Connect with us

Opinion

Goodluck Jonathan is constitutionally qualified to run for President

Published

on

By Chuef Mike Ozekhome

Introduction

Nigeria is a country of one major news item per day. The issue in the polity currently generating national ruckus, hoopla and bedlam is the presumed intention of Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to run for the 2023 presidency. It does not matter that he has never confirmed to anyone, the rumour of his planned defection from his opposition PDP party under which he was once elected President, to the ruling APC party. They are prepared, as ever, to shave his hair in his absence.

I have carefully read the arguments of those who believe that Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is disqualified from contesting the 2023 presidential election, because according to them, he had already done two terms and will thus be ineligible to contest for a third term. They cite the Fourth Alteration (No 16) Act, which was signed into an Act by President Muhammadu Buhari on the 11th of June, 2018. The section they are relying on is section 137(3) of the said Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which provides that “a person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as president shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term”.

THE ANTAGONISTS ARE DEAD WRONG IN THEIR LEGAL POSTULATIONS

The truth of the matter is that the antagonists of Jonathan running in 2022, in their strange line of argument, are mainly relying on the above section 137(3). They have probably not adverted their minds to sections 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, and section 285(13) of the same Fourth Alteration to the 1999  Constitution, as amended, which they are relying on. More revealing is that these antagonists are probably not aware of an extant and subsisting Court of Appeal decision where Jonathan was frontallly confronted and challenged before the 2015 presidential election, on the same ground of being ineligible to contest the said 2015 election, having allegedly been elected for two previous terms of office. The section 137(3) being relied upon by the antagonists was signed into law in 2018, three years after Jonathan had left office. Can he be caught in its web retrospectively? We shall see that anon.

The case in question is CYRIACUS NJOKU V GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN (2015) LPELR-244496 (CA). In that case, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, held that President Goodluck Jonathan had only taken the oath of office once and therefore upheld his eligibility to contest the then Nigeria’s presidential election slated for March 28, 2015.

The intermediate court held that the oath of office President Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the “unexpired tenure” of late President Umar Yar’Adua, who died while in office as President.

The appeal had been brought before the court by one Cyriacus Njoku, who was challenging the ruling of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which on March 1, 2013, had dismissed the suit he filed to stop President Jonathan from contesting the 2015 polls.

In a lead judgement delivered by Justice Abubakar Yahaya, the full panel of the court unanimously held that President Jonathan had only spent one term in office as President, going by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

President Jonathan had been empowered as acting President on February 9, 2010, following a motion for operation of the “doctrine of necessity” by the Senate, owing to the protracted stay of late President Umaru Yar’Adua in Saudi Arabia on medical grounds.

When President Yar’Adua eventually died on May 5, 2010, Jonathan was sworn in as president to serve the unexpired residue of office of Yar’Adua. Jonathan was later elected President in 2011 for the first time, on his own merit.

Mr. Njoku had contended that Jonathan had already sworn to the oath of office and allegiance twice and therefore, should be disqualified from contesting the 2015 election, as any victory he secured would amount to being sworn in thrice.

However, the court ruled that the oath that Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the unexpired tenure of late Yar’Adua; adding that by virtue of Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan only took his first oath in May, 2011. The Court of Appeal further held that disqualification is through election, not oath taking.

The intermediate court’s judgement read in part:

