By Raymond Nkannebe

INTRODUCTION

The dawn of the 4^th Alteration Act, No. 21 of 2017 which came into force on 8^th June, 2018 might have wrought a further paradigm shift in the role play of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the conduct and management of elections, particularly in regards to its powers to disqualify candidates of political parties from contesting an election.

Whereas the Commission had always exercised this power, the ugly events that gave birth to the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amaechi v INEC, particularly INEC’s complicity, led the 6^th National Assembly to amend the then 2006 Electoral Act introducing a number of amendments one of which took away the wide powers of the Commission to disqualify candidates and donated same to the Courts. By the proviso to the extant 2010 Act (as emended), the “Commission shall not reject or disqualify candidates(s) for any reason whatsoever”.

However, with the coming into force of the 4^th Alteration Act, that power seems to have been restored by the legislature.  But this time, in the Constitution. By dint of section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution it’d appear the Commission may now have the power to exclude and/or disqualify a candidate, by the sheer force of circumscribing such administrative decision within the scope of actions that could transmute into a pre-election matter.

The provision provides:

“(14) For the purpose of this section, “pre-election” matter means any suit by-

(a)……………………

(b)…………………..              

(c) a political party challenging the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission disqualifying its candidate from participating in an election or a complaint that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the nomination of candidates of political parties for an election, timetable for an election, registration of voters and other activities of the Commission in respect of preparation for an election”.

With the above provision, which was written into the Constitution for the first time in 2018, one may argue with some force  that the delineation of a suit challenging INEC’s disqualification of a candidate as a pre-election matter, has restored the Commission’s power so to do, by way of incorporation by reference; an accepted canon of interpretation. However, this territory remains largely uncharted as far as our electoral jurisprudence goes.

The situation however reared its head recently in the Bayelsa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which rendered its decision last Monday, nullifying the Nov. 16^th 2019 Governorship Election held in the State, in a split decision, and ordering a re-run poll in 90 days barring any right of appeal that may be exercised by the aggrieved party.

There, one of the core issues that agitated the minds of the 3-man panel was whether the decision of INEC disqualifying the candidates of the Advanced Nigeria Democratic Party (ANDP) (“the Petitioner”), for purportedly submitting the name of an unqualified candidate was ultra vires its powers. And if answered in the negative, whether it did not take the Petitioner’s case outside the realm of a post-election matter?

FACTS OF THE CASE

It is sufficient for the purposes of this discourse, to state the brief facts of the quite interesting case.

By its Amended Time Table of Activities for the Governorship Election in Kogi and Bayelsa States, INEC fixed September 9^th 2019, as the deadline for the submission of list of nominated candidates and their statutory Forms CF 001 and CF002. While other political parties submitted their respective forms in good time, the Petitioner was only able to do so on the last day of submission. By the time it did, its candidate for the office of Deputy–Governor, David Peter Esinkuma as it turned out, was under-aged not having attained the constitutionally nominated age of 35.

By its letter dated, 13^th September, 2019 INEC wrote to the Petitioner informing it of this finding. Having been apprised of this development, the Petitioner wrote back to INEC on 21^st September, 2019 substituting the nominee, with one Miss Inowei Janet. As though the Petitioner-Political Party were jinxed, this second nominee turned out to be also under aged. But that was a secondary matter, as INEC in its letter of 27^th September, 2019 informed the Petitioner that it was too late in the day to submit a fresh nominee having not submitted a qualified candidate before the deadline of 9^th September. It also informed the Petitioner that her name and logo would not be on the ballot at the scheduled elections. The die was cast. The Petitioner wrote back a week later, precisely on the 3^rd of October, urging INEC to rescind its decision, and threatening legal action. INEC would not budge. Long story short, the elections held without the Petitioner being on the ballot.

Aggrieved, it filed a Petition at the Bayelsa State Governorship Election Petition tribunal. That petition would subsequently be withdrawn. Following the declaration and return, by INEC of Duoye Diri of the PDP as the winner of the election, in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court on 13^th February, 2020 the Petitioner filed a fresh petition on 26^th February, 2020 seeking amongst other reliefs an order that the election of Nov.16^th 2019 be declared null and void, having been “unlawfully excluded” from the Petition. It is that petition that germinated into the decision which I had highlighted above.

THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

While the majority decision held that INEC had no power whatsoever to disqualify a candidate relying on the provisions of section 31(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the minority/dissenting judgment anchored on the provisions of section 285(14) (C) of the Constitution to hold that the disqualification of the Petitioner by INEC was lawful, the Petitioner having not submitted a Deputy-Governor nominee who met the Constitutional age requirement per section 177 and 187(1) of the Constitution. With the implication that the 4^th Alteration Act abrogated the proviso to section 31(1) of the Electoral Act which prohibits INEC from disqualifying a candidate for any reason whatsoever.

With no intention to critique the Tribunal’s decision which is expectedly on its way in the appellate process, the primary concern of this academic inquest is to interrogate the limits of the powers of INEC to disqualify a candidate under the Electoral Act, and to ascertain whether the 4^th Alteration Act has rendered the proviso to section 31(1) of the Electoral Act, otiose.

PRE 4^TH ALTERATION ACT ELECTORAL REGIME

Matters came to a head in Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222. There, the candidate of the defunct Appellant-Political Party despite having been nominated for the office of the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the 2007 general election, was disqualified by INEC on the ground that he was not qualified by virtue of section 137(i) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Agreeing with the earlier judgments of the trial Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court put it beyond the realm of doubt that the Commission did not have such powers at page 265 paras.B-H of the report thus:

“Now, there is no doubt that Section 137(1)(i) of the 1999 Constitution is a provision disqualifying any candidate to contest for the seat of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As a matter of fact, the entire Section 137 deals with the situations in which a person is disqualified to contest for the post of the President. While Section 131 deals with the situation when a person may be deemed to be qualified to contest for the post of the president in an election, the fundamental question is whether the respondent has the authority and the competence to determine whether a candidate is caught by the provisions of Section 137(1) specifically in this case Sub-section (1)(i) whether  on the facts, the respondent can pronounce on the qualification of the 2nd appellant on its own steam.

To put it another way, whether the provisions of Sections 137(1)(i) are self-executing and can be determined by the respondent. In my view, it is now trite that a principle of interpretation of the Constitution or statute is that a provision should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the context of the Constitution or the statute as a whole. See Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51; Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; and the recent case of Buhari & Anor v. Obasanjo & Ors. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 at 219. The subsection must be read in the context of constitutional democracy established for the country by the Constitution. It is very clear that the power to disqualify a candidate is not conferred on the respondent by Section 137 of the Constitution and I have searched the Constitution, I cannot find in any other provision where such a power has been conferred either expressly or by necessary implication on the respondent to disqualify any candidate”.

Later, in Amaechi v. INEC & 2 Ors (2008) 1 S.C. (Part 1) 36 @ 275 lines 5-15, the apex Court had reason to re-echo the principle thus:

“I should here also reiterate the limit of the powers of INEC as it relates to candidates for election while some duties are conferred on INEC per Section 32 (supra) it is obvious from the clear and unambiguous provisions of the aforesaid section of the Electoral Act, 2006, that the Commission lacks the power to disqualify any candidate on its own. The power of disqualification of any candidate from contesting an election after his name has been forwarded to the commission belongs exclusively to the Federal High Court or the State High Court. This court (Supreme Court) has reiterated this principle in a number of its decided cases.”

Now, the rationale behind this principle no doubt is to enhance the impartiality of the Commission and to underscore its role as an umpire who should not be seen to be conferring undue advantage to some political parties or their candidates. The Supreme Court stated as much in A-G Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1041) PG 1 @ 183 – 184 PARA H—A where it held:

“Also the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by its statutory existence is an independent body with constitutional powers to conduct elections in Nigeria. It must not only be an umpire, it must be seen in the eyes of reasonable men to be an impartial umpire in the conduct of an election. INEC must never by an act of omission or commission place itself in a position where imputations of partiality in favour of one party against another one will be levelled against it. Neutrality must be the watchword of the body-it must always remain fair and focused.”

This position has since crystallized in a long league of cases. In order to further instill confidence in the system and enable citizen participation in the electoral process, the draftsman of the 2010 Electoral Act, enacted sections 31(5) and (6) which gave members of the public the powers to challenge the qualification of candidates seeking elective offices, through the courts vide a pre-election suit.

The provision reads:

31(5) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of  State or FCT against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

The affidavit referenced here, is the affidavit of facts usually sworn to by an aspirant saying that he/she has “fulfilled all the Constitutional requirements for election into that office” as mandated by section 31(2) of the Electoral Act. Section 31(6) of the Act, on the other hand, fixes the Courts with the responsibility of disqualifying a candidate who runs foul of section 31(2) of the Act. It says, “If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election”.

