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

How Governor Ododo stole the show at Edo APC Governorship campaign Mega Rally

Published

on

By

By Ismaila Isah

The tempo of activities leading to the governorship election holding September 21, 2024 reached a crescendo last weekend when the Kogi State Governor, Ahmed Usman Ododo, in company of other APC governors and leaders were in Edo state to campaign for the party’s candidate, Senator Monday Okpebholo.
It was a homecoming for Governor Ododo whose first port of call wasIgarra in Akoko-Edo Local Government area of Edo state. The Igarra shares cultural and linguistic affinity with Ebira. Their language is a dialect of Ebira with a lot in common with the Ebiras in Kogi, Nasarawa, the FCT, Ondo, Ekiti and other states with high population of Ebira speakers and settlers.

The people also turned out in large numbers to support and join hands with their “son-governor” from another mother in last-minute campaign to win the hearts of Igarra and Edo people in general and to drum support for the APC candidate, Senator Okpebholo.

After successfully leading the youth rally in Igarra, headquarters of Akoko-Edo on Friday, Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo proceeded to Benin City, the Edo state capital where he was seen receiving other governors and party leaders ahead of the APC mega rally held at the University of Benin Sports Complex in Ugbowo.

Governor Ododo was the cynosure of all eyes as many party leaders including APC governors were seen consulting with him as the director of youth mobilization for the Edo State Edo APC Governorship Campaign Council.

He stayed awake through the night on Friday till early Saturday morning addressing different groups who thronged his base at the GRA in Benin City to consult with him on strategic direction for effective mobilization for the mega rally and grand finale of the Edo APC Governorship election campaign.

The Kogi State Governor was well supported by his brother and the Edo state Deputy Governor, Mr Philip Shaibu who hosted the Governor and his entourage and ensured that the Governor and members of his team enjoyed the comfort and hospitality of Edo state throughout the stay.

Governor Ododo who was at the Benin airport to receive Vice President Kashim Shettima who was the special guest at the mega rally also accompanied the Vice President to the palace of the Oba of Benin, His Royal Majesty Omo N’Oba N’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Ewuare II.

The Kogi State Governor received commendation from Vice President Kashim Shettima, the APC National Chairman, Dr Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, other governors and members of the National Working Committee of the party who were impressed by the level of mobilization of youth for the mega rally which is largely atttibuted to Governor Ododo’s ground work which went on for weeks before the mega rally.

With stops, meet and greet in different communities in Etsako, Owan and Oredo where he interfaced with non-indigenous communities like Igbo traders and Kogi state indigenes in Edo state, Governor Ododo’s message for them to support the APC and its Governorship candidate was loud, clear and persuasive.

From Lampese, Igarra, Auchi through Afuze to Benin City, Governor Ododo’s presence was electric and his impact was felt throughout Edo State as he went with his team to mobilize support for the APC Governorship candidate Senator Monday Okpebholo.

The Ododo story in the 2024 Edo Governorship election which will be complete on Saturday the 21st of September is that of courageous and energetic young Governor who is following the footsteps of his boss and predecessor, Governor Yahaya Bello in unequivocal and absolute loyalty to the APC irrespective of the terrain, the personality of the candidate and the burden of staying true and committed to the success of the political party that has redefined partisan politics in Nigeria’s history.

With the statistics and predictions in favour of the APC, there is hope that Senator Monday Okpebholo will be victorious at the polls and become the next Governor of Edo state.