“In this appeal, it is not controverted by the appellant that the first oath taken by the first defendant (Jonathan) was the oath he took as the Vice President and not as President… But he took the oath in May 2010 to complete unexpired tenure of late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Section 37(1)(b) disqualifies a person from contesting for president if he had been elected twice. Disqualification is through election and not oath taking. Election is a process of choosing a person to occupy a position by voting. When election is given its literal meaning, it connotes when a voting is employed to choose a person for political office. This did not take place when Jonathan stepped into the shoes of his Principal who went to the great beyond. To say these things were done is to import words not used by the constitution.‎ Section 146(1) of the constitution cannot be deemed an election for a VP to step into the office of a President. Election involves conducting primaries by party, nomination, election and announcement of results. All these processes were not done. If a VP succeeds a President that dies, that cannot be challenged. It is a mode of stepping into the vacant office provided for by the constitution. When a President dies, the Vice President automatically becomes President as provided for by S130 (1)(2) of the 1999 constitution… It was not election that produced the first respondent in May 2010, the oath he took then was not an oath of elected President as provided for by Section 180 of the constitution. The process of election was followed in 2011. The oath of office taken in 2011 was the first oath taking by the first respondent as an elected President having fulfilled all the process of election.… Again, the succession of a Vice-President to the office of a President who died, in accordance with Section 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution, cannot be “deemed an election”, especially for the purpose of taking away a right that has been vested. As stated earlier, an election under the 1999 Constitution involves primaries, nominations, voting and declaration of results. That is the mode prescribed in electing a President, and once it is so prescribed, it must be followed, and no other method can be employed. All these processes can be challenged in a Court of law and if successful, the election would be annulled. But if a Vice-President succeeds a President who died, that cannot be challenged because it is a Constitutional provision, and the succession cannot be annulled. It is a mode of assumption to the office of the demised President, an ‘appointment’ by the Constitution, as it were, as no letter of appointment is necessary from anybody. The Vice-President automatically becomes the President, by virtue of his being the Vice-President. An example can be found in Section 130(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.” Per ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, JCA (Pp 40 – 41 Paras E – D)

The Court of Appeal further upheld the decision of the lower court which had dismissed Mr. Njoku’s suit for lack of locus standi. It noted that “it is fundamental that where a party lacks locus, the court cannot assume jurisdiction….We agree with the lower court that the appellant has no locus to sue”.

On the question of the cause of action, the court held that the case of the appellant was “speculative and imaginary as none of the reliefs he sought accrued to him any benefit”.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal had awarded the sum of N50,000 each as cost to the defendant, President Jonathan.

RETROSPECTIVITY OF LEGISLATION

Aside Jonathan being completely cleansed of the virus of ineligibility to contest the 2023 presidential election by the Court of Appeal decision in Njoku’s case, as Naaman the leper was, after dipping himself in the River Jordan seven times, Jonathan is also aided by the golden canon of interpretation to the effect that an enactment does not operate retrospectively or retroactively to take away from citizens enured rights.

We may now ask the question: What is the effect of Buhari signing into law section 137(3) of the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution in 2018? The answer is found in section 2 of the Interpretation Act which provides that:

“1. An Act is passed when the President assents to the Bill for the Act, whether or not the Act then comes into force;

  1. Where no other provision is made as to the time when a particular enactment is to come into force, it shall, subject to the following subsection, came into force –

a. In the case of an enactment contained in an Act of the National Assembly, on the day when the Act is passed;

b.In any other case, on the day when the enactment is made”.

It is therefore clear that section 137(3) of the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution took effect  from 11th June, 2018, when President Muhammadu Buhari assented to it. Section 137(3) is subject to section 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that, “the Interpretation Act shall apply for the purposes of interpreting (its) provisions”.

Section 137(3) is one piece of legislation that can be termed retrospective or retroactive legislation.

On retrospectivity of legislation, the apex court, coram Justice Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C, held in the case of SPDC V. ANARO & ORS (2015) LPELR-24750(SC) at (Pp. 64 paras. B), thus:

“There is a general presumption against retrospective legislation. It is presumed that the legislature does not intend injustice or absurdity. Courts therefore lean against giving certain statutes retrospective operation. Generally, statutes are construed as operating only in cases or on facts, which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It was held inter alia, in: Ojokolobo Vs Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 377 @ 402 F-H that it is a fundamental rule of Nigerian law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or Law; or arises by necessary and distinct implication. See also: Udoh Vs O.H.M.B. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.304) 39 @ 149 F – G; Adegbenro Vs Akintola (1963) All NLR 305 @ 308.”

