By Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN

1.0. In this write up I shall attempt to examine the constitutionality of appointments of caretaker committees to run the affairs of political parties in Nigeria. Yesterday the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the Appeal filed by Mr Eyitayo Jegede SAN vs Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN, this constitutional issue came up. There was a split decision. The majority decision of 4 to 3 was based on the failure to join the Chairman of the caretaker committee of APC.

2.0. I am not going into the merit or demerit of that decision. As far as I am concerned the decision of the majority did not answer the question of the legality or constitutionality of caretaker committees heading and running political parties in Nigeria. My main concern in this write up is to examine the constitutionality of the propensities of Nigerian politicians or political class, in appointing caretaker or in devolving elected officers of political parties and appointing caretaker committees to run these political parties in Nigeria. Under the laws of Nigeria political parties must undergo series of processes before it can be registered and licensed to operate as political parties in Nigeria.

3.0. In this case section 222 of the 1999 constitution as amended provides that: No association by whatever name called shall function as a party, unless – (a)the names and addresses of its national officers are registered with the Independent National Electoral Commission; (b) the membership of the association is open to every citizen of Nigeria irrespective of his place of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religion or ethnic grouping; (c)a copy of its constitution is registered in the principal office of the Independent National Electoral Commission in such form as may be prescribed by the Independent National Electoral Commission; (d) any alteration in its registered constitution is also registered in the principal office of the Independent National Electoral Commission within thirty days of the making of such alteration; (e)the name of the association, its symbol or logo does not contain any ethnic or religious connotation or give the appearance that the activities of the association are confined to a part only of the geographical area of Nigeria; and (f)the headquarters of the association is situated in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

4.0. The same constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides what the Constitutions and Rules of political parties shall contain. Again, let us look at what the Constitution of Nigeria provides in section 223 thereof.

5.0. Section 223. (1)(a) and (b) and (2)(a) and (b) of the 1999 constitution provide that: The constitution and rules of a political party shall- (a)provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and (b)ensure that the members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party reflect the federal character of Nigeria. (2) For the purposes of this section –

6.0. (a)the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years. (b)the members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political character of Nigeria only if the members thereof belong to different states not being less in number than two-thirds of all the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

7.0. From the provisions of the constitution as seen hereof, it is the intention of the draftsman of our constitution that political parties in Nigeria must have constitutions and Rules that provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years.

8.0. It is on the basis of the foregoing constitutional provisions that the Electoral Act 2010 as amended provided in section 85 thereof as follows: 85. (1) A registered political party shall give the Commission at least 21 days notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive committees, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified under this Act. (2) The Commission may, with or without prior notice to the political party attend and observe any convention, congress, conference or meeting which is convened by a political party for the purpose of -(a)electing members of its executive committees or other governing bodies; (b)nominating candidates for an election at any level; and (c)approving a merger with any other registered political party.

9.0. To clear any lingering doubts that our laws and constitution do not have room for appointment of caretaker committees for Nigerian political parties, section 85 (3) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended is so clear and emphatic. It provides that: The election of members of the executive committee or other governing body of a political party, including the election to fill a vacant position in any of these bodies, shall be conducted in a democratic manner and allowing for all members of the party or duly elected delegates to vote in support of a candidate of their choice.

10.0. When a community reading and construction of the clear provisions of sections 222 and 223 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended read together with section 85 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended are taken, the irresistible conclusion which any reasonable lawyer or jurist whose version is not beclouded with partisan and primordial consideration will reach will be that both the constitution and the Electoral Act 2010 as amended do not allow appointments of caretaker committees to run the affairs of political parties in Nigeria. It is unlawful and unconstitutional for political parties registered by INEC to rule their affairs by caretaker committees in Nigeria.

11.0. Indeed where vacancy occurs, it must be filed by elections through democratic means where the will of the members of the political parties are expressed by the choice they make. This is because the Electoral Act provides for the election of members of the executive committee or other governing body of a political party, including the election to fill a vacant position in any of these bodies, shall be conducted in a democratic manner and allowing for all members of the party or duly elected delegates to vote in support of a candidate of their choice.

12.0. The Electoral Act makes it clear that election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years.

13.0. From the constitutional provisions and the Electoral Act cited hereof, it will, be clearly idle and wayward arguments to contend that undemocratic appointments of caretaker committees to run the affairs of political parties in Nigeria is legal and constitution as being submitted by some legal minds. The Supreme Court has on a number of occasions frown at and declared appointments of caretaker committees to run local governments in Nigeria not only as illegal but unconstitutional and breach of section 7 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Before citing the cases in which the Supreme Court came hard on appointments of caretakers it will be necessary to set out the provisions of section 7(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended.

14.0. Section 7 (1) of the 1999 constitution reads: The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.

15.0. What has been the attitudes of the Supreme Court for appointments of caretaker committees for local Governments in Nigeria. Let me just cite one of these cases. In the case of Governor Ekiti State & Ors vs. Prince Sanmi Olubunmo & Ors (2016) LPELR-48040(SC) the question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 23B of the Ekiti State Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law, 2001 granting power to the Governor of Ekiti State to remove democratically-elected Chairmen of Local Government Councils and replace them with caretaker committees is inconsistent with Section 7 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 16.0. His lordship Hon Justice Nweze, JSC at PP. 26-39, paras. F-A) made these lengthy profound statements of the law which provides complete answers to the question of caretaker Committees to rule political parties when the Constitution and Electoral Act says leaderships selection shall be through democratic means. This is what Nweze JSC said: I will in this judgment, confine myself to the constitutional issue whether the provisions of Sections 23B(I) and (II) of the Ekiti State Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law, 2001 are inconsistent with Section 7 (1) of the Constitution and, if so, whether the lower Court, rightly nullified them? Now, Section 7(1) provides thus: The system of Local Government by democratically-elected Local Government Council is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils. Unarguably, the Ekiti State House of Assembly derived its powers for enacting its said Local Government Law from the above constitutional provision. Indeed, at page 49 of the brief, counsel for the appellants conceded that the “Ekiti State House of Assembly, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 4(6) and 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) enacted the Local Government Administration Law Cap. L11, Laws of Ekiti State.”

