By Ibe Ikwechegh
It is now known that at the moment, Bola Ahmed Tinubu has ceased to be Nigeria’s president-elect but is the president of Nigeria.
The oath he took, together with his lieutenant on the 29th May 2023, was among other things, to bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria; To discharge his duties faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution and the Law; not to allow his personal interest to influence his official conduct and decisions; To do right to all manner of people and to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of Nigeria.
The oath as it were sealed his social contract with the people of Nigeria, with the Constitution being the terms. Yet, this event comes at the lowest point of our history as a nation albeit, arguably a democratic event. And so, I wished that, on that score I would have been content like Charles Dicken to say that ‘it is the best of times, it is the worst of times.’ But that would be disingenuous. The oath of office was taken against the backdrop of a disunited nation, ailing economy, inflation, tribal distrust, religious acrimony, insurgency, insecurity, allegation of electoral fraud, discontentment, lack of faith in institutions of justice, and general hardship. It is the worst of times and it is the worst of times.
How does a presidential oath pan out in such a desperate and precarious season?
The presidential oath not to allow personal interest to influence his official conduct and decisions connotes more than mere pecuniary interest. It includes religious and ideological interests. Our Constitution stands for secularism. As a Christian myself, I view with suspicion the word secular; for to me, it means to minimise God and subject His existence to utter relegation. But as a lawyer, I understand secularism as an imperative for any working democracy. Our relationship with God is personal and ought not to come in conflict with our relationship with the greater society, much less in governance in which diverse beliefs and non-beliefs are all components. And so, for me, intelligent secularism is to hold our religious values in a manner that permits the fostering of constitutional and democratic goals.
It is possible to see at once how a nation run by a president and its lieutenant, who are of the same religious faith, would present much consternation to those of diverse faith and leave distrustful, most of their policies. That each of their policies would be subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny in the light of religious influence is inescapable. And that opposition to their policies would be misjudged as not objective if it consists predominantly of elements of another faith is inevitable. And the tragedy in such is that good counsel may be muzzled. The antidote does not lie in the repetition of any avowed creed to live by the dictates of the Constitution but to assure the Nation through action that there is indeed ‘secularism’ and ‘inclusivism’ in the governance ahead.
The political thoughts of President Tinubu and his vice must be autonomous of their religious and tribal sentiments and indeed a resentment of the idea that any tribe or religion should be treated with inequality or the notion that any opinion is invalid merely because it stems from a different religion. Opinions must not be held with preference if it stems from a favoured religious quarter for this is how the seed of mediocrity is sown. This is indeed the meaning of secularism. It is only in this way that the president and his vice may truly boast that their personal religious interests have not influenced their official conduct and decisions.
Similarly, to do right to all manner of people contained in the oath connotes equal protection which in essence is that people of whatever political affiliation, tribe, or religion would be treated equally under the governing policies of Tinubu. Institutions of the executive would have to treat all individuals similarly circumstanced in the same manner.
In his 1994 inauguration speech, Dr. Nelson Mandela said: “We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white will able to walk tall without any fear in their hearts, assured of their right to inalienable human dignity”
And so, our interaction with the new government must be that which will offer us greater opportunity for participation and more impactful of our aspirations as citizens. And this is often reflected in equal development, equal appointment, and equal opportunity.
Thus, the oath requires the President to be willing to connect with a wider variety of values, engendered by constitutionalism. Only such a president would be acknowledged as having transported himself to that higher level of awareness and consciousness to indeed earn, not just the applause of all, but the cooperation of the governed. As Jeremy Bentham would say, the power of the governor is constituted in the obedience of the governed. This does not only hold true for Bethamites, it holds universal political truth. Indeed, the cooperation of the people is what will sustain the power of this new government.
African leaders ignorant of this dynamic spend more of their useful energy and resources trying to coerce cooperation which saddles them with constant war with dissident elements. In this regard, respecting the views of the governed is key. These views are very often expressed by protests. Inferentially, this government must accept that protest is not only constitutional but latent in its oath to devote itself to the people’s wellbeing. An example that forces itself to note is the President’s remark about the removal of fuel subsidy, which he had asserted would be done in spite of any protest. Coincidentally, most of those who aspired for that office shared the same view that subsidy must end. But to assert that the people’s views on the point would be disregarded is to get one’s government jumpstarted with discontentment. This government must know to deal with protests, it is not only imperative for good governance but implicit in their oath of office.
Accordingly, the new government must apprehend at once that resistance is not altogether evil but a call to action for a discerning government. Samuel West in his 1776 paper (On the Right to Rebel Against Governors) says that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny. Indeed, and I might add that resisting tyranny does not make a people terrorist as the previous government is wont to think, but tyranny in itself is terrorism to the people.
The new government has also sworn to be loyal to the Constitution and the country. Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe said in his 1963 speech, “Loyalty to one’s country is the most precious tribute a patriot can pay to his native land. Faithfulness to duty is the most acceptable service expected from a conscientious servant.” Very often African leaders subvert the Constitution by amending it and tinkering with it. A Constitution is a document that should be relatively eternal. We very often argue, and bravely so, that society morphs and so also must the document that spells out their relationship with the government. But political experience has not shown this to be true. Half of the time, constitutional amendments have been to meet some clandestine needs of those in power.
The piece of document enacted 200 years ago has remained the US Constitution with only a handful of amendments and thus the American experience is the most forceful argument that society can still be dynamic without undue tinkering with their legal grundnorm. The eagerness, alacrity, and propensity to amend Constitution and indeed the laws shows a government that cannot be trusted for no people like the ‘goal post shifted at random’. I do not debunk the idea that these are parliamentary processes conducted by our representatives but it must not also be debunked that these are the germ of tyranny of the majority.
Tinubu’s actions ought to be that which comes from a deep conviction, not only that the Constitution is supreme, but that it has both letters and a spirit and that what are unconstitutional are not merely those that run contrary to the letters of that law but also those that also vex its spirit. A policy may not technically be contrary to the letters of the Constitution and yet militate against that which any true democratic constitutionalism stands for.
I believe that these few highlights discussed here are covered by the presidential oath of office and audaciously assert that except these are heeded, the oath of President Tinubu and his vice would amount to nothing but a half-hearted leitmotif intended to mean nothing or at worst a disingenuous vow lacking in any form of solemnity.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken his oath in the worst and most insincere of times, it remains to see how best he would fulfill them while keeping him in our prayers.
Chief Ibe Ikwechegh, Legal Practitioner and Consultant with Indent