Similarly, in ALEWA V. SOKOTO STATE INEC (2007) LPELR-8388(CA)  (PP. 32 PARAS. A), the Court of Appeal, per Ariwoola JCA ( as he then was), held thus:

“It is however settled law that, unless the law makers expressly state otherwise, a statute operates prospectively but not retrospectively. It is a cardinal principle of English Law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implications. The position is the same in this Country. In Olaniyi vs. Aroyehun (1991) 5 NWLR (pt 194) 652, the Supreme Court held that:- “A construction like other statutes operates prospectively and not retrospectively, unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Such legislation affects only rights which came into existence after it has been passed.” See also; Chief C. Odumegwu Ojukwu vs. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo & Ors. (2004) 7 SCM 53 at 93, Afolabi & Ors. v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 9) 734, Ojokolobo vs. Aremu (supra).”  

Hear my Lord Kekere-Ekun JCA, (as he then was) in ALEWA V. SOKOTO STATE INEC (2007) LPELR-8388(CA)  (PP. 21-22 PARAS. D):

“There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend what is unjust. Thus, although under our legal system, the Legislature is competent to make retrospective laws, the Courts generally lean against giving a statute retrospective effect unless the terms of the statute so state in clear and unequivocal language. In Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (9) 734 at 752 E, Aniagolu, JSC stated thus, “The Courts have always leaned against giving statutes a retrospective effect and usually regard them as applying to facts or matters which came into existence after the statutes were passed, unless it is clearly shown that a retrospective effect was intended by the Legislature.” Underlining supplied. See alsoAdesanoye v. Adewole (supra) at 147 B-C & D-E; West v. Gwyne (1911) 2 CH 1; A.G. Federation v. A.N.P.P. (2003) 15 NWLR (844) 600 at 648 G -H; Sa’ad v. Nyame (2004) All FWLR (201)1678.”  

His Lordship Muhammad, J.S.C, in EGUNJOBI V. FRN (2012) LPELR-15537(SC), (PP. 34-35 PARAS. F), held that:

“…It is trite law that the Courts frown at retrospective and retroactive legislations. Ojokolobo v. Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 377 at  34 406; Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 734. Although under Nigeria Law, there is a presumption against retrospectivity, where a retrospective operation is clearly spelt out, that legislation must not be declared incompetent; Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963) 2 SCNLR 216; Adeshina v. Lemonu (1965) 1 All NLR 233; The Swiss Air Transport Co. Ltd v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1971) 1 All NLR 37; Attorney General East Central State v. Ugwuh (1975) 5 SC 13…”

Indeed, section 4(9) of the Constitution denies the NASS “in relation to any criminal offence”, the power to “make any law which shall have retrospective effect”. Though this section specifically deals with criminal offences, judicial decisions clearly show that it operates with equal force to civil matters.

Thus, the court held in the case of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ALL NIGERIAN PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP) & 2 ORS. (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 600 @ pages 648-649, paras. E-B, that:

“A statute is deemed to be retrospective where it takes away any vested right acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past… Based on the presumption that a legislature does not intend what is unjust, the courts have always leaned against giving statutes a retrospective effect and usually regard them as applying to facts or matters which came into existence after the statutes were passed unless it is clearly shown that a retrospective effect was intended by the legislature. In the instant case the constitution came into being on 29th May, 1999 and all rights, liabilities and privileges as contemplated by the circumstance of the arose as of that day. Consequently, its provisions can only be read prospectively.”

Furthermore, the court held at page 649, paras. C-D; 661-662, paras. F-C; 665, paras. A-B as follows:

“One of the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes is that no rule of construction is that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise that as regards matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment…”.

The court nailed it when it held at page 667, paras. C-D that:

“A constitution, like other statutes, operates prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Such legislations affect only rights which came into existence after it has been passed.”

A cursory examination of the various provisions of the constitution and all the appellate court decisions cited above make it crystal clear that the purported disqualification of Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is grossly misconceived by the antagonists, as the Constitution must be progressively and not retrogressively construed. More significantly, the Alteration Act itself does not make any express provision that the said inserted sub-section 137(3) would operate retrospectively. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of others) applies here. See MADUMERE & ANOR V. OKWARA & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20752(SC).

