by Vernia Legal Practitioners | Jan 11, 2023 | Commercial Law, Litigation, Society & Law
In preparation for unforeseen or uncontrollable events which may come to light in the course of executing contractual obligations, parties to the contract may insert the Force Majeure clause. The clause entitles parties to a contract to be discharged from carrying out their obligations in the contract as a result of certain specified unforeseen events or events beyond the control of the parties. The consequence of a Force Majeure clause is that any party unable to fulfil its own part of the contract would be excused from performance or the time for execution will be extended to allow the party carry out their obligations.
The Court of Appeal in its decision in Globe Spinning Mills Nigeria Plc. v. Reliance Textile Industries Limited [2017] LPELR – 41433 [CA] reiterated the importance of including a Force Majeure clause in contracts. By virtue of the unexpected global pandemic, the Force Majeure clause has become one of the most essential in Company Contracts. Numerous companies rely on this clause to alleviate the risk of non-performance and take away liability for inevitable and unforeseen occurrences, for example the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Elements of Force Majeure
There are certain indispensable conditions prerequisite to a Force Majeure clause availing the party seeking to leverage on it. These conditions were highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Diamond Bank Ltd V. Ugochukwu (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) per Rhodes- Vivour, J.C.A [as he then was]:
“…there must be an event which significantly changes the nature of the contractual rights of the parties that it would be unjust to expect the parties to perform those rights such as: (1) Where the subject matter of the contract has been destroyed, or is no longer available. (2) Death or incapacity of a party to a contract. (3) The contract has become illegal to perform as a result of new legislation. (4) A contract can be frustrated on the outbreak of war. (5) Where the commercial purpose of the contract has failed.”
As rightly stated by Abdu Aboki, J.C.A in Federal Ministry Of Health v. Urashi Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2018)] LPELR 46189 [CA], for an event to be considered as Force Majeure, it has to be unforeseen at the time of entering the contract. The occurrence must be one that could not have been imagined by any reasonable man and inevitable to the parties of the contract. It must also not be as a result of negligence, an act or omission of any of the parties to the contract, the events include both natural and human acts, for example riots, strikes or war.
Essence of Force majeure Clauses
Recently Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas [NLNG] invoked the Force Majeure clauses in all its Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPA) as a result of its inability to carry out its operations due to the flood in their operational areas, thereby excluding themselves from any liabilities that may arise as a result of the floods causing their inability to operate. Taking into consideration the recent occurrences around the world i.e. the COVID-19 Pandemic, unpredictable weather changes etc., the importance of inserting a Force Majeure clause in contracts cannot be overplayed.
Having a detailed, well-structured and unambiguous Force Majeure clause will save many contractual agreements, while protecting the parties from immense loss and even lawsuits.
Invocation and Limitation
The party relying on Force Majeure has to prove that it is truly incapable of fulfilling its contractual obligations as a result of the occurrence of the event stated in the clause, it must also prove that there was no way it could have foreseen the event.
A Force Majeure claim will not be upheld by the Court simply because the situation is difficult or the circumstances slightly changed; such an event must be one that could possibly not have been envisioned.
These limitations are vital to note because regardless of a Force Majeure clause, the party to a failed contract can still take action against the executor once there is the slightest possibility that such act could have been envisaged. Thus, a Force Majeure Clause can be used as a shield to protect oneself from liability. On the other hand, it can be a sword, to be used against the defaulting party to ensure fulfillment of his obligation.
A Force Majeure is also restricted to the events and the implications of the occurrence of such events covered under the clause.
Conclusion
It is important to note, for parties inserting the clause, it must be couched properly to avoid ambiguity and various interpretations.
Finally, regardless of how well a contract is drafted, the allowance for unforeseeable occurrences should always be created with comprehensive steps to alleviate the effects of such events that could not have been anticipated.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
by Vernia Legal Practitioners | Dec 20, 2022 | Commercial Law, Society & Law
Introduction
Introduction
It is beyond prevarication or doubt that proper regulations by the government of a state are indispensable for the proper functioning of economies and societies. The main objective for any such regulation is to ensure that the regulation works effectively, and is in public interest. This is why it is quite commendable that on the 19th day of October, 2022, the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria signed the Nigeria Startup Act, 2022 [the Act] into law, thus positioning Nigeria’s startup economy as the leading digital hub in Africa.
