The Section 84(10) of the Electoral Act, reads, no political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election. Already some governors had issued circulars calling on their appointees who had political ambitions to resign before March 30 in accordance with the Section 84(10) of the Act
One may recall President suggested need for amend the Section 84(12), which he expressed dissatisfaction to station saying it contravenes the rights of political office holders to vote and be voted for in political party conventions and congresses. The country major opposition party Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had obtained an order from a Federal High Court, restraining the National Assembly from amending the Electoral Act. This was as President Muhammadu Buhari had urged National Assembly to remove Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act. While Senate President, had insisted that the judiciary could not interfere in the constitutional duties of the lawmakers.
Again the backdrop, there is nothing wrong if government appointee want to run for election that officer would need to resign. This will strength country’s electoral process at same time bar an appointees from utilise his or her office manipulating state resources in running for election. Why the presidency want removal of the section in spite it is not for president interest but for the sake of some ministers who are said to be planning to run for different offices, Why they want to hold on to their office as a political appointee and at the same time be a candidate in an election? What are they afraid from resigning the appointment?
Still there are lingering questions in the lips of Nigerians who is the plaintiff in this matter? What is his personal interest? Why were the necessary parties like the National Assembly, which made the law, and INEC, which ought to implement this provision, not joined in this suit? How can one “nullify” an Act without joining the institution that made the Act, the Electoral Act is an act of the National Assembly so that they can be heard concerning what they did? If FG is going ahead to implement such orders it’s clearly proof that both the executive and justice Evelyn’s order will bringing problems on the country.
Nigerians and legal practitioners across the country faulted judgement, and wondered why Malami, who is not always keen on obeying court judgements, was seeking to implement this particular order immediately.
Nigerians began to be curious about basis for this order. Swift acknowledge the order it shows the selfishness of the public office holder particularly for the office of the chief law officer whose job is to defend the constitution which he swore to do. Swift response to the judgment is sounding like it was an arranged case and AGF and co has invested interest in having that section removed. In this case Federal High Court judgment in Abia State which had ordered the office of the AGF and Minister of Justice to delete Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 which bars political appointees from voting or being voted for, runs contrary to the 1999 constitution.
Through a statement by AGF’s office commending the court for the judgment promised to swiftly gazette the judgement. Adding that the verdict would be carried out clearly and the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 is not part of our law and will be so treated accordingly. As the judgment would be recognised by the government printers in printing the Electoral Act.
Mr Adegboruwa (SAN), encouraged political parties and others to challenge the judgment, saying , “the Electoral Act is an act of the National Assembly. How can you ‘nullify’ an Act without joining the institution that made the Act, so that they can be heard concerning what they did? Another legal practitioner Mr Kayode Ajulo advised the All Progressives Congress not to allow appointees to take part in its forthcoming conventions as it could mar the exercise if the Court of Appeal upturns the judgment. Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Robert Emukpoeruo, said, “A juxtaposition of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, Section 228 (a) of the constitution on the one hand with other provisions of the constitution dealing with qualifications and disqualification to contest election will reveal that they deal with different subject matters. Put bluntly, a political appointee is not (and cannot be) a person employed in the public service of the federation or of the state. There is a sharp difference between a public servant and a public officer.
We know there is no law until the coming into being of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, which regulated political appointees’ participation in congresses or convention for the nomination of party candidates. And to this extent, that subsection cannot rationally be held to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already released a time table for Party primaries and the General Election therefore where a candidate contest on a platform of a political party and the party wins an election with a candidate affected by the Section , the votes will be declared as wasted votes in line with the decision in Bello Matawalle’s case by the Supreme Court in 2019 where all the APC candidates who won election on the platform of the party lost their respective offices and PDP candidates in the election took over.
The most important thing for any political appointee willing to contest for an election is to step down on his own regardless of the decision to avoid being caught by the amendment. A word is enough for the wise. May Evelyn’s order on Section 84(12) might lead to political catastrophe
Dukawa can be reached at [email protected]