CONCLUSION

It is clear that those deliberately misinterpreting the clear position of the law may be baying for Jonathan’s blood, possibly as a potential candidate who may subvert the chances of their preferred candidates. I do not view issues from such a narrow ad homine prism and blurred binoculars. It will be grossly unfair, unconstitutional, unconscionable and inequitable to deny Jonathan of the right to contest the 2023 presidential election when our extant laws and appellate court decisions permit him to. The question of whether Jonathan really needs to subject his glittering and internationally acclaimed reputation and credentials to the muddy waters of a fresh competition with persons, some of whom were his personal appointees as president, is another matter altogether. Only him, and not the present state of the laws in Nigeria, can answer that question and decide his own fate. But, as regards his eligibility to contest, Dr Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is pre-eminently constitutionally, morally and legally qualified to contest the 2023 presidential election.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Grandma Wikina at 90: A testimony in steely resolve

Published

on

By

By Tunde Olusunle

Just days after the end of the Nigerian Civil War in January 1970, disaster struck in the home of Wikina-Emmah in Kono at the heart of Ogoniland in Rivers State. Ebenezer Saro-Wikina, eldest son of Wikina-Emmah, suddenly passed. The Ogoni were among the nationalities affected by the civil war. Multitudes from the ethnic group previously sought refuge in the area delineated as Biafra by the secessionists. They were glad to return to their ancestral homes at the end of hostilities. Ebenezer Saro-Wikina went through the stress and drudgery of “crossing the Red Sea,” literally.
He got back to his roots but sadly passed within days. The painfully departed Ebenezer was married to Grace Wikina and together they had five children. The 36-year old Grace Wikina at the time had to confront the grim reality of raising her two sons and three daughters, all by herself.

“Mummy,” Mama or “Grandma” as she’s variously addressed, turned 90 on Sunday December 1, 2024. It is a fitting opportunity to celebrate this peculiar yet unsung matriarch. In consonance with her name, “Grace,” Mama has been graced by God, strengthened and preserved especially through the past 56 years, playing father and mother to five children. They have turned out successfully in their separate endeavours before her very eyes. They have also blessed her with numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren. Serial arrivals of newborns have kept Mama delightfully engaged, running the motions of *omugwo* ever so often. She’s eternally available to help with postpartum care for her children and daughters-in-law, after childbirth. This is a cultural practice long popularised by the Igbo nationality of South East Nigeria. It is seems standard Nigerian, maybe African practice though, known by other qualifications.

My classmate, good friend and brother, Blessing Barikui Wikina, one of Mama Wikina’s children it was who engendered the earliest engagements between my family and the Wikinas. Blessing is Mama’s second child behind Bright Wikina. Margaret Keaniabari Wikina; Anita Dorathy Dunubari Mojekwu and Aniekan Baribefe Faith Nnadozie, are Blessing’s siblings from Mama. His half-siblings, Mama’s stepchildren include Nwifii Wikina; Barido Wikina; Sonny Wikina and Ekama Helen Wikina. At the point of registration as a direct entry student at the University of Ilorin in the “harmattan semester” back in 1982, I met a core of like-minded classmates at various registration stops. Those were not the days of the internet or e-learning as yet, where you could enrol for studies online from any part of the world, take your courses via the same medium, write your examinations and also get graded, virtually.

Members of my small circle of freshmen would subsequently share the same hostels, nurture similar extracurricular interests and proceed to become non-biological siblings for life, up till this day. The core of that team featured: Gbenga Ayeni, a professor of journalism at the East Connecticut State University, (ECSU), in the United States; Dapo Adelegan, a hardworking multipreneur and Bisola Segilola Oluwole, a sterling businesswoman. Wikina, who retired as Director from the Rivers State Civil Service, and Folake Obe-Olawuyi, were in the group. Folake was the daughter of the renowned Nigerian photojournalist, Peter Obe, who was on the frontlines of the Nigerian Civil War between 1967 and 1970, documenting the 30-month engagement. Sadly, we lost Folake a few years ago to the COVID-19 scourge early 2021.