Definition of Startup
The Interpretation section of the Act defines Startup as “a company in existence for not more than ten [10] years, with its objective being the creation, innovation, production, development or adoption of a unique digital technology innovative product, service or process” See, Section 47 of the Act.
Basically, Startups are young companies founded to develop a unique product or service, bring it to the market and make it irresistible and irreplaceable for customers. It is a company typically in the early stages of its development.
Objectives Of The Act
Section 1 of the Act provides for the objectives of the Act as follows:
- Provide a legal and institutional framework for the development of startup in Nigeria;
- Provide an enabling environment for the establishment, development and operation of startups in Nigeria;
- Provide for the development and growth of technology-related talents; and
- Positioning Nigeria’s startup ecosystem, as the leading digital technology centre in Africa, having excellent innovators with cutting edge skills and exportable capacity.
Application Of The Act
From Section 2 of the Act, it is clear that the Act only applies to companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act and granted the startup label and organization and establishments, whose activities affect the creation, support, and incubation of labelled startups in Nigeria.
Highlights and Benefits of the Act
- Establishment of the National Council for Digital Innovation and Entrepreneurship [the Council]: Section 3 of the Act establishes the Council which is comprised of the President and Vice-President serving respectively as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council, as well as other stakeholders who were commendably carefully curated to draw support of the Executive Government to provide policy and encourage greater collaboration between the State and the private sector. The Council shall be a body corporate with the responsibility to formulate and provide general policy guidelines for the realization of the objectives of the Act together with other functions and powers as clearly stated in Section 7 [1] & [2] of the Act.
- Secretariat of the Council: By the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the National Information Technology Development Agency [NITDA] is designated to serve as the Secretariat of the Council [the Secretariat] to be headed by the Director General of the NITDA. The secretariat’s role has been designed to help operationalize the function of the Council and its functions are clearly started in Section 9 [2] [a-r] of Act.
- Startup Support and Engagement Portal: Section 10[1] of the Act establishes the Startup Support and Engagement Portal [the Portal] to serve as a flatform through which a startup conducts registration with relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies [“MDAs]. It also facilitates the issuance of permit or licence to labelled startups amongst other function as contained in Section 10[2] [a-l] of the Act. There shall also be a coordinator of the Portal who is responsible for maintaining a register of labelled startup in Nigeria and keeping relevant documents/record. The office of the Coordinator of the Startup Portal is provided under Section 11 of the Act.
- Startup Labelling Process: Section 13[2] of the Act defines “Labelled Startups” as registered limited liability companies that has been in existence for a period not more than ten years from the date of incorporation involved in innovation, development, production, improvement, and commercialization of a digital technology innovative product or process. One of the eligibility requirements for the grant of a startup label is that it must have at least one-third local shareholding held by one or more Nigerians as founder or co-founder, amongst others. Once a company becomes a labelled startup, it is obligated to comply with the provisions of the Act and all extant laws governing businesses in Nigeria. Other obligations are as provided in Section 16 of the Act.
- General Incentives for Startups:
- Establishment of Startup Investment Seed Fund [the Fund]: Section 19 [1] of the Act establishes the Fund to be managed by the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority. The Act provides that there shall be paid into the Fund on an annual basis, as un not less than Ten Billion Naira from sources to be approved by the Council. The Fund may provide financial support and early-stage finance to labelled startup, and also provide relief to technology laboratories, accelerators and hubs as provided by Section 19 [3] of the Act
- Training, Capacity Building and Talent Development: Section 21 and 22 of the Act provides that the Secretariat shall implement a training capacity building programme for Startups and also establish centres for acquisition of technology in the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria for the promotion of digital technology utilization, strengthening of digital technology management capability and information systems. These centres would achieve this through collaboration with relevant agencies, the private sector and supporting the activities of related academic research institution.
- Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: The Act acknowledges the importance of intellectual property rights towards the growth and development of startup. The Secretariat, as part of its objectives, must ensure that holders of intellectual property rights are encouraged to exploit these rights and the Secretariat shall also take steps towards assisting startups in institutionalizing and commercializing their rights. See; Section 31 of the Act.
