A Rejoinder to "Tempting the Sleeping Lion" by Lekan Sote
The death of democracy in Nigeria. My response to an article published by Punch Newspaper on 5th April, 2023.
Introduction: The Aftermath
After the conclusion of the recent presidential elections in Nigeria, the Vice Presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Datti Baba-Ahmed, granted a TV interview on Channels TV.
In reply to a question, he said something to the effect that:
“To inaugurate the President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu, before the cases in court were determined one way or another, would amount to killing Democracy in Nigeria”
The Buhari administration and APC attack dogs took umbrage and accused him of fomenting treason and insurrection. The TV station was fined 5million Naira for airing the interview. The Minister of Information who was in Washington DC at the time chimed in that Datti Baba-Ahmed should be charged with insurrection.
This was followed by DSS (our own FBI) that said that they had information that some people want to set up an interim national government by force, and warned them of the consequences.
The article below is my reaction to what was published by Punch newspapers on 5th April 2023, more or less supporting the views of the Minister of Information and DSS. This was an intimidation of the populace by the powers that be, so that the opposition parties will withdraw their cases in court.
It has not happened.
The election took place on the 25th of February 2023. The aggrieved parties went to court the following week. As at the time of writing, April 20th 2023, the tribunal judges have not even been named, let alone start hearing the petitioners in the cases. Not even a whimper.
ANY WONDER THEY TOLD THEM “GO TO COURT”?
Except as it appeared in your article of 5th April, most people were not aware that some people “went to the Ministry of Defence, to ask the military to intervene in the dispute about the acceptability of the election that produced Bola Tinubu as President elect….”
That in itself is yet to be substantiated.
Of course, those in the business of hunting down news tend to get the scoop before other mortals, and I thank you for bringing the issue of Interim Government (national or state) to the fore for discussion.
I remember when we were debating the draft of the 1979 Constitution, the question arose whether there are circumstances that will necessitate setting up of an interim National Government (quite apart from when the nation is at war or in an Emergency). The questioner asked what would happen if after an election, and before the inauguration, the governor or president dies. Should the running mate be made governor/president?
I think the answer then was that since it is the candidate that picks his running mate, the political party of the dead candidate should conduct another primary to pick another person, who then will decide whether to pick anther running mate or not. In the interim, the immediate past occupant of that office, will head an interim government.
The word INTERIM simply means “intervening period” until another expected event takes place. (Oxford Dictionary). For example when a Pope dies, the Catholic Church usually has an interim body at the Vatican to run the affairs of the Church (in the interim) until a new Pope is elected.
In our own traditional governments, when the Eze (or Ooni in Yorubaland) for example passes on, there is usually a regent while the kingmakers find a new Eze. So interim government does not in any way suggest military government.
So before we criminalize the phrase “interim government” as the Minister of Information seems to suggest, let us consider conditions that may necessitate a call for an interim government at any level.
A military government that comes by a coup is prima facie illegitimate government, no matter how long it lasts. When President Babangida stepped aside and appointed Chief Shonekan to head an Interim National Government, he created an absurdity, an illegality upon illegality. That was why we rejected it before even Abacha thought of becoming maximum ruler.
Since October 1999, we are now said to be in a democratic dispensation, no matter how wobbly it is running. It is part of the learning process to follow due electoral process from beginning to its logical conclusion in order to produce a legitimate President. A national election is the process through which the electorate makes a choice of its leaders from among contending candidates. The referee (in this case the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC) is supposed to be impartial as to the outcome of any election it conducts. That is why it is called INDEPENDENT…., in other words, it has no preferred candidates or party.
However, in this past presidential election (Feb 25th, 2023), something went wrong which many expected the INEC to explain to the public. It did not.
While the process of counting and uploading results were still going on in some areas of the country, to the surprise of many, the INEC announced a winning candidate, and the other candidates and their parties cried FOUL. They feel that INEC jumped the gun by announcing the APC candidate as the winner while the counting was still going on, and reports were still being uploaded to the iRev portal in some areas of the country.
That was like INEC truncating the democratic process midway. Apart from the candidates, there is a sizable majority who feel cheated by INEC in not sticking to the rules it made, announced, and pledged her credibility on .
In the circumstance, one would align with the view that Bola A. Tinubu should not be sworn into office until the cases in court are determined one way or the other. In fact, it will be to his advantage to have this matter settled, so that if the court agrees with the INEC verdict, it will be one thing he will not have to worry about when he assumes office.
I believe that is the context in which Datti Baba-Ahmed on Arise TV said that to go ahead and inaugurate the APC candidate would be tantamount to killing Democracy in Nigeria and I agree with him.
The purpose of democratic elections is to choose leaders; the purpose of the democratic process is to confer legitimacy to those leaders who have gone through the process. A president-elect has not yet completed the process so long as there is a stage in the process that is in dispute or being challenged in the courts as required by law.
Approaching the courts is part of the democratic process and in Nigeria, it is time-bound. It has been argued in some quarters, mainly by lawyers, that a president-elect need not wait for the courts, and they cite the case of the outgoing president and some governors as cases in point. But one would argue that the fact that we have been glossing over that simple process does not make it right or legal.
As long as there is a lame-duck president on seat (in this case Buhari), there is no need for an interim government.
But what happens, if by 29th May 2023, Buhari’s last day in office, the courts, in their lethargy, have not decided the issues for which the other parties went to court… Should Bola Tinubu then be sworn in as president?
Some argue that swearing him in before the end of the court cases would violate the intent of the democratic process, (to confer legitimacy or otherwise, to the actions of INEC) thus rendering BAT an illegitimate president. Until the courts legitimize the INEC decision, he stays in limbo as president-elect while the court cases will drag on.
That is what is implied when we say we observe the rule of law.
Imagine what would happen if the courts eventually agree with the petitioners that Tinubu was not validly elected according to the constitution?
To avoid this awkward situation, (of trying to divest him of the powers he had just been sworn to) some people are suggesting that if Buhari must leave office on the 29th of May 2023, then we should start thinking of an interim national government to hold the fort pending the determination of the court processes.
I have searched the 1999 Constitution to see where it says a sitting president must vacate office on the 29th May of his last year of tenure. In fact, section 135(1)(a ) implies that the president can only leave office when his successor has taken the oath of office.
So Buhari cannot leave office until the cases in court are concluded one way or the other. That is democracy in action.
The snail speed with which the court system is handling the petitions seems to suggest a hidden agenda… To allow the aggrieved in the way INEC handled the presidential elections to cry their hearts out, the decision has already been made somewhere not to bother about the petitions.
What image of democracy does that create?
Impunity, and that is what is killing democracy in Nigeria.
I hope you will find a place in your column to publish this rejoinder, pro bono publica.