My family lived in Ilorin at the time while the families of most of my friends lived elsewhere, in Lagos, Makurdi, Port Harcourt and so on. They adopted our Ilorin abode as theirs and usually stored their belongings in our place whenever it was holiday. During our usual banters, I would rub it in that I was their “guardian” in Ilorin and they were bound to be of good behaviour! It was my self-appointed responsibility to visit the university regularly while they were away, to keep tabs on information beneficial to us all. Hard copies of results of the previous semester’s examinations and similar updates were unfailingly pasted on the noticeboards of various departments and faculties. We had a land-line in our family house so I usually called to brief them.

In the course of one of such checks after our final examinations in 1985, I discovered there was an error of computation in Wikina’s results. This could possibly cost him an additional academic year. The land-line Wikina left with me was malfunctioning. I couldn’t reach him and there was no alternative. I couldn’t contemplate having one of my closest friends repeating a year in university by no fault of his. I discussed the impasse with my parents who of course knew all my friends. I sought their blessings to travel to Port Harcourt, to save my friend from the careless oversight of some non-academic staff. My parents approved and funded my trip. So, off I left for Port Harcourt on my first visit ever, that day in July 1985. I knew the address of the Wikinas by heart, like I did the addresses of everyone else. In our usual, regular exchanges, it was common for us to celebrate the characteristics of our home bases. Lagosians typically pride themselves as the smartest and toughest. I would remind them I was raised in the bristling Benin City, home of daredevil toughies. Wikina serenaded us with salivating stories about Port Harcourt, the idyllic “Garden City.”

So, here I was at No 3, Wogu Street, D’Line, Port Harcourt, home of the Wikinas. I introduced myself to the mother of the house who set aside everything she was doing to receive this friend of her son who she had heard so much about. By this time, neither Blessing nor anyone else knew my mission. I kept asking about Blessing’s whereabouts. Mama did all she could to make me feel at home offering me water and beverages. Blessing finally showed up. You could see the sense of agitation on his face when he came face to face with me. He had gone to play set, a “five-a-side” football variant, popular in the neighbourhoods and institutions of learning. My face was the least he expected to see in Port Harcourt. Ol’ boy, wetin happen na, he queried in apprehension…

Tears streamed down the cheeks of Mama Grace Wikina when Blessing relayed the purpose of my visit to her. Following the 1970 demise of her husband, Mama secured a job in the Rivers State Civil Service. With her meagre earnings she trudged on, focused on raising her children to be disciplined, God-fearing, focused and hardworking. Part of Blessing Wikina’s way of supporting the exertions of his widowed mother was to join the civil service, even before he pursued university education. One could only imagine just how broken Mama would have been if Blessing could not graduate on schedule…

Mama attended the convocation ceremony where Blessing and I graduated with honours in Unilorin, in October 1985. Mama and her small delegation to the event stayed in our house in Ilorin. This further consummated the growing relationship between the Olusunles and the Wikinas. Upon completion of her National Youth Service Corps, (NYSC) in Calabar in 1992, my fiancée at the time, my wife of over three decades now, secured a job with the Port Harcourt branch of CSS Bookshop. I encouraged her to take it so she could begin to build up her work experience. But there was a challenge: accommodation. I called Mama and told her my wife-to-be was in need of a place to stay having just secured a job. “I will vacate my room for her if we cannot find space for her. When is she resuming,” was Mama’s most touching response. My younger sister, Lydia Osasere-Omoruyi got posted to Port Harcourt for the NYSC shortly after my wife moved in. This heightened accommodation concerns at the Wikina’s. Mama the tough matriarch dislodged Blessing from his own room and settled her in!