- Tax and Fiscal Incentives: The Act provides several tax and fiscal relief for labelled startup. By Section 24 of the Act, a labelled startup operating in eligible industries under the Pioneer Status Incentives [PSI] Scheme may apply through the Secretariat to the Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission [NIPC] for grant of tax relief and incentives under the PSI. If granted, this would entitle the labelled startup to a tax holiday for an initial period of three years, which may be extended for an additional two years. Furthermore, by Section 25 [2] of the Act, a startup may also be exempted from payment of income tax or any other tax chargeable on its income or revenue for up to five years, subject to certain qualifications.
While the above listed incentives are not exhaustive, it should be noted that the incentives conceived under the Act apply not just to the startups, but also the wider ecosystem.
6. Regulatory Compliance for Startup: Below are some of the basic regulatory compliances that Startups in Nigeria need to comply with:
- Corporate Affairs Commission: As provided under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, all companies in Nigeria must be incorporated under CAC before commencing operation and Annual returns must also be filed.
- Tax Remittance: All Startups are required to register for tax and file their audited accounts and tax computations with the Federal Inland Revenue Service [FIRS] within eighteen [18] months of incorporating their company or not later than six [6] months after its accounting period, whichever is earlier. Value Added Tax [VAT] are also to be remitted to FIRS monthly except where tax incentives have been granted to such startup company.
- Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering [SCUML]: This is a unit under the Economic and Financial Crime Commission [EFCC] and some designated non-financial institutions are required to register with the Special Control Unit to obtain the SCUML Certificate.
Conclusion
The Nigeria Start up Act, 2022 is a fundamental step in the development of a legal framework for startups operating in Nigeria as there are adequate provisions and benefits which if effectively and practically implemented will aid the ability of the Act to achieve its objectives and also ensure that Nigeria Technology ecosystem remains in the global market.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
by Vernia Legal Practitioners | Dec 8, 2022 | Commercial Law, Litigation, Society & Law
Introduction
A Contract is simply an agreement between two or more parties that is legally binding. Simply put, it is an agreement that the law will enforce.
A Memorandum of Understanding on the other hand, is a preliminary to a Contract. It is an agreement that a contract will be entered between parties in future. Perfectly put by the Court of Appeal in Aburime & Anor v. Osunbor [2022] Lpelr-57590 [Ca]:
” Memorandum of Understanding is not the real agreement but a document guiding the future agreement. Its status is something less than a complete contract.……The implication is that its content cannot be enforced. Be that as it may, it remains a document which the parties can refer to for the purpose of reminding them of the content therein.” Per Bola, J.C.A. [PP 11 – 12]
Also, in B.P.S Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd V. Fcda [2017] Lpelr-42516 [Sc], the Supreme Court held per Kekere-Ekun, J.s.c (Pp 20 – 21 Paras B – B):
“…it is clear that a memorandum of understanding or letter of intent, merely sets down in writing what the parties intend will eventually form the basis of a formal contract between them. It speaks to the future happening of a more formal relationship between the parties and the steps each party needs to take to bring that intention to reality.
Therefore, it is clear as crystal that an MOU is not to be enforced. It is a preliminary to a future Agreement to be entered into by contracting parties. An MOU is for the future.
However, for every law, there is an exception. There is a way whereby an MOU can still be deemed an agreement which the Courts would recognize as binding on the parties. Where the parties to an MOU agree to be bound by the terms and conditions, none of them is permitted to later aver that the MOU is not binding. The rules of Estoppel forbid such party. The Court of Appeal in Tower Securities & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Coronation Merchant Bank Ltd (2020) Lpelr -51415 (Ca) per Aliyu, J.c.a (Pp 34 – 36 Paras A – E) explained:
“There is no doubt that an MOU’s status is less than a complete contract. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case under which the MOU was executed, I am confident to hold that the parties intended to be bound by the terms thereof. ……………In the case of B. P. S. Construction Company & Engineering Ltd Vs. FCDA (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1572) 1 or (2017) LPELR-42516 (SC)..………… both this Court and the Supreme Court held in that case, that the parties did not intend to be bound by the MOU, since it only represented a preliminary understanding of the parties’ plan to enter into a contract in the future. But in the case leading to this appeal, the parties did not make the MOU subject to the execution of any further agreement. They intended that it should be binding on them and indeed commenced the execution of the terms therein as noted supra. In this circumstance, the Appellant cannot be allowed to renege from it.”