Isah is the Special Adviser on Media to the Kogi State Governor

Continue Reading

Opinion

Edo 2024: Betsy Obaseki’s broadside and Adams Oshiomohle’s bombshell

Published

on

By

By Ehichioya Ezomon

The 1967 hit song, “The First Cut Is the Deepest,” written by British singer-songwriter, Cat Stevens, may not be related to the discourse hereunder, but it’s a strong advice to humans, to bridle their tongues – as the Apostles admonish in James 3:8-9 – against censoriousness, and reproving others with a magisterial air, as true wisdom comes only from above.
“The First Cut Is the Deepest” was originally released in April 1967 by P. P. Arnold – an American soul singer, born Patricia Ann Cole, on October 3, 1946, in Los Angeles, California – who relocated in 1966 to London, the United Kingdom, to pursue a solo career, and enjoyed considerable success with the single, which also became a hit by Rod Stewart in his seventh album, “A Night On The Town,” released in 1976.) 
In the past week, all eyes and mouths have been on former Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole, even as social media remains agog – albeit slantily –  over the Senator’s attack on Governor Godwin Obaseki and First Lady Betsy Obaseki, over their childlessness – a very sensitive and no-go-area issue in our cultural, traditional and religious settings. 
Yet, the judgmental critics have made the Oshiomhole tactless attack – that touches the underbelly of the Obasekis – to appear as out of the blue, whereas it’s a riposte to Mrs Obaseki’s equally graceless reminder of the Edo people – especially the women – that only the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, has a wife among the candidates vying to succeed her husband from the September 21, 2024, governorship election that’s 12 days away.
Below is Mrs Obaseki’s unprompted remarks at a PDP campaign rally in Benin City: 
“Among the candidates wey dey contest election, na only one get wife. And na our own party candidate, Asue Ighodalo, na only him get wife. Na him wife bi dis” (as she raised Mrs Ighodalo’s right hand, to the cheers of the rallygoers). 
“Women for Edo, make una know sey na only one candidate get wifeooo” (Mrs Obaseki added, as she pulled her left ear, as a sign of warning to the female voters). 
What’s Mrs Obaseki’s motive(s) for dragging marital matters into the campaigns when there’re myriad issues of alleged poor performance in Mrs Obaseki’s husband’s eight-year governance, in which Mr Ighodalo’s the Economic Adviser?
Was it to change the opposition narratives on the subpar outing of Governor Obaseki; score political points for Ighodalo and the PDP; a dig at the other candidates, who, perhaps, have no wives to act as “First Lady” should they win the September 21 poll; or throw herself and family into the mix, to curry sympathy for themselves and votes for Ighodalo, and disparagement and denial of votes for the “wifeless” candidates? 
On the basis of the law of reciprocity, one would be tempted to say good riddance to bad rubbish, as what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: Considering that it’s Mrs Obaseki, who prompted the “familial controversy” at a campaign rally, which Oshiomhole – a non-candidate at the election –uncouscionably jumped in to respond to. 
Now a case of “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” Oshiomhole’s likely unsolicited intervention on behalf of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Monday Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) – whose campaign council Oshiomhole chairs – has several contextual proverbs. 
The axioms include: 1) Without pulling the trigger, the gun will not fire. 2) Actions speak louder than words. 3) Familiarity breeds contempt. 4) People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. 5) The farting of the rich smells sweet, that of the poor fouls the air. 6) Someone who knows how their anus is should learn to sit properly. 7) First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matt 7:5) 8) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Matt 7:12) 9) If you point one finger, there are three more pointing back at you. 10) The bird whose feathers are used for sacrifice moves about stealthily. 
Some or all of these sayings fit into Oshiomhole and Mrs Obaseki’s dockets, but only Oshiomhole (APC, Edo North) ultimately opens himself up to vitriol and odium. Because – short of scientific attempts to challenge nature – childbearing is a gift and a miracle from God, the Creator. So, no one – no matter the circumstance – plays God over an issue they’ve no knowledge and power to determine. 
Let’s look at a post on the WhatsApp page of PAN EDO POLITICAL FORUM – which may not be altruistic but politically-motivated – to gauge the public angst over Oshiomhole’s attack on the Obasekis. The anonymous post, entitled, “What All Truthful Pastors Should Preach This Sunday Until It Reaches All,” reads: 
