Category: Wednesday

Last week, Nigerians were given a foretaste of the role cash would play as the nation hurtles towards the 2019 general elections. It began with the unveiling of what the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were imposing on all aspiring for public office on their platforms.

Those dreaming of becoming the APC presidential candidate are required to part with a princely N45 million, while the PDP – surprisingly – fixed its rate at a ‘pauperly’ ¦ 12m million naira for the expression of interest and nomination forms for its presidential aspirants.

Surprising, because the PDP while in power developed a reputation for playing fast and loose with official cash. The reverberation of that carefree policy is still keeping EFCC sleuths awake at night.

For the governorship contest, APC wants its aspirants to shell out N22.5 million for expression of interest and nomination forms. By sharp contrast PDP says its own governorship nomination forms cost N6 million.

The PDP may be posturing about its fees being more affordable but, in my view, both parties’ rates are unduly high and constitute a hindrance to wider participation in the electoral process. So why are the ruling party’s forms so expensive?

Officially, the APC has offered an explanation which serves both as rationale and put-down. Its Acting National Publicity Secretary, Yekini Nabena, told reporters in Abuja that unlike the PDP, the Muhammadu Buhari administration would never betray public trust because it wanted to contest in an election.

He said: “Everybody knows that this administration will never put its hands into the public treasury to take money for elections.

“Unlike the PDP which went to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and got public money from Diezani Allison- Madueke and the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, we will not do that.

“We have decided to use what we get from the sale of forms to run our elections.”

Truth be told, cash is the oxygen that fuels politics – especially in the presidential system that we practise. In the US a brilliant candidate can be undermined by his inability to raise cash. But even in America efforts are being made to curb the untrammelled influence of cash.

It is curious that the managers our parties would make the case that sale of these outrageously expensive forms is the only to raise funds for electioneering. Let’s not forget that in the past, parties like the defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP) and others never imposed this heavy burden on their aspirants. Yet they ran vigorous campaigns that took them to the distant parts of Nigeria.

Our acknowledgement of the unfair advantage cash confers on the wealthy in society, gave rise to amendments of the Electoral Act to limit how much individuals or groups can contribute to campaigns. The result was the grossly unrealistic cap of N1 million which has become something of joke.

That is at the root of the flap over the purchase by some group of the APC’s N45 million forms for Buhari. The president has repeatedly made it clear that he was not a man of means, so his supporters were falling over themselves to help out.

He was not the only one at the receiving end of such generousity. His rival in the PDP, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, was so overwhelmed with emotion when he discovered that a band of his supporters had equally taxed themselves to gift him the N22.5 million forms, he broke down and wept.

Atiku wept probably because the rich rarely ever receive gifts from people. Although he could buy a thousand of the nomination forms without breaking a sweat, he quietly accepted his gift and carried on with the business of running for president. Very few raised any issues about the legality or morality of the transaction. Those who bothered to react were more engaged with examining the genuineness of the Turaki of Adamawa’s tears.

That was until news broke that another bunch of enthusiastic camp followers had signed off N45 million to take care of Buhari’s form. The development drew furious condemnation from the media and politicians – with many asking him not accept.

It is not difficult to see why the same ‘sin’ committed by Atiku and Buhari, would attract so much flak for the latter and hardly a harsh comment towards the former. The president’s unique selling point is supposedly his integrity and reputation as an honest man. He, too, never ceases to point to those qualities in his political duels. So it is natural that his foes would cry murder whenever his actions or the actions of those around him give any hint of hypocrisy.

Although the president is yet to acknowledge the do-gooders or accept their gift, it would be interesting to see how he handles the matter. Already, we have something of a hint from the intervention by his party’s spokesman.

Section 91 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended) clearly provides that: “No individual or other entity shall donate more than one million naira (N1, 000, 000.00) to any candidate.”

Responding to the criticisms of a national newspaper, Nabena chose the path of legal acrobatics by pointing out that the Electoral Act refers to donations to a ‘candidate’ as opposed to an ‘aspirant’ that Buhari remains until he is formally crowned flagbearer.