In the said Law, sundry matters relating to the establishment of Local Government Councils are provided for in Sections 2-5. In particular, Section 5 consecrates a tenure of three years for the offices therein. The cassus belli in this matter which culminated to this appeal was however, Section 23B of the Ekiti Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law, 2001, which provided for the Governor’s power of dissolution in these terms: 1. Provided always that the Governor is by this law empowered to dissolve Local Government Councils for over-riding public interest subject to the two-thirds majority approval of members of the House of Assembly; 2. Such dissolution shall not exceed a period of twelve calendar months wherein the Governor shall have power to appoint a seven-member caretaker committee out of which a Chairman shall be appointed pending the conduct of election to occupy the office of the Chairman.

Somewhat, most curiously, the Honourable Attorney-General of Ekiti State, for the appellants, in what appears to be an unwarranted sacrilege on the canons of constitutional interpretation, submitted that: “…if the draftsmen wanted the Local Government to be independent of the States, they would have included it under Section 2(2) of the Constitution and the draftsmen would have empowered the House of Assembly to legislate on the existence, structure among others. It will be incongruous if a Court interpret the provision of Section 23B viz-a-viz Section 7 of the Constitution and now come to the conclusion that it contradicts or is inconsistent with the Constitution. The House of Assembly is the Alpha and Omega as far as the issue of Local Government is concerned and any law validly made by them to regulate and control the Local Government ought not be questioned by Court because the Constitution donated such wide powers to the House of Assembly”. (Paragraph 10.10, page 50 of the brief; italics supplied for emphasis). With respect to the Honourable Attorney-General, this submission is an unbridled affront to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

It is, indubitably an elementary proposition that the said Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Section 1(1) thereof; N.U.E.E v. B.P.E (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 525) 201, (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 538; Nigerian Army v. Yakubu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 592, (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 1; Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 674) 1, (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 94; Amadi v. INEC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 621) 1415, (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 595; Attorney-General, Federation v. Attorney-General, Lagos (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1380) 249, (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 740) 1296. From the very ipssissima verba of Section 1, Sub-sections (1) and (3) of the Constitution, it is evident that it is the fons et origo, that is, the provenance, from which all sub-constitutional norms derive their source and sustenance; Attorney-General, Abia State v. Attorney-General, Federation (2007) 1 CCLR 104; Attorney-General, Lagos State v. Attorney-General, Federation (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1, (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 740) 1296; INEC v. Musa & Ors. (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 145) 729, (2003) 8 ANLR 322. Even as a simple logical postulate, since all other laws owe their source to the Constitution, it (the Constitution) would not brook any sort of competition with them. As such, not in the event of any conflict, it operates proprio vigore to invalidate them to the extent of their inconsistency, Section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The authorities on this point are just too numerous to delay us here. All the same, I shall refer to one or two of them; F.R.N. v. Osahon & Ors. (2005) LPELR-3174 (SC) 27-28, (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 312) 1975; E-A; Kalu v. Odili (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 130; N.U.E.E. v. B.P.E. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 525) 201, (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 538; Nigerian Army v. Yakubu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 592, (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 1; Udenwa v. Uzodinma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 674) 1, (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 94; Amadi v. INEC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 621) 1415, (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 595; Attorney-General, Federation v. Attorney-General, Lagos (2013)16 NWLR (Pt. 1380) 249, (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 740) 1296. My lords, it would seem evident that counsel for the appellants, the Honourable Attorney-General underrated the trenchat provisions of Section 7. For our immediate purpose, I will reproduce the relevant provisions: “The system of Local Government by democratically-elected Local Government Council is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils”.