When the above sections are read in consonance with the proviso to section 31(1) of the Act which says, “…the Commission shall not reject or disqualify candidate(s) for any reason whatsoever” the irresistible conclusion is what the proviso says, namely: INEC cannot disqualify a candidate for any reason WHATSOEVER. [Emphasis supplied] And there has been a confluence of judicial opinion on the point, at least until the dawn of the 4^th Alteration Act.

HAS THE LAW CHANGED UNDER THE 4^TH ALTERATION ACT?

As I had alluded before now, by suggesting that INEC now has the powers to disqualify a candidate under section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution, and nominating a challenge to such decision a pre-election suit, the question that begs consideration is whether the 4^th Alteration Act is in conflict with the provisions of section 31(1) of the Electoral Act so as to put it in limbo?

In the dissenting judgment of The Hon. Justice M. Sirajo of the Bayelsa State Governorship Tribunal, the learned jurist eloquently and quite convincingly argued in favor of a possible abrogation of the Electoral Act by the Constitution thus:

“The proviso to section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act clearly prohibits the Independent National Electoral Commission from rejecting or disqualifying any candidate submitted to it by a political party for whatever reason. The implication of this proviso is that even where it is apparent from the Form CF 001 that a candidate submitted to it by a political party for election in to the Office of Governor of a State is not a citizen of Nigeria; or he did not attain the age of 35 years; or he is not educated up to school certificate level; or he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections; or he is a lunatic; or he has been convicted for an offence involving dishonesty in the last ten years; or he has been found guilty of contravention of the code of conduct; or he is an undischarged bankrupt; or he is a civil servant who has not resigned his appointment; or he is a member of any secret society; or he has presented a forged certificate, the Independent National Electoral Commission cannot under any of these constitutional constraints reject his nomination. This scenario appears absurd and practically inapplicable. As a way out, the new subsection 14 (c) of section 285 of the Constitution was introduced by the Legislature. In defining what constitute pre-election matters, the Constitution restores, by necessary legal implication, the power of INEC to disqualify and exclude a candidate or a political party from an election. The section anticipates that INEC may decide to disqualify a candidate from participating in an election. By taking away the power of INEC to reject or disqualify candidates who did not satisfy the constitutional requirement for contesting such election, the proviso to section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act is on collision path with the provision of section 285 (14) (c) of the Constitution which recognises such power. That proviso must give way to the Constitution which is the Supreme law of the land, as it is void to the extent of its inconsistency with the provision of the Constitution. In the final analysis, I hold that the 1st Respondent has the power under the Constitution not only to prepare time table for election activities but also to reject and disqualify candidates who fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement for the office they are contesting”.

I am inclined to agree with the dissenting opinion of the learned trial Judge, and I do so advisedly knowing that a dissenting judgment however erudite lacks jurisprudential force. Yet, when considered against the backdrop of the innovations of the 4^th Alteration Act, it could be inferred that the draftsman intended to donate such powers to the Commission by parity of reasoning. And the rationale may not be farfetched: to put the Commission in the same position as members of the public in scrutinizing aspirants for elective office and to ensure valid nomination of candidates. It would be absurd as posited by the learned trial Judge, for the electoral Commission to be faced with a clear case of non-qualification of a candidate submitted to it, only to wriggle its hands in helplessness purportedly handicapped by a legislation. This seems to me, the mischief now cured by the 4^th Alteration Act. But that would abide a determination by the Supreme Court to finality.

In my considered opinion, this innovation does not in any way extinguish the provisions of sections 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act. If anything, it expands the scope to allow the Commission exercise powers of disqualification, particularly in cases where the disqualifying element are so glaring such as played out in the Bayelsa Governorship Petition where the Deputy-Governorship candidate of the Petitioner was clearly under the Constitutionally nominated age of 35, by the admission of the Party Chairman of the Petitioner. That is to say, members of the public are not estopped from taking the benefit of section 31(5) of the Act to challenge the qualification of aspirants in line with section 31(6) of the Act. This is to my mind, the only way, the fruits of the 4^th Alteration Act could be reaped in that regard, otherwise an unscrupulous political party whose candidate is clearly not qualified under the Constitution, may avoid litigation (by whatever means) and field such a candidate on the ballot if the role of INEC in the process of screening candidates were merely mechanical.