Interesting argument! But the question that should be asked is if it is wrong for the ‘candidate’ to receive more than N1 million from a source, what makes it morally right for the ‘aspirant’ to accept more than that prescribed amount?

Clever lawyers may be able to dance round the provisions of the Act using technicalities. What should worry us is the spirit and not just the letter of the law. What was the intention of the framers of the act when they inserted that clause? It was clearly to limit the influence of money on our politics and reduce the degree to which one individual, or groups of individuals, could hijack the process using their wealth.

Buhari’s calling card is his moral authority. It is part of what got him elected in 2015. He would not be able to offer that stark differentiation to voters next year if he starts to come across as just another politician who is only too glad to subvert the rules and game the system for personal advantage.

That is why his supporters need to do better than the ‘Atiku also did it’ argument in explaining away the N45million form gift.

More importantly, the two major parties need to explain how these ultra-expensive nomination forms help in reducing corruption within the system. It would be expecting too much to imagine that those who stake a fortune to seek public office would not find ‘creative’ ways of recouping their investment.

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is also not out of place to think that those who are buying multi-million naira forms for others are not doing so out of altruism. They, too, would be expecting some blowback to their ‘group’ when those they supported get into office.

There is also the damage done to vulnerable groups like women and youths. All sides of the political divide celebrated the passage of the Not-Too-Young-To-Run law. Where would our youth with political ambitions find these millions to purchase nomination forms in the two major parties?

In one breath we make the grand gesture of lowering the age of participation, but without thinking through the implications we halt them in their stride by erecting these huge financial barricades.

I have read with dismay how newspaper columnists, the intelligensia and senior lawyers have, deliberately, out of mischief and ignorance as well as ill motive, misconstrued Prsident Buhari’s on rule of law and national interest statement and misled some Nigerians into believing that the President was wrong.

Mr. Eriye, you and your fellow columnists in all the Nigerian dailies as well as some lawyers are wrong in your comments and reactions to the President’s address at the recent NBA Conference to the effect that the rule of law should give way to national interest (security). The president’s address is to the effect that rule of law gives way where national interest is involved.  All over the world national interest supercedes or overrides individual interest even where the later is protected by law. In other words, where there is a conflict or clash between the two interests, national interest prevails. In a great number of situations it is the Executive arm that defines or determines what the national interest is at any given time. In this country some people are always eager to malign the Executive as if the Executive do not have the interest of the country at heart, as if the Executive belongs to another planet and as if the critics have more Nigerian blood in them than the Executive. Critics should find out why the USA has Guatamano Bay. Sometimes laws are made to give effect to defined interests anywhere but they are easily recognisable. Some national laws admit refugees and accord them equal rights as citizens of host countries but the host country, in her national interest, has a right to refuse entry to a refugee-terrorist. It might not have been in the national interest initially to release the former NSA Dasuki and El-Zark Zaky on bail. It is not in the national interest for one to have his residence so proximate to Aso Rock or White House. Can an individual insist that as the constitution gives him the right to reside and have property in any part of the country he must reside or build in such seat of power? Take for example, revocation of property for (overriding)public interest, requisition of properties in the UK during the World War. All those that took the UK government to court lost. In recent times, Russia was accused of being the brain behind the deaths, in England, of some of her former spies who defected. The act of killing them was in the national interest of Russia and the perpetrators will never be brought to book as the defectors would have leaked secrets capable of compromising the national security of Russia.

One may have heard of the term ‘classified documents.’ Such documents enjoy the privilege of not being tendered  in court even if they will assist one in presenting his case or defending himself in court. It is not in the national interest that such documents (e.g. the operational strategy in attacking the Boko Haram insurgents) be made public though the judge may insist on seeing it. Another vivid example is the taking of hostages by terrorists, say Boko Haram. The act of hostage taking is a clear violation of some extant laws of the country. Will a sane person insist on prosecuting  some of the terrorists that may have been caught pursuant to the rule of law or, in the national interest, if the opportunity arises, to exchange the terrorist with the hostages or even pay ransom for their release?  The Freedom of Information Act is replete with provisions in recognition of the primacy of  national interest. Israel, till date, exchanges prisoners for the dead bodies of her nationals.