Years back, Mama Wikina came into Abuja with members of the family for an event. They attempted to “sneak” into a hotel so as “not to bother us.” They were “busted” and happily rerouted to our place, even if it meant we as hosts had to fling duvets and mattresses on the floors of our living rooms within the period of their visit. My son was posted to Rivers State for the NYSC, shortly after this visit. He was received by Blessing Wikina from the Port Harcourt airport and settled in to catch his breath in Blessing’s home for a few days. He was subsequently taken to the NYSC camp in Nonwa-Gbam, in Tai local government area by his host and uncle. Such is the story of the archetypal “handshake across the Niger River,” between the Olusunles of Okunland in the savannahs of Nigeria’s North Central, and the Wikinas of Ogoniland in the wetlands and creeks of the South South. This was the Nigeria we knew, the lost motherland, fittingly bemoaned by the legendary novelist, Nigeria’s own Chinua Achebe in his seminal treatise titled *There Was A Country: A Personal History of Biafra, published in 2012.

The Wikina family has scheduled a thanksgiving service for 10am at Methodist Church, Mbonu Street, D’Line Port Harcourt on Saturday December 7, 2024. This will be followed by a grand reception at The Authograph Event Centre, on Sani Abacha Road, GRA Phase 3, also in Port Harcourt. A grateful Mama Wikina will be surrounded by her siblings, children, stepchildren, their spouses, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and family extensions cultivated over time and geography. We join in praying for good health and more years on earth for a spectacular woman. Congratulations, Mama N’Court, one of Mama’s pet names, which alludes to her being spouse to Ebenezer Saro-Wikina whose father was a colonial era court interpreter.

Tunde Olusunle, PhD, Fellow of the Association of Nigerian Authors, (FANA), teaches Creative Writing at the University of Abuja

Continue Reading

Opinion

Tax Reforms Bill: Addressing Legacy Laws, Streamlining Administration, and Balancing Derivation Concerns

Published

on

By

Yisa Usman

By Yisa Usman FCA, FCTI

The proposed tax reforms mark a transformative moment in Nigeria’s fiscal evolution, focusing on modernization and addressing challenges rooted in outdated pre-colonial tax laws and redundant systems that burden businesses and individuals. These reforms aim to streamline tax administration and improve Value Added Tax (VAT) processes, providing a pathway toward equitable revenue distribution and fiscal decentralization. However, while the potential benefits are substantial, addressing significant challenges and equity concerns is critical to ensuring the reforms achieve their objectives.

A comparative analysis of Nigeria’s tax system against those of countries like Kenya, the United States, and other nations with comparable political structures reveals stark disparities that emphasize the critical need for reform. These nations have leveraged robust tax frameworks to achieve significant economic growth, foster local economic activities, and ensure a more equitable distribution of national resources, outcomes that starkly contrast with Nigeria’s performance. In Nigeria, outdated legislation, inadequate tax assessment and recovery system, and systemic corruption have created inefficiencies and exacerbated inequalities. The lack of effective mechanisms to optimize tax revenue further hampers the nation’s fiscal sustainability and economic competitiveness, making comprehensive reform an urgent necessity.

Nigeria’s reliance on antiquated tax laws has long hindered administrative efficiency and equitable resource allocation. These reforms seek to modernize the tax framework, aligning it with global best practices to foster economic development and decentralization. Key objectives include streamlining administration to eliminate duplicative tax practices, centralizing data to enhance accuracy in tax derivation and remittance, and empowering states to take greater responsibility for revenue generation and allocation, in line with the principles of fiscal federalism.

The proposed increase in derivation weight from 20% to 60% introduces a dual-edged dynamic. On the one hand, it incentivizes states to boost local economic activities and align revenue allocation with consumption patterns. On the other hand, it raises concerns about exacerbating existing inequalities, with states like Lagos, Ogun, Rivers and Kano poised to benefit disproportionately due to their robust economic bases, while resource-poor states may face disadvantages.

The reforms are supported by compelling arguments, including their potential to decentralize economic development by motivating states to leverage local resources and attract investments. The allocation of a larger revenue share to states promises improved infrastructure and public services, particularly in states that prioritize economic growth. Additionally, by leveraging technology to track consumption patterns, the reforms should enhance transparency and fiscal responsibility.

Nonetheless, the reforms face significant challenges. A heavy reliance on derivation risks marginalizing less affluent states, deepening socio-economic disparities. The reforms’ implementation will require extensive data collection and systemic upgrades, posing logistical and financial challenges. Furthermore, the reduction in population-based allocations from 30% to 20% could generate social and political tensions in densely populated states struggling to meet citizens’ needs.