CONCLUSION

Whether the 4^th Alteration Act has unfettered the hands of INEC in disqualifying candidates submitted to it by Political Parties remains a grey area in our extant electoral jurisprudence. Be that as it may, the recent judgment of the Bayelsa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal happily has helped to put it in issue and would one way or the other be determined by the Supreme Court. Assuming the apex Court resolves the logjam in favour of INEC, efforts must be made by the 9^th National Assembly to codify the findings of the Court in the ongoing amendment of the Electoral Act towards resolving the seeming conflict between the 4^th Alteration Act and section 31(1) of the Electoral Act 2020 (as amended). Such clarity is important for certainty and predictability of our electoral jurisprudence as we prepare for major elections in Ondo, Edo and Anambra States.

Raymond Nkannebe, a Legal Practitioner is of Synergy Attornies. He

By Steven Kefas

Armed gunmen suspected to be Fulani Herdsmen Militias earlier today invaded Prince Academy Damba-Kasaya in Kunai Ward of Chikun Local government area of Kaduna State, North West Nigeria.

The Gunmen, riding on motorcycles arrived the community at about 7:45am and operated for about 45 minutes shooting sporadically into the air while abducting yet to be identified number of students who had gathered to write the Junior School Certificate Examination (JSCE) alongside some villagers, an eyewitness told Wardesk News reporter.

A villager, Mr Bawa Wakili who confirmed the sad incident to Wardesk reporter, said he was riding on a motorcycle when he sighted the gunmen from afar approaching the community and quickly raised alarm, he said the gunmen went straight to the school and cart away with some students before abducting some villagers.

Mr Wakili said a Church Aminchi Baptist Church Damba-Kasaya was set ablaze by the gunmen. He said some villagers were also abducted alongside the students.

As at the time of filing this report one person was confirmed killed while others sustained gunshots injuries.

The Gunmen suspected to be Fulani Herdsmen Militias also went away with some mortocyles belonging to the villagers.

“When the attack started, the military came in and were even trailing the attackers but withdrew along the way for reasons best known to them, leaving us to our fate”. A youth leader who prefers to be anonymous revealed.

The Federal government had only recently reopened schools across the country to enable graduating students in secondary schools seat for their final exams. This prompted the reopening of schools in Kaduna state.

Chikun Local government has come under series of fulani herdsmen attacks lately with several people either kidnapped for ransom or killed and many communities have been displaced.

Kaduna state has been on the news since 2015 as the headquarter of kidnappings and banditry where no fewer than 366 villagers have been killed between January and July 2020 alone, according to Amnesty International.

The Kaduna state government has been widely criticized for what many believed to be poor handling of the lingering security challenges in the state, resulting in his withdrawal from the NBA AGC recently, as even under 24 hours imposed curfew the Militias have continued to carry out deadly attacks unabated in the Southern parts of the state.

In a similar protest, the Kaduna State Chapter of the Muslim Lawyers Association of Nigeria (MULAN) directed its members to boycott the AGC over the withdrawal of Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s invitation as speaker at the conference.

The group, at a press conference in Kaduna, also asked Muslim lawyers across the country to boycott the conference, saying the decision of the NBA NEC smacked of what it called parochialism, favouritism and ethno-religious considerations.

The Vice Chairman of the association, Abbas Ma’sanawa, who read MULAN’s position, said the same NBA had kept mute over the “genocide going on in the North East, banditry and kidnappings in Katsina, Zamfara, Niger, and Kebbi States, and Giwa and Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State,” while also ”giving surreptitious ethnic cover to Southern Kaduna as if lives matter more in some parts of the country over the others.”

The group said: “Lives lost in Batsari, Katsina State far outnumber that of eight local governments of Southern Kaduna put together. This isn’t to say MULAN Kaduna justifies loss of lives anywhere and in any guise. MULAN Kaduna wonders where was the posturing of NBA at the many lives Iost in Borno State.

“Without mincing words, the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 precisely, Section 10 states in clear terms that “the Government of the Federation or of any state shall not adopt any religion as a state religion.

“We are witnesses to how Governor Nyesom Wike demolished a mosque and came out openly to say, ‘I repeat once again without apologies, Rivers is a Christian State. That is why nobody can touch us.’

“We believe that NBA NEC deemed these utterances glorious, hence the lofty invitation to Nyesom Wike to use our hallowed platform to propagate his governance inklings and dis-invitation of Governor El-Rufai.