Having thus guaranteed the system of Local Government by democratically-elected Local Government Councils, the Constitution confers a toga of sacro-sanctity on the elections of such officials whose electoral mandates derive from the will of the people freely-exercised through the democratic process. Put differently, the intendment of the Constitution is to vouchsafe the inviolability of the sacred mandate which the electorate, at that level, democratically-donated to them; Eze & Ors. v. Governor, Abia State & Ors. (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 192. In the apt and eloquent postulation of the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General, Benue State v. Umar (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1068) 311 at 354-358, which I approvingly adopt in this judgment: “Elections like in any other country should be held sacrosanct. Representatives of the people through an election (at whatever level) cannot just be removed or their Councils dissolved at the pleasure of other elected office holders. Democracy is growing or should grow in this country and with it, the attendant pitfalls and hiccups. However, the Courts are poised to chaperon the many contenders through the straight and narrow of democracy…” Simply put, therefore, the election of such officials into their offices and their tenure are clothed with constitutional force. They cannot, therefore, be abridged without breaching the Constitution from which they derive their force. The only permissible exception, where a State Governor could truncate the lifespan of a Local Government Council which evolved through the democratic process of elections, is “for over-riding public interest” in a period of emergency. As my lord, Aka’ahs JCA (as he then was) put it most, admirably, in Attorney-General, Plateau State v. Goyol (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) at page 94 [views I entirely agree with]: “The Governor swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and not to mutilate it. Although the House of Assembly has power to make laws, (it) has no powers to make any law by giving the Governor power to truncate a democratically-elected Local Government Council. The penchant by State Governors in dissolving Local Government Councils is clearly undemocratic. It is only when a state of emergency has been declared that can warrant the suspension of democratic institutions on the polity. See also, Akinpelu v. Attorney-General Oyo State (1982) 2 FNR 248; Akpan v. Umar (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 701, 732, paragraph G-H”. In effect, where such is the situation, as even nature itself abhors any vacuum, the Governor would be entitled to empanel a caretaker committee. Anything outside that is an unwarranted affront to the Constitution, Eze and Ors v. Governor, Abia State and Ors. (supra). Unarguably, the Ekiti State Local Government Administration Law, Cap. L11, Laws of Ekiti State was enacted in furtherance of the constitutionally mandated obligation in Section 7 to “ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition…” The said law provided for the establishment of Local Government Councils in Ekiti State and consecrated a tenure of three years for the elected officials. ?There can be no doubt, as argued by the appellant’s counsel, that the Ekiti State House of Assembly is empowered to make laws for Ekiti State. However, the snag here is that, in enacting Section 23B of the Ekiti State Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law, 2001 which empowered the first appellant to abridge the tenure of office of the respondents, it overreached itself. In other words, Section 23B (supra) is violative of, and in conflict with, Section 7(1) of the Constitution (supra). Hence, it is bound to suffer the fate of all laws which are in conflict with the Constitution, Section 1(3) thereof Nigerian Army v. Yakubu (supra). By employing the mandatory auxilliary verb “shall”, the draftperson of Section 7(1) (supra), surely intended to impose [and, actually, imposed] an obligation on the States to ensure the continued existence of Local Government Councils which are democratically-elected. In my view, the use of the auxilliary verb “shall” in the said section connotes a command; an imperative requirement: a constitutional direction which yields no room for discretion; Tanko v. Caleb (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 606; Abimbola v. Aderoju (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 801) 100; Adewumi v. Attorney-General, Ekiti State (2002) FWLR (Pt. 92) 1835, (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 751) 474; Amadi v. NNPC (2000) All FWLR (Pt. 9) 1527, (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 76. The implication therefore is that Section 23B (supra), which was not intended to “ensure the existence of” such democratically-elected Councils, but to snap their continued existence by their substitution with caretaker committee, was enacted in clear breach of the supreme provisions of Section 7(1) of the Constitution (supra). To that extent, it (Section 23B, supra) cannot co-habit with Section 7(1) of the Constitution (supra) and must, in consequence, be invalidated, Eze and Ors. v. Governor, Abia State and Ors. (supra) and the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Attorney-General, Plateau State v. Goyol (supra); Attorney-General, Benue State v. Umar (supra) which I approvingly, adopt in this judgment. As shown above, such is the potency of the constitutional provisions that they operate proprio vigore to invalidate inconsistent laws to the extent of inconsistency, Section 1(3) of the Constitution (supra); FRN v. Osahon and Ors. (2005) LPELR- 3174 (SC) 27 – 28, (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 312) 1975, paragraph E-A; Kalu v. Odili (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 130; N.U.E.E. v. B.P.E. (supra); Amadi v. INEC (supra); Attorney-General, Federation v. Attorney-General, Lagos State (supra). The reason is simple. By his oath of office, the Governor swore to protect, and not to supplant the Constitution. Hence, any action of his which has the capacity of undermining the self-same Constitution (as in the instant case where the first appellant, purportedly dissolved the tenure of the respondents and replaced them with caretaker committees), is tantamount to executive recklessness which would not be condoned; Eze and Ors. v. Governor, Abia State and Ors. (supra); Attorney-General, Plateau State v. Goyol (supra). The net effect of it all is that I find considerable merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondents in this regard. As shown above, he had argued that in exercising its law-making authority, the House must act within the ambits and limits of the Constitution. To that extent, therefore, the laws of the House of Assembly which are inconsistent with constitutional provisions are bound to be nullified. ?Instructively, as counsel for the respondents pointed out, the appellants neither deposed to any fact of any emergency nor to any over-riding public interest that would have warranted their action, citing page 118 of the record. As my lord, Aka’ahs JCA (as he then was) held in Attorney-General, Plateau State v. Goyol (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 94, the only permissible situation that could have justified the interference with the life-span of an elected council was absent; Eze v. Governor, Abia State (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 324, 350; 361-363. I therefore hold that having been elected for a tenure of three years under the Ekiti State Local Government Administration Law Cap. L11, the respondents could only “be removed from office if found to be in breach of the rules governing the office…” Eze v. Governor, Abia State (supra), 215- 216 or by proof that it was in the overriding public interest. That was not shown in this case. Accordingly, I agree with the lower Court’s decision nullifying Section 23B (supra) for being inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of Section 7(1) of the Constitution (supra). In consequence, I resolve this issue against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, Eze and Ors. v. Governor, Abia of State and Ors. (supra); Attorney-General, Plateau State v. Goyol (supra); Attorney-General, Benue State v. Umar (supra).

17.0. For me until our judiciary is prepared to hold the political class responsible and teach them good sense in judgments on how to operate under the rule of law and imbibe the finest democratic principles in their sub-conscious and direct politicians to allow the will of the people to prevail in the running and in the selections of officers of political parties and or those who should lead political parties in Nigeria, political class and parties will always engage in political insubordination and constitutional iniquities of grave proportions. And this is why militarization of democracy continues to be the orders of the days in Nigeria democratic journey.

18.0. This is my stake on this matter. We profess to operate the rule of law, but in reality, we operate the rule of convenience and not the rule of law. No one respects the law. The executive does not, the legislature does not and indeed, it sad to say but the reality is that even the judiciary too appears not to respect the law. Time will not permit me to demonstrate this but search your souls and consciences and you will appreciate the points being made here. In order words, in Nigeria because there are no consequences for misconduct or misbehaviour, everyone appears to worship what is wrong instead of doing what is right. The consequences of all of these are staring every one of us on the face. And that is why in our so-called democracy, Impunity of grave propositions is our daily fare and no one is ready to discipline political misbehaviour.

In the Preface to my book entitled Ayinla Omowura: Life and Times of an Apala Legend, (2020) I equated stardom and zenith of social ladder with the purport of a Yoruba wise-saying which says, epo ni mo ru, oniyangi, ma ba t’emi je. This literally translates to mean, anyone who shoulders a heavy gallon of palm oil should avoid the destructive tendency of the stone-laced ground he walks upon. I deployed the above to explain the premature death of Omowura, one of Yoruba’s most evocative traditional African musicians, who was killed 41 years ago, at the apogee of his life attainment, in a barroom squabble in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Omowura’s fall, I said, was due to “his inability to positively evaluate the porcelain-like delicate but huge image he carried on his shoulders” because, if he did, “he most probably would have walked less in the neighbourhood of the oniyangi, which eventually ensured his (fatal) stumbling.”

Mortal fall of high-caliber persons, as above, was rekindled last week when an American Central District of California Court fingered, among four others, a highly celebrated Nigerian Sheriff, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Abba Kyari, in a fraud ring. Antihero of the grisly drama was a man who has now pleaded guilty to a $1.1million money laundering fraud, Ramon Abass, alias Hushpuppi. After the California judge unsealed the docket which revealed details of Kyari’s alleged involvement in the mess, tongues have wagged endlessly on how this celebrated cop could unconscionably get himself involved in the mess. Among other revelations was Hushpuppi’s alleged instruction to Kyari to detain a fellow felon of Hushpuppi’s so as to allow the latter perfect a fraud binge.
Kyari’s reaction to this allegation is even messier, senseless and at best, tepid. It reveals that, in their thirst for heroes and the peremptory and rigour-less manner such heroism is arrived at, Nigerians may have backed the wrong horse in Kyari. On the part of the top cop, it may also have revealed that tactlessness is the beast that kills the dream of many a high-flying celebrity.