Also, the Supreme Court held in Adedeji v. Obajimi [2018] 16 Nwlr Part 1644 Page 146 that an MOU was enforceable because the parties intended to be bound, they had intentions to create a legal relationship. The Appellant signed the MOU to pay the sum of N5,000,000 to buy a company [at a particular date] and also a statutory deposit of N500,000 to the Central Bank of Nigeria. It was agreed that in the event of an inconclusive sale, the Appellant would be reimbursed the money incurred for expenses. But the Appellant did not pay the N5,000,000 and he sued for reimbursement. The Apex Court held that he had breached the terms of the MOU as he failed to perform his contractual obligations. There was an intention to be bound and he breached the agreement. Therefore, the MOU was enforceable.
From the above decisions, there is an emphasis to intention to create legal relationships. This element is usually what differentiates contracts from mere agreements. Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and Capacity might all be present but no agreement will receive the force of law if it lacks an intention.
Conclusion
Memorandums of Understanding are generally unenforceable. There are usually preliminaries to future agreements. However, where parties intend to be bound, then they are placed on the same pedestal as Contracts and consequently receive the stamp of enforceability, in which case a Memorandum of Understanding is a binding obligation. Where there is intention, it is no longer a preliminary; it is a debt to be paid. An MOU is thus, an IOU.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
by Vernia Legal Practitioners | Oct 18, 2022 | Politics
Introduction
The ongoing political drama in Rivers State surrounding Governor Nyesom Wike and the House of Assembly of Rivers State together with Sir Celestine Omehia appears to be far from over. It has left quite a number of people concerned about the state of governance in Rivers State and Nigeria as a whole. Is this an obvious case of abuse of power or a noble act to correct a wrongful act?
Brief History
On the 26th of January 2007, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Amaechi commenced a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja against Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] and eventually joined Sir Celestine Omehia and the People Democratic Party [PDP] as parties to the suit. The case was appealed up to the apex Court in Nigeria [the Supreme Court] and the facts of the case are summarized thus: Amechi, a member of PDP, in his quest to be the Gubernatorial candidate of the party in the April 2007 contested the party primaries and emerged the winner. PDP submitted Amaechi’s name to INEC as PDP Gubernatorial candidate for the party but subsequently substituted Omehia’s name for Amaechi without giving cogent and verifiable reasons for the substitution as required by the Electoral Act, 2006.
The Supreme Court found in favor of the Rt. Hon. Chibuike Amaechi. The Court held that the PDP did not give sufficient reasons for substituting Amaechi’s name for that of Omehia. The reason for the substitution did not fulfil the requirements as provided under Section 34 of the Electoral Act. Thus, the substituted candidate’s victory in the election was irrelevant as his participation in the election was improper. The apex Court held that since the party’s candidate was not adequately removed, the campaign for votes done by the party was done in favour of the Chibuike Amaechi and he was the winner of the election, since PDP had won the election. He was thus the Governor of Rivers State by virtue of the political party winning the election. The Apex Court held that the participation of Celestine Omehia in the election was an illegal act and he could not be heard to claim benefits for his illegality. [See; AMAECHI V. INEC & ORS 2008 LPELR – 446 SC]
The First Resolution
By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Sir Celestine Omehia was Governor of Rivers State from 29th of May 2007 to 25th of October 2007 [about five months]. However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s well elucidated Judgment, the state government vide an instrument published in the official gazette of the Rivers State of Nigeria No. 5, Volume 52 of March 2016 under the hand of Governor Nyesom Wike recognized Sir Celestine Omehia as a former governor and restored all his privileges and entitlements.
The Derecognition
It is indeed thought-provoking that seven years after the laudable/detestable decision [depending on where one stands] of Governor Nyesom Wike and the State House of Assembly to accord due recognition to Celestine Omehia as a former Governor of the state, a fresh motion has now been passed to derecognize him based on the same Judgment of Court that was very much potent and valid as at the time the initial recognition was approved.
