the Court must crack. A battle of interpretation. Indeed, it is Grammar versus the Gavel.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