The more Kyari denies involvement in this cesspit, the more his hitherto cocaine-white police uniform is soiled with smelly excrement. To Kyari, the FBI may have fished out alien crocs from a river far unknown to him in the very sophisticated manner it conducted the forensic sourcing for evidence it hoists against him. So when Kyari spurted out the bunkum of some clothes he claimed Hushpuppi asked him to procure on his behalf as the only magnet that glues them together, he most probably underrated the investigative prowess of the American security. Conceding to him that this claim wasn’t an afterthought, how naïve could Kyari have been not to know that his acceptance of this exchange spells out a self-indictment which even the Police Act labels as soliciting. How does he rationalise the Dubai tryst where he and the fraud felon allegedly had a pecuniary romance?

Kyari seized the klieg as a responsible, responsive and hardworking police officer. He swam ashore in a murky and brackish Nigerian police river that is notorious for its unpleasant nauseating smell. Nigerians, assailed by a dearth of heroes, singled Kyari out as example of the pitfalls in generalising the police force as a nest littered with bad elements. The first shock came with the police officer’s self profile as one obsessed with the fripperies of life. His social media pages are said to be littered with material acquisitions which projected him as entangled with sugary icings of life. The final nail rammed into the coffin of his profiling was his appearance at the obscene showcase of apparently unearned wealth of the gangs present at Obi Cubana’s mother’s burial in Oba, Anambra State a few weeks ago. Shell shocked, Nigerians began to realise that Kyari was most probably a creation of their lack of thoroughness in estimation of heroes.

At a more universal level, Kyari’s latest link with criminal elements may be a further confirmation that every man has a prize and is capable of falling face flat in the face of their prized medal. Kyari, the tough cop, had fallen before his own prize. It reminds me of James Hadley Chase’s Have This One On Me, one of the British-born author’s Mark Girland series. This novel is the story of Girland, known to be a worthless, pleasure-loving secret agent whose major and identifiable distinct weakness was the pleasure of money and women. If we dig deeper into his off-the-klieg life, we may shudder to realise that our hero may jolly well be an epicurean, another Girland, who hid behind the protective veneer provided by the police force and whose fall was a matter of when. Their oniyangi is always the trio of alcohol, women and money. Which was Kyari’s?

Many high net-worth individuals, oblivious of or mindless of the purport of the destructive powers of the oniyangi, have fallen fatally because they underrated its destructive ability. In 1974, three highly prized Yoruba, at the crest of their life engagements too, fell from fame to infamy, simply because they disdained the wisdom hidden in this nugget. In a reversed order of their fame, they fell. They were: Mr. Shitta-Bey, legal adviser in the employ of the Federal Government, two Generals in the Nigerian Army, Brigadier Sotomi, a.k.a. Showboy and the biggest fish, Nigeria’s civil war hero, Brigadier Benjamin Adekunle. Adekunle, celebrated officer of the Third Marine Commando, who went by the sobriquet, the Black Scorpion, for his gallantry in fighting the Biafran war, was dreaded and revered for his gallantry at the war front.

During this time in the life of Nigeria, the middle name of the government ran by General Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s Head of State, was corruption. Though he was generally viewed as incorrupt due to his austere lifestyle, like President Muhammadu Buhari, he was swamped all over by perceptibly corrupt people. His governors owned properties and assets that were far higher than their incomes. Indeed, it was estimated that, on the average, the governors owned commercial properties and farming estates of at least eight houses each, an amount that averaged between N49,000 to N120,000 by 1975 when Murtala Mohammed took over. To stave off this public perception, Gowon promulgated the Investigation of Assets Decree No. 37 of 1968, as well as frenetically engaging in the process of arresting the Toads of War, a la Eddie Iroh, that is, the post-war inexplicable wealth of Nigerian soldiers, mostly accumulated during the three-year civil war. In achieving this, in 1973, Gowon appointed Alhaji Kam Salem to head the “X-Squad,” a fraud investigation arm of the police which unearthed many scandals within the force.

Same July of this same 1974, buffeted on all fronts by the press, Gowon had to harangue his fellow middle-belter, Federal Communications Commissioner, Joseph Tarka, to resign from his position after Godwin Daboh, allegedly in concert with Paul Unongo, accused Tarka of mind-blowing corruption. Tarka’s resignation was child’s play placed side by side his snide comments which indicated far more humongous corruption in the Gowon government. Tarka had said in a Daily Times newspaper interview, which revealed that he resigned under pressure, that “If I resign, it will set off a chain of reactions of various events, the end of which nobody could foretell.” This was followed by an affidavit sworn to on August 31, 1974 at the Jos High Court by then one Mr. Aper Aku who was a known protégé of Tarka. The affidavit contained accusations against Benue-Plateau Governor, Police Commissioner Joseph Gomwalk, of corruption. Gowon, in a state visit to China, publicly exonerated Gomwalk but public uproar against this police big gun seemed to have just begun afresh. He was eventually later executed by firing squad for his involvement in the 1976 Lt. Col Buka Suka Dimka coup against Murtala Mohammed.

Gowon retired both Brigadiers Adekunle and Sotomi but Shitta-Bey, who was dismissed by the Public Service Commission, headed for the court. Shitta-Bey won at the High Court, lost on appeal but the Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Chukwuwenuike Idigbe, in Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 S.C 40, found discrepancies in his sack and returned him to the service.

So many other Oniyangi episodes have been recorded in recent history. While President Bill Clinton was almost removed from office by his own Oniyangi, White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, then Bendel State of Nigeria’s Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ize Iyamu, was consumed by a romance with robbery kingpins, Monday Osunbor and Lawrence Anini, the latter having confessed that Iyamu, who was later executed by firing squad, traded the police armoury with them in their robbery operations. Jennifer Madike, the society lady of the early-1990s also acted as the Olorunkoya of Police Commissioner Fidelis Oyakhilome. At the cusp of a stellar career as the NDLEA chairman, Madike alleged an affair with Oyakhilome, which took his job.