On the 6th of October, 2022 a motion was presented by Amaewhule Martins Chike titled “Motion to rescind the Rivers State House of Assembly on the recognition of Sir Celestine Omehia as former Governor of Rivers State and the Restoration of all the benefits and entitlement due to him”. The said entitlement received totaled Six Hundred Million Naira [N600,000,000.00] in benefits and Ninety-Six Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira [N96,500,000.00] as monthly pension as of September, 2022.
All 21 members of the House present at the plenary voted in favour of the motion and the House adopted the resolution. Governor Wike, probably due to his recent fall out with Omehia, swiftly approved the motion as soon as it got to him. He explained that the recognition given to Sir Celestine Omehia was made in error and with the signing the recognition accorded in addition to accruable rights and benefits are cancelled. The Legal advice from the State Attorney General, which was apparently sought this time, termed the recognition as being “extrajudicial”. One would then wonder why proper legal guidance was not initially sought.
Political Vendetta or Not: Legal Implications Of The Derecognition
Without the rigor of any legal process, the State Government of Rivers State thought it reasonable to restore the dignity and recognition of Sir Celestine Omehia regardless of the existence of a Supreme Court Judgment where the position of the law on the issue was made clear.
It should however be noted that there seems to be an apparent conflict on the interpretation of the Supreme Court Judgment. On one hand, it was interpreted that the Supreme Court was clear that Omehia in the eyes of the law was never a Governor in Rivers State. On the other hand, it was interpreted that the Judgment of the Supreme Court did not make pronouncement on Omehia status as governor or otherwise rather, all the apex court said was that in the eyes of the law, Omehia was not the valid candidate of PDP.
Regardless of the apparent conflict on the interpretation of the said judgment, can Rivers State Government approbate and reprobate? More so when the government on its own volition decided to restore to Omehia the privileges and entitlement of a former Governor. He never fought, protested or went to Court, soliciting such recognition. The government on its own decided it was the “proper thing to do”. It is clear that consistency is one of the hallmarks of sincerity and excellence and this was further buttressed in the case of Attorney General, Rivers State V. Attorney General, Akwa Ibom State [2011] 29 Wrn 1, where the Supreme Court opined thus:
“It is a rule of equity that, one cannot approbate and reprobate…it is a doctrine of justice and it is inequitable to blow hot and cold, this principle find expression in Latin maxim “Allegans Contraria Non Est Audiendus.” Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA [Pp 45 – 46 Paras F – D]
The Apex Court in the case of Ayorinde V. Kuforiji [2022] 12 Nwlr [Part 1843] Pg. 112 Para D also held thus:
“The law is that, a person in the position of respondent will not be allowed to force back the hand of the clock belatedly; having made the appellant change his position and expended monies…, it was too late in the day for the respondent to suddenly wake in a fit of contrived belated awareness…”
Furthermore, it is an established principle of law, by the doctrine of Estoppel that when a person or an establishment [like the Rivers State House of Assembly] has by its declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted a person to believe a thing to be true and act upon such belief, neither it nor its representatives in interest shall be allowed to deny the truth of that thing. See; Section 169, Evidence Act, 2011.
Therefore, if the law forbids reprobation, the implication is that everything said in such reprobation is of no moment, of no use and ought to be discountenanced and disregarded. This principle of law is expressed in the Latin Maxim “Qui Approbat non Reprobat” quite literally translated to “the one who approbates, cannot reprobate” or “that which I approve, I cannot disapprove.”
However, it is worthy of note that the Rivers State House of Assembly has the power to make, enact and pass laws so long as any laws passed by it are within its own legislative competence and authority. Not only can the legislature enact laws, it can also amend any existing law passed by that arm of government as circumstances may permit. This duty on the legislature to enact and even amend existing laws was alluded to by the apex Court in Amoshima V. State [2001] Lpelr 471 [Sc] when it held that:
“It is trite law that whereas it is the duty of the legislature to enact law, that of the judiciary is to interpret the laws so made. It follows therefore that where there is dissatisfaction with the state of the laws as it exists, and a desire for a change thereof is expressed by the people, it is the duty of the legislature which made the law in the first place to effect the needed reforms by amendments thereto. The duty both to make and amend laws so made belongs exclusively, by constitutional arrangement, to the legislature as provided under Section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, 1999.” Per Onnoghen, J.S.C.