“MULAN Kaduna Branch believes that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

“The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Paul Usoro, SAN said NEC’s decision yesterday had no ethnic or religious colouration or connotation howsoever and whatsoever.

“MULAN Kaduna Branch asks Mr. President if the topic: Who is a Nigerian? has anything to do with Southern Kaduna. An honest answer in this direction would reveal the clandestine motive of the NBA.

“Paragraph 7 of the letter of Mr. President requesting the Governors’ Forum to communicate the dis-invitation to His Excellency, Mallam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai is certainly sinister as MULAN Kaduna wonders if the letter inviting him was routed through the Governor’s Forum in the first place!

“What stops Mr. President from sending the letter of dis-invitation to Governor El-Rufai directly?

“There is certainly more to it than meet the eye in the circumstances, and to be modest, the NBA President’s assertion as contained in the letter to the NGF cannot be far from the truth as to the ethnic-religious drive in the whole of what have played out.

“In view of the unfortunate decision of the NBA NEC, MULAN Kaduna Branch is left with no option but to instruct its members to withdraw their participation in the forthcoming NBA AGC and enjoins all Muslim lawyers in Nigeria to join in the boycott.”

Also reacting, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria described the action of the NBA as irresponsible.

Secretary General of the council, Nafi’u Baba-Ahmed, also a lawyer, said: “The unfortunate development has cast a terrible smelly smear on the NBA, which until recently, was controversially regarded as representing the best ideals of justice, equity the good conscience of the society.

“The decision taken by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to delist Mal. Nasiru Ahmad El-Rufa’i, the Executive Governor, Kaduna State, as one of the speakers at its virtual annual national conference is, to be charitable, regrettable and irresponsible of an institution of which I had hitherto been a proud member for over 40 years.

“We want to believe that the decision is not representative of all its right thinking members. For clearly, it has already taken sides in the Southern Kaduna crises, contrary to its members’ training and what it loudly preaches, without listening to the narrative from the other side.

“Clearly, lowly, narrow political and religious sentiments have beclouded the judgment of the leadership of the NBA, forgetting the most basic principle of their training and that its members cut across all sides of the divide.

The virtual AGC is scheduled to run from Wednesday to Friday.

It has the theme, ‘Step forward.’

It is expected to have Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), among others, in attendance.

El-Rufai was initially listed as one of the guest speakers in a session entitled ‘Who is a Nigerian?… A Debate on National Identity.’

Others billed to speak at the session are Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike; former Anambra State governor Peter Obi and a cleric, Tunde Bakare; former minister Oby Ezekwesili, and immediate past ECOWAS commissioner for political affairs, peace and security, Salamatu Suleiman.

The junta that seized power in Mali wants a military-led transitional body to rule for three years and has agreed to release ousted president Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, a source in a visiting West African delegation said Sunday.

“The junta has affirmed that it wants a three-year transition to review the foundations of the Malian state. This transition will be directed by a body led by a soldier, who will also be head of state,” a source in the ECOWAS delegation in capital Bamako told AFP.

“The government will also be predominantly composed of soldiers” under the junta’s proposal, the source said on condition of anonymity.

The source added that the junta has agreed to “free president Keita”, who has been detained along with other political leaders since the coup on Tuesday, and he “will be able to return to his home” in Bamako.

“And if he wants to travel abroad for treatment, that is not a problem,” the ECOWAS source said.

Prime minister Boubou Cisse, who has been detained with Keita at a military base outside the capital where the coup began, would be moved to a secure residence in the city, the source said.

A junta official confirmed to AFP the decisions on the fate of Keita and Cisse, as well as that “the three-year transition would have a military president and a government mostly composed of soldiers”.

The coup followed months of protests calling for Keita to resign as public discontent with the government grew over the country’s brutal Islamist insurgency and collapsing economy.

While it was met by international condemnation, thousands of opposition supporters celebrated the president’s ouster in the streets of Bamako.

The junta has said it “completed the work” of the protesters and has vowed to stage elections “within a reasonable time”.

However Mali’s neighbours have called for Keita to be reinstated, saying the purpose of the visit by the delegation from the regional ECOWAS bloc was to help “ensure the immediate return of constitutional order”.

Tuesday’s coup was Mali’s second in eight years, and has heightened concern over regional stability as its jihadist insurgency that now threatens neighbouring Niger and Burkina Faso.