Without prejudice to how the Kyari matter goes, one fundamental lesson to be learnt from it is that the DCP courted this huge public ignominy due to his inability to realise the ancient sense in the requirement for social comportment by persons who occupy his kind of office. Judges, magistrates, investigators and persons whose opinions matter in society are expected to, aside their qualifications and experience, weaponise the act of taciturnity in their personal armoury, as well as wear an asocial garb. What do I mean by this? This set of people should be seen seldom, eschew every tissue of greed for material acquisition and avoid being social butterflies at owambe occasions. These are dragnets that drag achievers to the gallows. They should also avoid the company of wayward characters. Those among them who are epicureans will sooner than later enter the dragnet because, in social and political history, these elements are always their graveyards. Kyari is perhaps learning this too late.

Good enough that the police top hierarchy is said to be investigating this matter, preparatory to extraditing Kyari to America to answer the charges preferred against him. The news said to have been attributed to an online news medium that Kyari reportedly threatened exploring the Samson option of collapsing the whole police house if he was extradited had better not be true. If it is, it will be bringing back afresh memories of Tarka’s statement cited earlier in the corruption allegation against him. So who said history is dead?

More importantly, the world awaits the reaction of the Nigerian government, headed by Muhammadu Buhari, Kyari’s cousin, whose maternal tribe is Kanuri, Borno State, to this US indictment of the top cop. General Gowon had similarly tried to stave off the splurge of corruption indictments splattered on his Middle Belt kin while he was Head of State. Head or tail, Abba Kyari, the redoubtable and affable police officer, can never be the same cop again.

My hands are clean’ — DCP Abba Kyari denies Hushpuppi bribe allegation

In the Preface to my book entitled Ayinla Omowura: Life and Times of an Apala Legend, (2020) I equated stardom and zenith of social ladder with the purport of a Yoruba wise-saying which says, epo ni mo ru, oniyangi, ma ba t’emi je. This literally translates to mean, anyone who shoulders a heavy gallon of palm oil should avoid the destructive tendency of the stone-laced ground he walks upon. I deployed the above to explain the premature death of Omowura, one of Yoruba’s most evocative traditional African musicians, who was killed 41 years ago, at the apogee of his life attainment, in a barroom squabble in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Omowura’s fall, I said, was due to “his inability to positively evaluate the porcelain-like delicate but huge image he carried on his shoulders” because, if he did, “he most probably would have walked less in the neighbourhood of the oniyangi, which eventually ensured his (fatal) stumbling.”

In the Preface to my book entitled Ayinla Omowura: Life and Times of an Apala Legend, (2020) I equated stardom and zenith of social ladder with the purport of a Yoruba wise-saying which says, epo ni mo ru, oniyangi, ma ba t’emi je. This literally translates to mean, anyone who shoulders a heavy gallon of palm oil should avoid the destructive tendency of the stone-laced ground he walks upon. I deployed the above to explain the premature death of Omowura, one of Yoruba’s most evocative traditional African musicians, who was killed 41 years ago, at the apogee of his life attainment, in a barroom squabble in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Omowura’s fall, I said, was due to “his inability to positively evaluate the porcelain-like delicate but huge image he carried on his shoulders” because, if he did, “he most probably would have walked less in the neighbourhood of the oniyangi, which eventually ensured his (fatal) stumbling.”

Mortal fall of high-caliber persons, as above, was rekindled last week when an American Central District of California Court fingered, among four others, a highly celebrated Nigerian Sheriff, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Abba Kyari, in a fraud ring. Antihero of the grisly drama was a man who has now pleaded guilty to a $1.1million money laundering fraud, Ramon Abass, alias Huspuppi. After the California judge unsealed the docket which revealed details of Kyari’s alleged involvement in the mess, tongues have wagged endlessly on how this celebrated cop could unconscionably get himself involved in the mess. Among other revelations was Kyari’s alleged instruction to Abass to detain a fellow felon of Huspuppi’s so as to allow the latter perfect a fraud binge. Kyari’s reactions to this allegation are even messier, senseless and at best, tepid. They reveal that, in their thirst for heroes and the peremptory and rigour-less manner such heroism is arrived at, Nigerians may have backed the wrong horse in Kyari. On the part of the top cop, it may also have revealed that tactlessness is the beast that kills the dream of many a high-flying celebrity.

The more Kyari denies involvement in this cesspit, the more his hitherto cocaine-white police uniform is soiled with smelly excrement. To Kyari, the FBI may have fished out alien crocs from a river far unknown to him in the very sophisticated manner it conducted the forensic sourcing for evidence it hoists against him. So when Kyari spurted out the bunkum of some clothes he claimed Huspuppi asked him to procure on his behalf as the only magnet that glues them together, he most probably underrated the investigative prowess of the American security. Conceding to him that this claim wasn’t an afterthought, how naïve could Kyari have been not to know that his acceptance of this exchange spells out a self-indictment which even the Police Act labels as soliciting. How does he rationalize the Dubai tryst where he and the fraud felon allegedly had a pecuniary romance?

Kyari seized the klieg as a responsible, responsive and hardworking police officer. He swam ashore in a murky and brackish Nigerian police river that is notorious for its unpleasant nauseating smell. Nigerians, assailed by a dearth of heroes, singled Kyari out as example of the pitfalls in generalizing the police force as a nest littered with bad elements. The first shock came with the police officer’s self profile as one obsessed with the fripperies of life. His social media pages are said to be littered with material acquisitions which projected him as entangled with sugary icings of life. The final nail rammed into the coffin of his profiling was his appearance at the obscene showcase of apparently unearned wealth of the gangs present at Obi Cubana’s mother’s burial in Oba, Anambra State a few weeks ago. Shell shocked, Nigerians began to realize that Kyari was most probably a creation of their lack of thoroughness in estimation of heroes.

At a more universal level, Kyari’s latest link with criminal elements may be a further confirmation that every man has a prize and is capable of falling face flat in the face of their prized medal. Kyari, the tough cop, had fallen before his own prize. It reminds me of James Hadley Chase’s Have This One On Me, one of the British-born author’s Mark Girland series. This novel is the story of Girland, known to be a worthless, pleasure-loving secret agent whose major and identifiable distinct weakness was the pleasure of money and women. If we dig deeper into his off-the-klieg life, we may shudder to realize that our hero may jolly well be an epicurean, another Girland, who hid behind the protective veneer provided by the police force and whose fall was a matter of when. Their oniyangi is always the trio of alcohol, women and money. Which was Kyari’s?

