THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: A CASE OF GRAMMAR VS. GAVEL

THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: A CASE OF GRAMMAR VS. GAVEL

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]

2023 ELECTIONS; RIGHT OF CHOICE VS FORCEFUL DEMAND FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

2023 ELECTIONS; RIGHT OF CHOICE VS FORCEFUL DEMAND FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

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

  1. After nearly 8 years of ruling, should APC be rewarded with at least another 4 years in power?
  2. After 16 previous years, should the PDP be given the reins of the country again?
  3. 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]