On August 21, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) sent a letter to the Governor of Kaduna state, Mallam Nasiru El-Rufa’i, indicating his withdrawal as NBA2020 conference speaker. The governor was billed to speak on the topic “Who is a Nigerian? The letter generated a lot of controversy from different angles of the country, especially among the Nigerians that were spending significant time on social media expressing their views on national issues of interest.

According to the NBA president, the invitation was withdrawn from the governor following a petition by some lawyers under the aegis of Open Bar Initiative following rising killings in Southern Kaduna.

Well, writing on this kind of issue ends up with different interpretations, no wonder sometimes I find it very disturbing and difficult to press my keyboards on any stuff that may generate comments if not anger to many people, especially those that are not in line with the author`s stand. Permit me to clarify this to you that I am neither a supporter of Mallam El-Rufa’i nor his sympathiser. In fact, I have issues with some of his strict and anti-masses policies but we have no option than voice out our opinion, especially on any issue capable of downsizing democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the country.

Let me start with this, the NBA as an association has the right to invite or withdraw invitation to anybody in their program because they are the organisers of the program and therefore have the right to select the guests for the program.

Be that as it may, I have personally not seen anything wrong in Inviting someone to a program and withdrawing same. What makes the issue create unnecessary attention among the general members of the public is the issue of allegations against the governor in relation to rising cases of attacks in Southern Kaduna. The NBA president stated that the withdrawal of the governor`s invitation has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity.

Whatever he said, the majority will find it very offensive, especially those that hold the opinion that the association’s approach was very poor and uncalled for, the association failed to give the governor a fair hearing, which is one of the cardinal principals of the rule of law. The governor is presumed innocent of the said allegation till a court pronounces him guilty. The views of some members of the association shouldn’t be the basis to withdraw such invitation unless the association wants it. 

This is just like teenagers’ prank we had back in university days that you send your party invitations to some people and still give words to bouncers not to allow them to gain entry just to humiliate them at the entrance then you later apologise to them. NBA apologiding to the governor simply means that the association is not convinced withdrawing the invite was right or affirming my thought on the above mentioned issues

There are a lot of conspiracies surrounding the matter. Religious and tribal champions are busy giving the incident different interpretations and inclinations but I perceive the whole melodrama ensued between NBA and El-Rufa’i as part of the 2023 political game. If not for political reason, why will the NBA allow other speakers like Wike and Obasanjo? Are they saying they have history of obeying court orders?

If NBA is concerned on the killings in Southern Kaduna, they will not have entitled the theme of the conference “Am I a Nigerian-A debate on National Identity”, instead, they should have opted for “The Indigeneship-Citizenship Conundrum”  to make fool out of him. It will be a very good avenue for people to dig deep by asking unhidden agenda and questions some people think about him. This will also pave way for them to understand why the governor has issues with Southern Kaduna leaders. But the association denied all these opportunities to their members and general public just because of the interest of insignificant few among them.

Now their attitude towards El-Rufa’i is creating a different narrative among the fragile country`s ethno-religious population; a significant number of the population are turning the saga as an issue of ethno-religious sentiment. El-Rufai`s presence in the conference will not benefit the common Nigerian with anything but will definitely bring out different stories especially on the current crisis in the state. 

In addition, NBA’s reactions to such issue that has colouration of religious is nothing but fuelling the disintegration among the major religions in the country, especially now that everything in Nigeria one must put religious and tribal sentiments for such things to attract attention.
Moreover, the NBA has directed the Muslim lawyer to nominate another Muslim governor to speak in the event. This has indicated that NBA and their sponsors have an axe to grind with El-Rufa’i. The NBA, which is the body of learned and a rallying point and unifying factor, has derailed from this core objective. What a shame!

A lot of negative narrations are going on daily in Nigeria from Mailafia`s allegations to another. All these will not let us understand the major challenges facing the country like insecurity, poor democratic governance, abject poverty and unemployment that have become the order of the day in the country.

Nigerians should be conscious of the issues that can castigate one another and lead us to unnecessary conflict that may result in further loss of lives and destruction of property. Few unpatriotic individuals and organisations try to use unhidden agenda and conspiracies to divide us for their personal interest.

Mohammed, a democratic governance enthusiast, writes from Funtua, Katsina state 

blueprint

FOUR persons have been confirmed dead by the police following Sunday morning violent clash between security agents and members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, in Emene, Enugu State.

The police also said that they arrested five members of the IPOB during the clash which threw the whole Emene and environs into chaos as early as 7.00am.