Many high net-worth individuals, oblivious of or mindless of the purport of the destructive powers of the oniyangi, have fallen fatally because they underrated its destructive ability. In 1974, three highly prized Yoruba, at the crest of their life engagements too, fell from fame to infamy, simply because they disdained the wisdom hidden in this nugget. In a reversed order of their fame, they fell. They were: Mr. Shitta-Bey, Legal Adviser in the employ of the Federal Government, two Generals in the Nigerian Army, Brigadier Sotomi, a.k.a. Showboy and the biggest fish, Nigeria’s civil war hero, Brigadier Benjamin Adekunle. Adekunle, celebrated officer of the Third Marine Commandos, who went by the sobriquet, the Black Scorpion for his gallantry in fighting the Biafran war, was dreaded and revered for his gallantry at the war front.

These three had a mutual Oniyangi in a Lagos socialite and celebrity, 33-year old Iyabo Olorunkoya. Arrested on October 15, 1973 in the United Kingdom for importing 78 kilogrammes of marijuana, Olorunkoya, upon being questioned by the Metropolitan Police, immediately began to sing like a canary. She revealed that the three were her accomplices in the drug business. While she alleged that Adekunle and Sokoya had personally driven her to the airport with the contraband on her way out of Nigeria, salacious details of her relationship with the two were soon to festoon newspaper’s front pages. Her dalliance with Shitta-Bey was discovered by investigators in a letter he sent to her and which was found in her custody at the time of her arrest that simply read, “send details as soon as you arrive in London.’’

During this time in the life of Nigeria, the middle name of the government ran by General Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s Head of State, was corruption. Though he was generally viewed as incorrupt due to his austere lifestyle, like President Muhammadu Buhari, he was swamped all over by perceptibly corrupt people. His governors owned properties and assets that were far higher than their incomes. Indeed, it was estimated that, on the average, the governors owned commercial properties and farming estates of at least eight houses each, an amount that averaged between N49,000 to N120,000 by 1975 when Murtala Mohammed took over. To stave off this public perception, Gowon promulgated the Investigation of Assets Decree No. 37 of 1968, as well as frenetically engaging in the process of arresting the Toads of War, a la Eddie Iroh, that is, the post-war inexplicable wealth of Nigerian soldiers, mostly accumulated during the three-year civil war. In achieving this, in 1973, Gowon appointed Alhaji Kam Salem to head the “X-Squad,” a fraud investigation arm of the police which unearthed many scandals within the force.

Same July of this same 1974, buffeted on all fronts by the press, Gowon had to harangue his fellow middle-belter, Federal Communications Commissioner, Joseph Tarka, to resign from his position after Godwin Daboh, allegedly in concert with Paul Unongo, accused Tarka of mind-blowing corruption. Tarka’s resignation was child’s play placed side by side his snide comments which indicated far more humongous corruption in the Gowon government. Tarka had said in a Daily Times newspaper interview, which revealed that he resigned under pressure, that “If I resign, it will set off a chain of reactions of various events, the end of which nobody could foretell.” This was followed by an affidavit sworn to on August 31, 1974 at the Jos High Court by then one Mr. Aper Aku who was a known protégé of Tarka. The affidavit contained accusations against Benue-Plateau Governor, Police Commissioner Joseph Gomwalk, of corruption. Gowon, in a state visit to China, publicly exonerated Gomwalk but public uproar against this police big gun seemed to have just begun afresh. He was eventually later executed by firing squad for his involvement in the 1976 Lt. Col Buka Suka Dimka coup against Murtala Mohammed.

Gowon retired both Brigadiers Adekunle and Sotomi but Shitta-Bey, who was dismissed by the Public Service Commission, headed for the court. Shitta-Bey won at the High Court, lost on appeal but the Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Chukwuwenuike Idigbe, in Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 S.C 40, found discrepancies in his sack and returned him to the service.

So many other Oniyangi episodes have been recorded in recent history. While President Bill Clinton was almost removed from office by his own Oniyangi, White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, then Bendel State of Nigeria’s Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ize Iyamu, was consumed by a romance with robbery kingpins, Monday Osunbor and Lawrence Anini, the latter having confessed that Iyamu, who was later executed by firing squad, traded the police armoury with them in their robbery operations. Jennifer Maduike, the society lady of the early-1990s also acted as the Olorunkoya of Police Commissioner Fidelis Oyakhilome. At the cusp of a stellar career as the NDLEA chairman, Maduike alleged an affair with Oyakhilome, which took his job.

Without prejudice to how the Kyari matter goes, one fundamental lesson to be learnt from it is that the DCP courted this huge public ignominy due to his inability to realize the ancient sense in the requirement for social comportment by persons who occupy his kind of office. Judges, magistrates, investigators and persons whose opinions matter in society are expected to, aside their qualifications and experience, weaponize the act of taciturnity in their personal armoury, as well as wear an asocial garb. What do I mean by this? This set of people should be seen seldom, eschew every tissue of greed for material acquisition and avoid being social butterflies at owambe occasions. These are dragnets that drag achievers to the gallows. They should also avoid the company of wayward characters. Those among them who are epicureans will sooner than later enter the dragnet because, in social and political history, these elements are always their graveyards. Kyari is perhaps learning this too late.

Good enough that the police top hierarchy is said to be investigating this matter, preparatory to extraditing Kyari to America to answer the charges preferred against him. The news said to have been attributed to an online news medium that Kyari reportedly threatened exploring the Samson option of collapsing the whole police house if he was extradited had better not be true. If it is, it will be bringing back afresh memories of Tarka’s statement cited earlier in the corruption allegation against him. So who said history is dead?

More importantly, the world awaits the reaction of the Nigerian government, headed by Buhari, Kyari’s cousin, whose maternal tribe is Kanuri, Borno state, to this US indictment of the top cop. General Gowon had similarly tried to stave off the splurge of corruption indictments splattered on his Middle Belt kin while he was Head of State. Head or tail, Abba Kyari, the redoubtable and affable police officer, can never be the same cop again.

Mala Buni and those the gods want to destroy

Sometimes, the writer could wear the apparel of Nostradamus. In a May 2, 2021 piece I entitled, Buni and APC’S 40 years in power grandstanding, I sounded a note of warning that unless Yobe State Governor and All Progressives Congress (APC’s) Interim National Chairman, Mai Mala Buni, excused himself from the atypical dual office he holds, his party could be digging its own grave. Since he came on board the party in June, 2020, riding on the crest of a welter of condemnations against erstwhile party chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, whose garrulousness had assumed unbearable notoriety in the party, Buni has worn on his lapel the oddity of his dual offices.

