Politics
Executive Defection: Independent Candidacy To The Rescue
It is common ground that under the present constitutional arrangement in Nigeria, independent candidacy in an election is expressly outlawed. A community reading of the proviso to section 40 and section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, buttress that only registered political parties are authorised to canvass for votes for a candidate in an election.
Put tersely, a candidate in an election must be sponsored by an INEC registered political party.
This present position of the law (no independent candidate in an election), has thrown up confusion in the polity leading to diametrically opposed or divergent views about who owns the votes cast in an election especially in relation to members of the executive arm of government, who may choose to decamp after being elected into office on the platform of a political party.
Throughout the gamut of constitution, there is no express provision barring or prohibiting an elected member of the executive arm of Government from decamping.
This is unlike what is expressly obtainable under the provisions of sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) where an elected member of the National Assembly or State House of Assembly respectively is (subject to recognised exceptions therein) liable to vacate his seat if he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which he was elected.
Answering the query to whom does the votes cast in an election belong has therefore become very problematic.
Some argue that the votes belong to the political party because, among other things, it is the party (its logo not name or photograph of the candidate) that is voted on election day. It is the exclusive constitutional preroga-tive of the party to sponsor candidates in an election.
On the contrary, others contend that votes cast in an election belong to the candidate because the party does not go for screening of candidates and the Certificate of Return is issued to the candidate in his name and not in the name of the political party.
They further argue that the Certificate of Return is issued to a named candidate of a political party (for instance, issued to Prof of APC as the winner) and not for the party (for instance, issued to Prof for APC as the winner).
All the sides of the argument are attractive and carry forceful convincing logic.
No person can win an election if he is not sponsored by a political party. No party can win an election if it does not have a candidate in an election.
This is like Siamese (thoracapagus con-joined) twins situation or resolving the query of seniority between the egg and chicken (which came first).
Even the courts are also divided on the matter of who owns the votes in an election where an elected member of the executive arm of government defects to another political party following from the types of judicial decisions that emanate from the lower superior courts of record lately.
It is thus settled that it will only take the Supreme Court to decide the matter conclusively on a final appeal.
Even at that, opinions will continue to be divided if the constitutional provi-sions remain the way they are presently couched and if the Constitution continues to outlaw independent candidacy in an election.
To break this serious deadlock, it is strongly suggested that the Constitution be amended to allow independent candidacy in an election. That way, the present nagging debates about the owner of votes cast in an election will be laid to rest permanently.
With this proposed constitutional amend-ment in favour of independent candidacy, if a person contests an election as an independent candidate, the argument as to who owns the votes will never arise. The votes surely belong to him.
Where on the other hand, a person is a sponsored candidate of a political party, it will no longer be open for that person to claim that the votes belong to him and not to the political party on whose platform he contested and won the election.
Given the present quagmire, independent candidacy is “a win win situation” and it is consistent with the right to freedom of association enshrined in section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which provides as follows: Every person shall be entitled to assembly freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any association for the protection of his interests.
The right to freedom of association includes not only the right to dissociate but also the freedom to be alone (independent).
We call on our legislature to do the needful and save all the huge verbal expenditure and juristic ink being wasted on a matter that has a simple solution.
A new normal is possible!
By: N.O. Obiaraeri
Obiaraeri resides in Owerri.
Mr Rhodes-Vivour expressed concern over the development, saying a dangerous precedent was being set.
He said: “What we witnessed at the House of Assembly represents a troubling pattern where might is increasingly valued over right. This forceful seizure of the legislative chambers undermines the very foundations of our democracy and sends a disturbing message about how power is wielded in our state.”
Mr Rhodes-Vivour criticised the ruling party in Lagos, accusing it of systematically promoting thuggery and violence over ideas.
He argued that such actions have eroded public trust in governance and weakened democratic values that should preserve the rule of law.
He said: “For too long, Lagos politics has been defined by intimidation rather than inspiration, by coercion rather than conviction. The ruling party has consistently demonstrated a willingness to use force to have its way notwithstanding the popular will of the people.”
Mr Rhodes-Vivour urged Lagosians to take the current crisis as a wake-up call ahead of future elections, saying voters should prioritise candidates who demonstrate character, competence and compassion regardless of party affiliation.