The commotion raised by the clash disrupted church services as worshippers of the various churches in the area ran helter scatter to escape being caught in the crisis.

An eyewitness account said that trouble started at about 7.00am when some police invaded the Community Secondary School Emene where members IPOB were meeting to have their prayers and attempted to disperse and arrest them.

According to the account, the attempt was resisted, turning the encounter bloody with IPOB members reportedly overpowering the security operatives.

In a swift reaction, a large reinforcement was called and over a dozen patrol vans loaded with armed security agents comprising police, army and DSS arrived the scene and faced the Biafran agitators.

Sounds of gunfire and teargas fumes filled the area, particularly between St Patrick Secondary School and St Joseph Catholic Church along the old Abakaliki Road.

One account lamented that the premises of St. Patrick Secondary School was “flowing with blood” as fleeing IPOB members were pursued into the school by security operatives.

At the time of filing the report, military vehicles, including armoured personnel carrier, APC, were seen used to block the roads leading into Emene, though normalcy had returned to the community.

Reacting to the clash, IPOB leadership accused the Federal Government of using security operatives “to exhibit another crude round of killing and massacre against the peaceful and unarmed IPOB family members”.

IPOB in a statement by its spokesman, Emma Powerful said: “The Nigerian government and her security agencies have once again exhibited another crude round of killing and massacre against the peaceful and unarmed IPOB family members in Enugu State, today 23rd of August, 2020.

“We are surprised how Nigerian security agencies would allow their officers in their respective formations like army, police and DSS to be slaughtering our people without any provocation.

“This rampant killing of innocent members of IPOB will be reciprocated in due cause. IPOB members have been slaughtered and arrested in their numbers across different locations in Enugu State today, Sunday 23rd August, 2020.

“We must warn and put the whole world on notice that Nigerian Government and her security operatives should stop killing our people because we are peaceful organization with the mandate of restoring Biafra sovereignty within shortest period.

“Today, the Nigerian security personnel stormed IPOB meeting ground in Enugu and started shooting sporadically which consumed lives of 21 members and 47 arrested for just no cause or provocation.

“It is unfortunate that security operatives murdered innocent members and carried their lifeless bodies to unknown locations. The security in the whole world must understand that keeping quiet and following the rule of law should not be construed as weakness on the part of IPOB.

“IPOB is a well rooted movement committed fully on the pursuit for Biafra freedom and independence from Nigeria. We are not a violent group and there is nothing they can do to change our resolve to maintain peace and order in our land. The efforts of the Nigeria Government and her partners in crime in trying to push IPOB to change their tactics will amount to vanity.

“We are warning and asking Nigeria government and her security operatives to stop this atrocity immediately. Why have they refused to confront herdsmen, Boko Haram terrorists, Ansaru group, bandits, ISIS and other groups ravaging the country and busy killing innocent and unarmed citizens of IPOB?

“Those responsible for this barbaric killing in Enugu today must pay for their actions against IPOB at the appropriate time. It is laughable for DSS to be claiming that they lost 5 personnel in the hands of unarmed and peaceful people. It is clear to all that IPOB doesn’t indulge or carry arm or involve with any object. IPOB is a peaceful movement and we must remain so till Biafra is totally achieved

The Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communication, Pastor Paulinus Nsirim has stated that contrary to the assertions in some quarters that the invitation extended to the Governor of Rivers State, Nyemson Wike by NBA for the forthcoming Annual General Conference, should be withdrawn like that of Kaduna Gov. El-Rufai, he noted that such is a misplaced contention.

Meanwhile, he stated that the Governor is a legal practitioner and a member of the body of benchers and as such, as of right, he can attend any programme of NBA with or without invitation.

“His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State, Barrister Nyesom Wike, does not need anybody’s permission to attend a programme of the NBA. He is a member of the body of benchers and a seasoned legal practitioner.” He said.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Effurun Branch in Delta State has vowed to challenge in court, the new Company and Allied Matters 2020 Act, (CAMA) that was signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari on August 7.

The Chairman of the NBA, Effurun Branch, Mr. Jonathan Ekperusi, made the vow during a courtesy visit to the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Warri Correspondents’ Chapel.

Ekperusi alleged that the CAMA 2020 Act was smuggled into the law establishing the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) through the back door.

He said that Part “C,” which is a controversial provision of the CAMA law, gives the Registrar -General of the CAC the power to strictly regulate religious bodies including Islamic groups and charity organizations and their existence.