It is clear from the above that the House of Assemblies in Nigeria has the unfettered power to make and amend laws provided it so done in obedience to the relevant constitutional provision under which the law was made. By Section 100 [1] of the CFRN, 1999 [as amended], this power is exercised by Bills passed by the House of Assembly and then assented to by the Governor, except otherwise provided. Therefore, it is very much within the remit of the Rivers State House of Assembly to pass a Bill seeking to recognize Omehia as former governor of Rivers State and where so decided, pass another Bill seeking to amend the initial Bill if same was passed in error.
Another issue to be determined is whether Rivers State Government can compel Omehia to refund in seven days all monetary entitlements especially the sum of Six Hundred Million [N600,000,000.00] in benefits and Ninety-Six Million, Five Hundred Naira [N96,500,000.00] in pension received from the state government as at September 2022. Section 124 [5] of the CFRN, 1999 [as amended] provides as follows:
“124[5] Provisions may be made by law of House of Assembly for the grant of a pension or gratuity to or in respect of a person who had held office as Governor or deputy Governor and was not removed from office as a result of impeachment; and any pension granted by virtue of any provision made in pursuance of this subsection shall be charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State.”
From the above provision, it is clear that past Governors and Deputy Governors are entitled to payment of pension or gratuity provided they were not removed from office. Rt. Hon. Chibuike Amaechi during his tenure obviously interpreted the judgement of the Supreme Court in Amaechi V. Inec & Ors 2008 Lpelr – 446 SC to mean that Omehia was removed from office and no monetary entitlement due to former governors should be paid to him. Governor Nyesom Wike and his administration on the other hand decided to do otherwise. He assented to the Bill recognizing Sir Celestine Omehia as a former governor of Rivers State and restored the payment of all accompanying entitlements.
Therefore, if the House of Assembly decides to suddenly withdraw that recognition, then the payment of any entitlement should immediately cease. However, compelling Omehia to refund the entitlement received by him while he was “legally” recognized as a former Governor of Rivers State could be interpreted as abuse of power.
For the purpose of fairness and justice, it would indeed be wise for Sir Celestine Omehia to turn to the Judiciary for intervention and redress, as suggested by many. The court would have to determine the legal justification of the refund and whether the House of Assembly can approbate and reprobate in the same breath. The House of Assembly with Governor Nyesom Wike obviously have no desires whatsoever to take responsibility for their initial error and it would be unfair for them to seek to blame or persecute a man who did not protest or fought for any favors.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
by Vernia Legal Practitioners | Oct 9, 2022 | Politics, Society & Law
The forthcoming 2023 General Elections is the most important topic in the Nigerian political sphere being discussed right now. The prominent parties at the forefront are the All Progressive Congress which is flag-borned by former Governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu; the People’s Democratic Party whose candidate is former Vice-President of Nigeria, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar; and finally, the Labour Party being represented by former Governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Gregory Obi.
Jurisdiction
The APC administration while campaigning in 2019 promised Nigerians it would bring a massive change in all strata of governance. It made the same promise in 2019 when seeking re-election. However, the vast majority of Nigerians disagree and insist that the APC government has failed to fulfil its promises. Currently, the rate of insecurity has skyrocketed like never before, the economy has melted down, the Naira currently keeps being devalued on a daily basis, insurgency is no longer a piece of “breaking news” as it is now the norm, amongst other disheartening tales the Nigerian person can easily tell. Yet, the APC wants to contest again.
Questions to answer
- After nearly 8 years of ruling, should APC be rewarded with at least another 4 years in power?
- After 16 previous years, should the PDP be given the reins of the country again?
- Is it time for the Labour Party, whose candidate has a brilliant track record in governance? Should there be a new Sherrif in town who would probably set the ball rolling for good governance, thereby restoring Nigeria back to its glory days?