“The quality of our democracy depends entirely on the quality of individuals we elect to represent us. Lagosians deserve leaders who view public office as a sacred trust rather than a platform for personal aggrandizement”, he said.
In a statement, signed by its spokesman, Mr Chika Adiele, the group warned that the judiciary would be held responsible for any breakdown of law and order in Rivers State.
They expressed shock over the verdict, warning that it could disrupt the peace and development efforts of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
The statement read in part: “The attention of the pan-Niger Delta Youths Empowerment Forum, under the leadership of Comrade Maobu Nangi Obu, has been drawn to the shocking verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria ordering seizure of Rivers State’s allocation. This is nothing short of economic sabotage against Rivers people.
“The apex Niger Delta youths body is dismayed by the infantile antics of anti-democratic forces whose stock in trade is brewing crisis in a bid to topple the people’s Governor. We firmly condemn this judgement as it is against the tenet of the constitution of Nigeria.
“It is an invitation to war and against equity, justice, and fair play. We equally condemn the order nullifying the local government election as reckless and vindictive.
“Unfortunately, the justices of the Supreme Court positioned themselves as a party to the suit rather than impartial arbiters of justice.”
They urged Nigerians to note that the principle of democracy is rooted in sound constitutional pronouncements with a view to establishing justice. “Therefore, any attempt by the enemies of Rivers people to seize power by judicial fiat will be resisted by the Niger Delta youths.
“We cannot be cowed, neither shall we lay in surrender at the altar of political manipulations of rascals. We reiterate boldly, once again, that anyone, no matter how highly placed, will face fierce resistance by the majority of Rivers people,” they said.
Former Senate Minority Leader, Senator Biodun Olujimi, has appealed to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central, to withdraw her suit against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Speaking during a live television interview on Saturday, Senator Olujimi said she does not want women to “look emotionally unstable”.
On February 20, Senator Akpabio, the senate president, and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan engaged in a heated debate during plenary over a change in seating arrangements.
On February 25, the senate referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for disciplinary review.
However, the Kogi senator filed a N100 billion defamation suit against Senator Akpabio over an alleged defamatory statement reportedly made by the senate president’s legislative aide.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan later alleged that her trouble in the senate began after she rejected sexual advances from Senator Akpabio.
Reacting to the development, Senator Olujimi said a senator cannot speak outside the assigned seat according to the senate rule.
The former lawmaker said the request of the Kogi senator that her senate probe proceedings should be broadcast live was a “little overboard.”
She added that the clash between the senate president and Akpoti-Uduaghan should not have been escalated, noting that the change in seating arrangements is a normal phenomenon in the red chamber.
The former senate minority leader expressed support for the probe of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s “weighty” allegations against Senator Akpabio.
She said Senator Akpabio is someone who jokes a lot, adding that the senate president usually made fun of everything.
“I want to say that in the 8th and 9th senate, we never had anything like that (referring to the allegations), and Senator Akpabio was one of us.
“They treated us (female senators) with decorum. We did not have anything like that, and I have not heard anything of such from any other of the remaining senators.
“It is tough for me to be able to take that without proper investigation. There should be an investigation.
“He (Akpabio) jokes a lot. He is fond of making little fun out of everything. He loves to make everything light; when you do that, you become very vulnerable.
“I saw all that they (referring to male senators) went through as men when I was there. They were all victimised by people from outside. I had to rescue them all of the time.
“The court case, I want to appeal to her to take the case out of court. We don’t want women to look like they are emotionally unstable.
“We need to also be strong enough to face the men. Going to court against a presiding officer is not on. I know she is hurt, but she needs to handle it in a better way. I think that should get out of court as fast as possible”, Senator Olujimi said.
-
Politics5 days ago
Ahead November Poll: We’re Best Option For Anambra – PDP
-
Politics5 days ago
Withdraw Suit Against Akpabio, Ex-Senate Minority Leader Urges Natasha
-
Politics5 days ago
Niger Delta Youths Fault S’Court Verdict On Rivers
-
Politics5 days ago
Lagos Assembly Crisis: Rhodes-Vivour Calls For End To “Troubling Pattern”