The Act, according to him, granted the Registrar-General the powers to suspend trustees of an association or a religions body and appoint an interim manager or managers to coordinate its affairs without recourse to a court of law.

He pointed out that this is in contravention of the fair hearing provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria.

Ekperusi said: “That’s too draconian. The CAC does not need the court again. They are now the prosecutor and the judge. No sane society should allow that to happen. That cannot stand. NBA will challenge that obnoxious law. We will approach the Court. Those sections will be struck out.”

He solicited the cooperation of Warri Correspondent’s Chapel (WCC)of the NUJ with the branch of the NBA, Effurun, in upholding the rule of law in the state and beyond.

The Chairman of the WCC, Mr. Okie’s Vikies, commended the NBA executive for the visit and pledged a good working relationship with the lawyers.

By Fola Aiyegbusi

SIR: I have been a keen observer of events in the Nigerian Bar Association since 1978, under the presidency of Chief B.O. Benson. The Nigerian Bar Association has contributed immensely to political development of contemporary Nigeria more than any other professional body in this country. The closest to it in my opinion is the Nigerian Medical Association of the Beko Ransome-Kuti years. All through the tenure of past NBA presidents, the presidency of late Mr Alao Aka-Bashorun in 1987-89 was remarkably special and widely acclaimed for its human and democratic rights campaign. He was an activist even as president. His NBA leadership took on the military administration of General Babangida on all known infractions. The NBA became the voice of the common man under him. Aka-Bashorun had good companies in late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Olisa Agbakoba, Femi Falana and other courageous colleagues who fought the government to standstill on all issues ranging from increase in fuel pump prices to labour issues. It was like the NBA and NLC were Siamese twins.

This is in no way a prejudice or disrespect to the tenures of Fadairo, Prince Bola Ajibola, all through to Ebele Nwokoye before Aka-Bashorun. But the tenure of Aka-Bashorun was distinctly different. Maybe because he was Fela’s friend and lawyer, his life was dedicated to the common man just like Fela’s. Therefore, the interest in NBA issues grew beyond lawyers who are technically the only qualified members of the Nigerian Bar Association.

In my humble opinion, the presidential tenures of Mrs Priscilla Kuye, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, Mr Olisa Agbakoba SAN and Mr Rotimi Akeredolu SAN also endeared the public to the NBA and its activities. As it stands today, the issues of the NBA is beyond the NBA, especially its elections, conduct and annual conferences. It will be foolhardy for the NBA not have seen that the association has been politicised as it stands today.

And one could ask why it should not, when it is its members that are the dramatis personas in the current Nigerian political space. So if, or when the current political dispensation collapses, God forbid, the NBA should be partly held responsible. Suffice to say that the association should also be duly credited too if the political dispensation succeeds and flourishes.

Now to the issue of the annual conference invitation extended to politically exposed persons. The NBA to me is right in the first instance to have invited Governor Nasir El-Rufai to deliver a key note address at its annual conference. Almost all professional bodies do equally invite the governors of the state where their annual conferences are scheduled to hold. It is a honour done in good faith in regards to due protocols. Whatever qualifications required for other invited speakers are exclusive to the NBA. I am therefore shocked that the NBA did not envisage the backlash its decision to withdraw the invitation given to Governor El-Rufai has generated within the association. Any close watcher of events around Nigeria’s political sphere in the last decade of our democracy should expect this reaction. And the big questions are, whether NBA was right in its action to withdraw the invitation based on a petition against the invitation?

Is a person not presumed innocent until found guilty again? If the petitioners against his invitation claimed that El-Rufai has violated human rights, has he been convicted yet? Are the petitioners themselves not acting based on “ethno-tribal-political- religious bigotries”?

Are some of them not apologists of a particular opposition party and former political office holders in the previous administration?

Are their intentions genuine in restoring piece to Southern Kaduna if that were to be the main reason for the petition?

I have read the reaction of the NBA president in the media and I sympathise with the innocent man while I am shocked and surprised that he didn’t expect what he got as backlash. The association stirred the hornets’ nest with the invitation and much more with the withdrawal. I am not a lawyer, but the petition against the invitation should have been thrown out in my opinion. This would have saved the association the unnecessary distraction it had found itself. I am still at cross roads that the NBA as an association does not know it is a MINI NIGERIA, where every issue under the sun is now seen from ethno-tribal-religious and political “eyes”

Fola Aiyegbusi, [email protected].