I wrote in the said piece: “Buni’s choice unsettled so many party bigwigs. The main cause for worry was why a sitting governor would be chosen to superintend over the affairs of a party which had so many worthy party faithful to man that position. Since then, the implication of Buni being in office for the overarching party interest has been subjected to acute grilling. Even the PDP called on the Yobe governor to resign his dual positions as governor and APC’s Interim National Chairman, citing a pronouncement of the Supreme Court which labeled the leadership of the party “irresponsible and reckless.

“Two major states have fallen in the Supreme Court as a result of technical discrepancies. While Zamfara State’s APC, on May 24, 2019, fell to the intra-party dispute in the party, Bayelsa was to follow suit later. On the Zamfara issue, the court had held, among others, that the APC did not hold valid primaries preparatory to the 2019 general election. It thus voided the APC’s erstwhile victory in the 2019 governorship election, while making a consequential order which directed the party which had the second highest scores in the election to step into the office. In Bayelsa as well, the Supreme Court, on February 13, voided the APC victory just a day to the governor’s swearing in.

“With the casualty that the APC has been facing, rather than a boastfulness of its staying in power for the next 40 years, what the party ought to have safeguarded was its continued hold in its 19 controlled states, which is under serious threats. Methinks that putting its house in order by showing Buni the door should have been the most pressing decision on the card of the ruling party. Recently, APC escaped being axed by the whiskers when the election petitions tribunal sitting in Ondo State said it had no jurisdiction to remove its elected governor. This should be a wake-up call for the party. If the tribunal had granted the prayers of the PDP, by implication, every action – and they are plenty, including the recent registration exercise – taken by the APC since Buni became caretaker chairman would have been voided, thus ending Buni’s peacock claim of the party being in government for the next 40 years. Unless it wakes up from its self-inflicted slumber, shows Buni the gate and reorganizes itself, a stitch in time may not be able to save the boastful APC from the catastrophe to come.”

The judgment of the Supreme Court last week which the APC government in Ondo State won by the whiskers, in a suit instituted by the PDP’s Eyitayo Jegede and the hoopla that has surrounded it, are perfect indications of the arrogance of power that threw Buni up and same that is sustaining him in the office, in a party that is apparently filled with perhaps even more capable persons. Already, the Anambra APC candidacy for the governorship election is dangling on the precipice, imperiled as well by the arrogance of Buni being the nominator. Even with the cacophony of calls for him to relinquish the chairmanship or be relieved of it by learned lawyers who are also APC faithful, Buni and his travelers in the same accursed boat have obstinately held on to this prone-to-snap twine. I pray this won’t be a case of who the gods would destroy that they first make mad. In my own inflection, those the gods want to destroy, they first take away their ears.

The body traps that lie ahead

By Chief Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The APC has ruled Nigeria for over 6 years. It has failed in all indices of governance. The three core areas on which President Muhammadu Buhari campaigned as its candidate, have been honoured more in breach than in observance. They are economy, security and corruption. Each pigeon hole oozes with the putrefaction of non-performance and abysmal failure.

Nigeria is worse off today under the APC than she was in 2015. Not a few Nigerians pray every day that the Party should be booted out of power with the urgency of yesterday. Some Nigerians have since mounted a calendar, counting how many days more Buhari has to remain in office before vacating same upon effluxion of his mandatory 2 terms tenure of 4 years each. Just 668 days. Only 668 days for Buhari to leave power; many celebrate. They count days. Some count weeks; some others, months. A beleaguered Nigerian wrote to me that he is only counting hours (16, 032 hours). Another added humorously that he prefers to count minutes (961,920 minutes)! Such is the disillusionments and regrets of the APC- Buhari administration.

The realization that Buhari under Nigeria’s constitutional organogram cannot have a third term gladdens many hearts, giving them a ray of hope; some light at the end of Nigeria’s dingy asphyxiating and strangulating tunnel. But, Nigerians do not know how to go about ensuring that another Emperor Buhari does not come back. They fear there would be no free and fair elections in 2023. What with Senate’s unpatriotic and undemocratic rejection of electronic transmission of votes, and the House of Representatives’ double-speak on it! Not few Nigerians believe that the outright rejection of electronic voting is preparatory to APC’s readiness to massively rig the 2023 elections, knowing it has performed below average in service and democratic dividends-delivery. So, Nigerians belly-ache. They gnash teeth.

However, Nigerians may now heave a sigh of relieve. Unwittingly. From the most unexpected source: the Supreme Court. There are many ways to kill a stubborn rat that enters a calabash without breaking the calabash itself. The cheapest opportunity is the current banana peel that sits like an emancipator under the APC’s rickety and crincky chair of nepotism, sectionalism, prebendalism, cronynism, apaque3ness in governance and poverty spread.

THE SUPREME’S JUDGMENT

It is the Wednesday, July 28, 2021, Supreme Court judgment in the Eyitayo Jegede V. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (Appeal Nos: SC/448/21; SC/501/21; SC/508/21; and SC/509/21. The judgment was a very narrow 4 – 3 split decision in favour of Akeredolu. What a narrow escape! Aketi needs to go to Church for special thanksgiving.

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the Ondo election, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, and his party, the PDP, had challenged the competence of Akeredolu, SAN’s nomination/sponsorship for the election by the APC, contending that the letter conveying his nomination/sponsorship to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was incompetent, having been signed by Buni and others. They specifically urged the Court to determine whether Buni as a sitting Governor of Yobe State, could simultaneously double as the National Caretaker Committee Chairman of the APC (NCCC) to sign the nomination of Akeredolu, SAN, for the said governorship election.

They contended that by the provisions of Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 17 (4) of the APC constitution, Buni had acted unlawfully by being the Yobe Governor and serving as APC’s NCCC Chairman, all at the same time. They contended that because of this vice, the nomination/sponsorship letter Buni signed for the APC, notifying INEC of the candidacy of Akeredolu and Lucky Aiydatiwa (as APC’s Governorship and Deputy Governorship candidates) was void. They then urged the apex court to void the July, 16, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, which had validated Akeredolu’s election.

THE MAJORITY DECISION

In his lead majority split judgment, Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim held that, since Jegede and the PDP made Buni the centre of their allegations of constitutional breaches, he ought to have been made a party in the case to enable him defend himself in line with the doctrine of fair hearing.