“Words can be weapons, and Adams Oshiomhole’s recent jabs at Governor Obaseki and his wife have left many Nigerians in shock and dismay. Mocking someone’s childlessness is a hurtful and personal attack that crosses the boundaries of decent political discourse.
“Imagine the pain and anguish that comes with longing for a child, only to be met with ridicule and scorn. The Obasekis have shown remarkable strength and resilience in the face of this adversity, but Oshiomhole’s comments have reopened old wounds and caused fresh hurt.
“Let us rally around the Obasekis and show them that we stand with them in solidarity and support. Let us reject the politics of personal attacks and embrace empathy and compassion.
“Childlessness is a sensitive issue that affects many families, and we must approach it with kindness and understanding. Let us create a society where people can share their struggles without fear of judgment or mockery.
“Oshiomhole’s comments may have been meant to score political points, but they have ultimately revealed his own character and exposed the dark underbelly of our political culture. Let us rise above this and choose a higher path – one of love, empathy, and respect for all.
“Furthermore, Oshiomhole’s behaviour falls short of the standards expected of a public figure, and his actions are a disservice to the people of Edo State and Nigeria as a whole. His comments are not only unbecoming of a leader but also contradict the values of our cultural heritage.
“In the Benin Kingdom, where Oshiomhole hails from, respect for elders and dignity for all individuals are deeply ingrained traditions. His utterances have brought shame to his people and tarnished the image of the kingdom.
“Let us reject Oshiomhole’s divisive and hurtful rhetoric and instead embrace a culture of empathy, kindness, and respect. We must hold our leaders accountable for their words and actions, and demand better from those who seek to represent us.”
The foregoing is a mild version of what concerned members of the public have written about and against Oshiomhole, whose public utterances – time and again – have tended to be unguarded and out of step and control, like a loose cannon. It’s time he checked his exuberance, and act as a Statesman!
That said, Oshiomhole appears unfairly treated by the same public that wears Mrs Obaseki the toga of victimhood! Why should the critics be one-sided? Why don’t they also censure Mrs Obaseki, who pulled the trigger first by mocking other candidates – who’ve no wives – in the September 21 governorship election? 
While there’re pressing issues of governance to highlight at every stop on the campaign trail, Mrs Obaseki off-handedly threw “familial matter” into the political arena. Thus, as we blame Oshiomhole for unwarrantedly responding in kind – especially as he’s not a candidate in the election – Mrs Obaseki should also be held responsible for unnecessarily teasing the “unwived” candidates!
In the interim – as if Mrs Obaseki’s allusion to candidates with no wives was specifically targeted at Okpebholo – there’ve been calls from broadcast talking heads and pundits, and women groups for Okpebholo to introduce to the public his wife, who, they argue, should join in the campaigns to elect her husband on September 21 – citing, as an example, Mrs Ifeyinwa Ighodalo, who joins her husband’s campaign train and/or does separate stomps on his behalf.
Still, having a wife isn’t a requirement for the Office of Governor – and other elective positions of a Member of the Senate; a Member of the House of Representatives; a Member of the State House of Assembly; the President and Vice President; and the Deputy Governor – as spelt out in Sections 65, 106, 131, and 177 of the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. 
To qualify for any of those elective positions, a candidate must certify that: (a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) he has attained the age of 35, 30, 30, 40 and 35 (applicable to each office in that order); (c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and (d) he has been educated to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent. 
Clearly, there’s no provision of the 1999 Constitution requiring a candidate to have a wife before they can vie for the governorship. It’s an extraneous matter injected into the campaigns by Mrs Obaseki for political optics, to puncture the enthusiasm and momentum in Mr Ighodalo’s opposing camps.
So, going by the 1967 hit song, “The First Cut Is The Deepest,” shouldn’t Mrs Obaseki’s “polemic” on candidates, who’ve no wives, be ranked as the deepest cut – or at least placed on equal pedestal with Comrade Oshiomhole’s  “thunderbolt” on the Obasekis childlessness – for attempting to throw an already tensed Edo politics into a tailspin, which, indeed, she’s succeeded in doing? Let’s not bury the truth in emotion or partisanship!

Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria

Continue Reading

Opinion

APC Must Probe Zazzaga And Other Moles Within

Published

on

By

Abdullahi Sule

By Dr Kassim Muh’d Kassim

The recent attack on Nasarawa State Governor, Engineer Abdullahi Sule by one Alhaji Saleh Zazzaga a self acclaimed chairman of a faceless group, which referred to itself as “North Central All Progressives Congress (APC) Forum”, for visiting the National Chairman of APC, Abdullahi Ganduje, was in bad taste.
In a purported interview credited to him, Zazzaga made a so-called call for an apology from the governor. The said Zazzaga “condemned” Governor Sule, who is the Chairman of the APC North Central Governors’ Forum for “endorsing” the party’s national chiarman.
In the apparently sponsored outing syndicated in selected national newspapers, Zazzaga, acting the script of his pay masters, attempted to weep up emotion and hatred against Governor Sule across the North Central by connecting the visit to the national chairmanship seat struggle and the ongoing agitation to return it back to the zone.
In his desperation and that of his sponsors, Zazzaga also unsuccessfully tried to ignite sentiment in Governor Sule’s home state by pitching him against notable figure like the former National Chairman of our dear party and a father of the state, Senator Abdullahi Adamu and others, even as he veered off the track by bringing the issue of performance into the fray.
Now, how does a visit to the national secretariat of our great party amounted to an endorsement of a man who is already occupying the seat?
What motive does Zazzaga have for quoting Governor Sule out of contest? How does Governor Sule’s speech to the effect that: “I am here also to pay my respect to a man that deserves respect. To our National Chairman, Dr Ganduje. He deserves respect and deserves all the cooperation, especially at a time like this. In the next couple of weeks, we have an election in Edo, so the man does not need to be distracted in any other way so that we can go and win our election in Edo, and that is one of the reasons why I came to encourage him to be focused,’ translated to an endorsement?
But unknown to Zazzaga and his sponsors, Governor Sule was at the national secretariate of the party on a special invitation, as chairman of North Central Governor’s forum to find a solution to resolve the APC crisis in one of the state from the zone, “Benue state ” and he mentioned the elections in Edo because he is the publicity committee chairman for the party’s national campaign in Edo governorship election.
Now, let’s analyze the above statement by Governor Sule based on its content. If he called on stakeholders to rally behind Ganduje to enable the national chairman deliver Edo and Ondo for the party in the forthcoming governorship election in those states, why should someone who has the love of the party in his heart crucified him for that?
It is public knowledge that the governorship election for Edo State was slated for September 21 while that of Ondo is coming up on November 16. If the party’s stakeholders don’t put their houses in order and act collectively now how will it hope to win those states?
From all indications those faulting Governor Sule for calling for the stakeholders’ unity at this crucial time when the polls for the two strategic states are at hand do not mean well for the party and want it to lose. That is why it is imperative to initiate a probe to unmasked those using Zazzaga to further distablise the party because of their parochial interest. I don’t think Zazzaga is from Plateau State because if people like Zazzaga exist yet, we lost Plateau to opposition.
Come to think of it, who is Zazzaga within the party hierarchy to launch such attacks on the person and personality of the Chairman of the North Central Governors’Forum and key stakeholder of the party.
It must be stated here that the offensive against Governor Sule is an assault on the office of the North Central Governors Forum and an attempt to ridicule the party before the public.
But I’m challenging Zazzaga and his desperate sponsors to come to the NEC meeting of the party on the 11th of September to move a motion for the removal of Ganduje if they are serious about their agitation to have Ganduje removed from office, else their affront on Governor Sule deserves a decisive action against the perpetrators.
In it is surprising that despite his make-believe standing as stakeholder of the party in the North Central, Zazzaga is not even abreast with the transformation going in Nasarawa State under Governor Sule.
In his blind hatred and desperation to do the bidding of his pay masters, he failed to or probably ignored the need to do his research well before going public with his falsehood about the state of governance in the Home of Solid Mineral.
Even if he couldn’t take his time to visit the state for a firsthand information about the massive development going on in Nasarawa State, one would have think that as someone who is enlightened, Zazzaga should at listen to news and read the newspapers about what is happening in Nasarawa under Governor Sule.
If anything, the transformation in the solid mineral subsector courtesy of Governor Sule’s insight and resourcefulness, which has endeared the state and the governor to the presidency, should not have escaped Zazzaga ‘s attention. But he chooses to turn blind eyes and rather brook the disdain from the public over his misinformation regarding the situation in Nasarawa.
The state is now exposed to investors and development courtesy of Governor Sule. No one insults Governor Sule and goes free without being challenged by that community for his development strides across the state.
Dr Kassim Muh’d Kassim is the Special Adviser on Political Affairs to the Nasarawa State Governor, Engineer Abdullahi Sule.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 National Update