To balance these opportunities and risks, several recommendations are essential. First, the derivation weight increase should be phased in, starting with a modest adjustment from 20% to say 30%-40%, allowing states and corporations to adapt gradually. Second, a centralized, dynamically updated tax database is critical for accurate derivation tracking and dispute reduction. Third, a revenue equalization mechanism, such as a stabilization fund, can support economically weaker states during the transition. Fourth, capacity-building initiatives should equip state tax authorities with the necessary skills and resources to manage the new system effectively. Fifth, standardized procedures for VAT collection, derivation tracking, and dispute resolution should be established to ensure consistency across states. Finally, fostering public engagement with stakeholders, including state governments, businesses, and civil society, will promote transparency, address concerns, and build collective ownership of the reforms.

These reforms not only resolve immediate administrative inefficiencies but also lay the foundation for a more equitable and sustainable fiscal system. By addressing pre-independence legacy laws and fostering economic accountability, Nigeria has an opportunity to position itself for inclusive growth, ensuring all states contribute to and benefit from national development. However, achieving these outcomes requires a careful balance between incentivizing derivation-based revenue sharing and providing mechanisms to support resource-poor states. With a focus on equity and efficiency, the reforms can establish a tax system that empowers businesses, strengthens states, and improves the living standards of citizens across the federation.

Yisa Usman is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), and a doctoral candidate at the Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna

Continue Reading

Opinion

EFCC vs Bello: Trivialising corruption allegations

Published

on

By

By Ehichioya Ezomon

In my November 18, 2024, article entitled, “That ‘fake’ Sanwo-Olu vs EFCC suit: Whodunit it? Who sponsored it?” I held that snapets from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) moves to investigate, arrest, detain and prosecute ex-governors “are telegraphed a few months or weeks before they bow out of office,” so giving them the jitters to “either begin to express being squeaky clean, alleging political witch-hunt or daring the EFCC to carry out its threat to make them account for their stewardship.” 
I however observed that lately, the anti-graft agency’s threat against former governors “has become mostly academic, and the norm rather than the exception,” adding that, “it appears some ex-governors now relish being dragged by the EFCC, at least, as a way to keeping themselves in the news after missing the years of free spotlighting.”
Former Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State has mostly proved these assertions right, even as he finally presented himself to the EFCC for “arrest and detention,” and arraignment and prosecution for alleged looting of Kogi’s resources during his eight-year tenure in office (2016-2024).
For months, Bello’s engaged in a hide-and-seek, only to suddenly show up at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja on September 18, and yet wasn’t booked, interrogated, or detained – as he’s on the wanted list of the agency and the courts – but with the commission reportedly asking him to leave and come back at a later date. Why?
EFCC’s intel reportedly indicated that Bello’s prepared for a showdown, having allegedly stormed the premises with armed details. Thus, the authorities tactically allowed him to while away for hours in one of the offices. Indeed, EFCC’s later efforts that night to arrest Bello at the Kogi State Government Lodge in Asokoro, Abuja, were allegedly thwarted by his armed guards.
Bello, facing a couple of EFCC’s alleged fraudulent cases in courts in Abuja, continued in his disappearing act, while the commission failed in its attempts to force his trial – in absentia – before Justice Emeka Nwite on October 30 at the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Bello’s facing a 19-count charge for alleged laundering of N84bn.  
But on November 26, Bello – billed for arraignment since April 2024 – reappeared at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja, and this time, the agency “detained” him overnight in the facility he’d avoided for months, as he shunned invitations and court summons to answer for his alleged looting of resources during his governorship of ‘The Confluence State’.
And on November 27, the EFCC arraigned Bello and two others – Shuaibu Oricha and Abdulsalam Hudu – before Justice Maryanne Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 16-count charge for conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and possession of unlawfully-obtained property, amounting to N110.4bn.
After some legal fireworks over bail for the three defendants between the lead counsel for the accused, Joseph Daudu (SAN) and the EFCC, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Justice Anenih adjourned ruling on the application to December 10, and directed that the defendants should remain in the EFCC custody.
This notwithstanding the EFCC administrative bail granted to Oricha and Hudu, which Pinheiro argued had expired in October, but with Daudu pointing to a fresh application of November 22, based on the fact that the defendants deserve their liberty on the presumption of innocence until they’re proven guilty, as alleged.
Meanwhile, Bello certainly was in a celebratory mood when – for the first time in over seven months of a cat-and-mouse game with the EFCC – he’s docked for the alleged N110.4bn theft of Kogi’s resources. Dressed in a pair of contact lenses, and a light sky-blue attire, Bello, amidst a throng of aides and political associates,  walked energetically through the expansive premises and into the courtroom of the FCT High Court.
As he covered the distance from the parking lot to the courtroom, Bello’s all smiles – as he turned right and waved with the right hand, and then turned left and waved with the left hand – to acknowledge greetings and cheers from his supporters, many of whom sandwiched him into the court, where he continued to return courtesies even while in the dock to plead not guilty to the charges preferred against him.
Perhaps to Bello, his arraignment was a moment to savour, and bask in the frenzy of journalists and EFCC’s operatives scrambling to capture and record his every posture and every gesture as evidence, and for prime-time broadcast and publication in the mainstream and online media.
A similar scenario played out on November 29, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Bello couldn’t take his plea, and had to “stand for himself” in the absence of his lead lawyer in the suit, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN).
With well-armed security operatives falling over themselves to dominate the court premises, Bello, with a more somber mien this time, and accompanied by aides, supporters and operatives of the EFCC, still walked briskly into the courtroom, with the door quickly closed behind him. 
Once inside, as reported by PUNCH ONLINE, Bello told trial Justice Emeka Nwite that he won’t take any plea, as he’s only made aware of his arraignment in the night of November 28, and couldn’t get across to his lawyer, Mohammed (SAN). This prompted the judge – in the interest of fair hearing – to order that Mohammed be put on notice for the adjourned date of December 13, and for Bello and his co-defendants to be reminded in the EFCC custody.
The EFCC lawyer, Pinheiro (SAN), attempted to convince Justice Nwite to commence the trial without Bello’s counsel, arguing that, “What the law requires is the presence of the defendant, not the presence of his lawyers.” 
This was reportedly a rehash of a similar argument at the sitting on October 30, when Pinheiro requested that the court proceed with the trial. Noting that two witnesses were present and ready to testify,” Pinheiro suggested that the “court enter a plea of not guilty on Bello’s behalf and commence the trial.”
But as in that prior instance, the judge turned down Pinheiro’s entreaty on November 29, citing Bello’s right to a fair hearing, and reminding the EFCC lawyer that, at the October court session, the matter was adjourned to January 21, 2025.
“The matter came up on the 30th of October 2024. It was adjourned to 21st January 2025. From the statement of the defendant, his lawyers are not aware of today’s (November 29) date. In the interest of fair hearing, I will not proceed for arraignment,” Justice Nwite said.
“This matter is peculiar in the sense that we have already agreed on a date, which is in January. It will be unfair if the matter is taken without the defendant’s counsel. It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel.
“Since the defendant has said his counsel is not aware of today’s proceeding, I am of the view that a bench warrant cannot be sacrificed on the altar of fair hearing. The defendant deserves to be represented by counsel,” the judge added.
After the court waited for 45 minutes, “but with no sign of the defence counsel,” Justice Nwite adjourned the matter, directed that Bello remain in the EFCC custody until the next hearing on December 13, and granted Pinheiro’s application for “new date hearing motions and possible arraignment to be served on the defendant’s counsel.”
As the clock ticks towards December 10 at the FCT High Court, and December 13 at the Federal High Court both in Abuja, will Bello and his co-defendants get a bail reprieve, or be further remanded in the EFCC custody, or sent behind bars at one of Nigeria’s capital city’s jail houses, to spend the Yuletide season there? Such would be a canny experience the ex-governor had fought strenuously for months to avoid!

Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 National Update