The Supreme Court proceeded to uphold the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, to the effect that the petition filed by Jegede and his party to the election tribunal was incompetent because they failed to join Buni as a party.

Justice Agim held: “The appeal was based on the ground that Mai Mala Buni, the Chairman of the NCCC of the second respondent (APC), was holding office as the Governor of Yobe State, contrary to the provisions of Section 183 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999).

“All the issues raised, revolved around Mala Buni. But, Mala Buni, who is at the centre of the dispute was not made party to the petition. It is obvious that the determination of the said issues will affect him.

“Therefore, the court below was right to have held that he was a necessary party to this suit. Failure to join him renders the determination of the matter impossible. To proceed to do so would have violated the fair trial of the case.

“Therefore, we affirm the lower court’s decision that the petitioner was incompetent.

“There is no dispute that the third and fourth respondents (Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa) were nominated by the second respondent (APC) as its candidates for the election; that the second respondent submitted their names to the first respondent (INEC) as its candidates, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Electoral Act.

“They were therefore sponsored by the second in accordance with Section 177(c) of the Constitution (1999). It is not in dispute that Mai Mala Buni is acting as the National Chairman of the second respondent,” he said.

Justice Agim therefore held that the decision to allow Buni act as its National Committee Chairman (in the interim) was made by the APC, despite the provisions of Article 17 (4 of its Constitution, thereby making the decision internal to the party.

He added: “The second respondent (APC) allowed him (Buni) to be its Chairman in the interim inspite of Article 17 of its constitution.

The vires of this decision of the party is non-justiciable. This appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed,” he held.

THE MINORITY DECISION

The minority judgment differed in all material particular from this majority opinion.

In the lead minority judgment, Justice Mary Peter-Odili (who also presided on the panel) upheld Jegede’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeals by INEC), APC, Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa; just as the same majority Justices had also done.

Justice Odili was of the firm view that since the APC, for which Buni acted, was already a party in the case, there was no need to include him as a party.

She added that having allowed Buni to act on its behalf in signing the nomination/sponsorship letter of its candidates in Ondo despite the clear provisions of section 183 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 17(4) of the APC Constitution, the party should live by the consequences of its lawlessness.

“I do not agree with the majority judgment,” she dilated emphatically, noting that the APC, by Article 17(4) of its Constitution has provided for how its affairs should be managed and what offices its members should occupy at a time.

“This Article draws strength from Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore when the second respondent (APC) put up a person not qualified to author its nomination by virtue of the provision of Article 17(4) of its Constitution and Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution to do so, that document has no validity, and thereby void,” she said.

She noted that the implication was that the nomination and candidacy of Akeredolu and his Deputy was a complete nullity and that the person, who ought to be declared winner of the election” is the first appellant (Jegede), who has the majority of valid votes.”

Justice Peter-Odili further held that it was unlawful and amounted to a violation of Article 17(4) of the APC Constitution and section 183 of the 1999 Constitution for Buni to be serving as the National Chairman of the APC and the Governor of Yobe State at the same time.

Justices Ejembi Eko and Mohammed Saulawa concurred with Justice Peter-Odili in upholding the appeal and dismissing the cross-appeals filed by INEC, APC, Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

THE LAW

Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:

‘‘The Governor shall not, during the period when he holds office, hold any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever’’.

If there was any doubt as to the dangerous implications of this section in Buni acting as the APC National Caretaker Committee Chairman, section 17 (iv) of the APC Constitution is quite clear and unambiguous on this. It provides that “No official of the party shall at the same time hold any Government position in any Government institution”.

Thus, while the 1999 Constitution views Buni’s appointment from the position of Governor (Executive) to the party, the APC Constitution takes the reverse view of Buni’s appointment from the APC to the Governor (Executive). So, head or tail, position APC is in trouble.

CANONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Canons of statutory interpretation are clear to the effect that when a statute is enacted in clear words, such words should be given their natural, usual and ordinary meaning in their interpretation. This shows the intent of the Legislature. See Ikpaezu V. Ogah & Ors (2016) LPELR-40845 (CA); Ofodile & Anor V. Aliozo & Ors (2021) LPELR-54159 (CA); Gana V. SDP & Ors (2019) LPELR-47153 (SC); Skye Bank V. Iwu (2017) LPELR-42595 (SC).

The Supreme Court majority judgment did not disagree with the fact that Mai Mala Buni as Governor of Yobe State was not competent to function as National Chairman of a political party (APC) and nominate a candidate for election through the INEC. Its view (and this must be respected) is based mostly on the rather technical stance (also earlier adopted by the Court of Appeal), that the non-joinder of Buni as a party in the suit was fatal to the PDP and Jegede’s appeal. Was it really? How, when the APC, which sponsored Buni, and for whom Buni at all material times acted as an agent was already a party to the suit? I do not and cannot understand this. Or, do you? The law is trite that you do not need to go after an agent (Buni) where there is a disclosed principal (APC). Such a disclosed principal is solely liable for its agent’s authorized actions, as the agent is not personally liable. See Okafor V. Ezenwa (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 784) 319; Osigwe V. PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt 1128) 378.

EXTRAPOLATIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT

The simple conclusion is that if Buni had been joined as a party in the suit, the story would have been different, as the APC would have lost Ondo State to the PDP. Pronto! It is that simple. Indeed, it is rare to see such a close shave of 4-3 split judgment by the Supreme Court. Minority decisions are usually more rigorous and better researched as they seek to swim against the tide of the majority opinion that may be tyrannical.

The Supreme Court’s judgment has simply furiously (perhaps, inadvertently), weaponised all those that would be aggrieved by the APC’s forthcoming Congresses and other elections. They only need to go to court to challenge the competence of the Buni-led NCCC to organise the forthcoming Congresses and National Convention. Thus from bottom to top, the APC’s amorphous structures made up of disparate tendencies have been irretrievably damaged, nay, destroyed. All Congresses, meetings, conventions and elections that henceforth have the imprimatur of Governor Mai Mala Buni are subject to being quashed by the court at the instance of any aggrieved party member. Indeed, all actions so far taken by the Buni-led NCCC in that capacity can be quashed by any aggrieved member of the APC. Such a member has locus standi if he can show his membership card. Here comes the banana peel! APC will slip. And the fall will be thunderous. And Nigerians will applaud. God, how mighty thou Art!