In the past few months, Labour Party’s candidate, Mr. Obi has been the most popular especially on mainstream social media. His achievements as a former Governor have been brought to the fore of political debates and discussions. His supporters dubbed as “OBIdients” have taken campaign and political awareness to another level. Their passion, grit and doggedness cannot be ignored. This drive to see their preferred choice get to the Aso Rock has also led to several allegations that they have been bullying and attacking members of the opposition parties, especially members of the APC who are popularly called “BATified”, not to cast their vote for the APC. The OBIdients are demanding a truthful change in governance and refuse to back down or be brow-beaten. It is their strong and unshaken belief that the APC government must not be allowed to continue in leading the country. To them, Nigeria has regressed like never before and enough is enough.
Two Sides of A Coin
Everyone has the right to vote a party or person of choice. Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through his chosen representatives. Section 38, 1999 Constitution says that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Section 40 goes further, establishing the rights to free assembly and association and that a person can belong to any political party of his choice. These statutes highlights that a person has the right to cast his vote in favor of anyone he chooses to. That is the law. It is an unfettered right and no one should be disenfranchised. That is the right and proper thing. Section 51(2), Electoral Act, 2022 says “no voter shall vote for more than one candidate or record more than one vote in favor of ANY candidate”. This means, you should cast your vote according to your choice.
However, we must take a look at the other side of the table. Is it just to vote in a government that majority of the people are unhappy with? Is it fair to reward, by all acceptable standards of governance, a failed administration which has kept the citizenry in a state of misery, by voting for its continuity? Currently, the Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU] has been on strike since February 14th 2022, thereby suspending academic activities and keeping students at home for almost a year, consequently, educational stagnation is inevitable. During the #EndSARS protests that swept the nation 2 years ago, precisely on the 10th day of October 2020, protesters were shot dead at the Lekki Toll Gate, which is today known as the “Lekki Massacre”. The nation has suffered so many cases of injustice from the government in different ways. Jeremy Bentham, the father of the Utilitarian School of Thought argues that the essence of law is to promote collective happiness of the people. Thus, OBIdients insist that to vote in the APC administration would be politically immoral, unfair and unjust despite the fact that the law entitles everyone to vote according to his/her conscience. Narendra Mordi says people power must be combined with good governance to bring about real, deep and long lasting change; good governance cannot remain merely a philosophy, concrete steps have to be taken for realizing its good. The OBIdients who have been resilient and staunch in their support, refuse to back down and are unapologetically unfriendly towards members and supporters of the opposition. This behavior has been branded by many as bullying and hostile but they do not bat an eye lid.
So, the burning question remains, which better reflects Justice: Voting [according to your choice] a candidate that is deemed harmful to collective good of the people or forcefully demanding for better governance and insisting on it vehemently?
What is Justice?
One cannot take away the institution of the law in society. Without it, we are no better than animals. However, the aim of the law is to ensure Justice and foster progress in society. We opine strongly and agree with Bentham that the law is to create happiness for the highest number of people. Therefore, it can be argued that voting in a person that is seen as a threat or harmful to the majority, is “unjust” even though the law gives you a freedom to choose.
According to Le Modesit Jnr., never mistake Law for Justice, Justice is an ideal, and Law is a tool. The BATified believe that they have the right to vote in their preferred choice. This is the law and it is valid because it is a reflection of the provisions of the law. To them, this is justice and it can be argued to be so. However, the OBIdients on the other hand insist that such choice although legal, is unjust on the long term and would have grave consequences. Their stance is akin to the words of Immanuel Kant: “The worst form of Injustice is pretended Justice”.
Yes, bullying and attack should not be tolerated, but can the OBIdients be blamed? Jim Crow laws in the 80’s legalized slavery and yet, that did not make them just. The nation needs a revolution to effect that change it was promised 7 years ago. The people are tired to their bones. Nigerians need to be free from shackles that has kept us bound for so long. At this point, it is seen as a do-or-die affair for many people. Patrick Henry on March 23rd of 1775 said, “give me liberty or give me death”.
It is legal to vote a candidate of choice. However, if that choice is fatal to collective good of the people, it is deemed unjust.
TEAM VERNIA
52B, Adeyemo Akapo Street,Omole Phase I Estate,
Off Agidingbi Road, Ikeja, Lagos.
+234 813 830 6975
[email protected]