The reason is that the country made it against her national interest or policy for a Jew to be buried outside Israel. In this regard she overlooks or jettisons the rule of law in preference for her national interest Therefore, the President’s statement was very correct. – From Chijioke Dike, Esq.

You  were simply in your element as usual in ‘The trouble with the Buhari Doctrine’ piece, and almost made me change my position on the matter. However, I would agree with President Buhari that the law can only be optimally practised in a Nigeria that is safe, secure and properous; and that where national security and public interest are treathened or there is a likelihood for their being treathened, the individual rights of those responsible must take second place in favor of the greater good of society.That’s how I think it should be.The only problem is that it may always not be easy to differentiate when a vendatta-seeking president may want to punish a certain individual or a group of them just to massage his ego, all in the name of protecting national interest. I think that what is needed mostly here is a clear  resort to a true separation of power in our democratic governance, where the judiciary can always be the one interpreting what should constitute national interest and all, in matters involving Nigerians without the presidency influencing the interpretation to his own favour. The rule of law, though a very indispensible item in democratic governance, being strictly tied to it when the looters of our common  patrimony that impoverish everybody in the country take advantage of it to evade capture, is just not the ideal thing to do. Yes, if the looter ‘birds’ of our economy have learn how to loot without perching and with no regards to the rule of law, it is only fitting that any savior, visionary president should equally learned how to trap them without necessarily being tied down to the rule of law as well. Otherwise you can never beat Nigerian politicians to it – and which could simply mean a perpetual stagnation of the country, going by the rate at which corrupt practices deepen with Nigerian politicians by the day, From Emmanuel Egwu,

There is something uncanny about the ability of President Muhammadu Buhari and his aides to make statements that reinforce negative impressions and stereotypes about him.

Not too long ago there was the flap about the president trekking 800 metres while returning from prayer over the Sallah holidays in his hometown, Daura.

Knowing that between now and the 2019 general elections, the opposition were going to feast on lingering questions about Buhari’s health and fitness, his aides thought it fit to spin the ‘long walk’ as evidence of his readiness to take on another four years of the gruelling schedule of a president.

But instead of positive feedback, the 800-meter trek became the subject of ridicule by his rivals, and the object of a thousand hilarious memes on social media. It was so bad Buhari himself had to speak out about the real reason he took the walk.

In another case that didn’t leave the administration smelling of roses, a journalist with Premium Times was arrested by the police and surreptitiously arraigned on a cocktail of creative criminal charges for allegedly publishing the transcript of the Inspector-General of Police’s investigation on the recent invasion of the National Assembly by agents of the Department of State Security (DSS).

While the Presidency was not directly connected to the reporter’s travail, the actions of the police were executed under Buhari’s watch. The demonstrators who stormed police headquarters to rage against the journalist’s detention made sure to paint it as the latest manifestation of dictatorial tendencies by the administration.

Even more potentially damaging, was the ill-conceived blockade of the National Assembly by the DSS allegedly acting under the orders of the ousted Director-General, Lawal Daura. But for the proactive moves of the then Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, no one knows how that incident would played out.

But both local and international opinion hinted that there was the suspicious suggestion of a ‘coup’ in the failed invasion. It was a hint that the prompt sacking of Daura swiftly quenched. Despite what many lauded as a thorough repudiation of the use of undemocratic methods to resolve the executive’s dispute with the legislature, Buhari’s foes continued to hint darkly that a one-time military strongman would never really shed his spots.

Now, we have the latest in a series of verbal grenades hurled, needlessly, into the public space. Last Sunday, Buhari in an address he delivered at the opening of the 2018 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference in Abuja, stated that the rule of law must be subject to the supremacy of the nation’s security and national interest.

He argued that where national security and public interest were being threatened, the individual rights of those allegedly responsible must take the second place.

“Our apex court has had cause to adopt a position on this issue in this regard and it is now a matter of judicial recognition that; where national security and public interest are threatened or there is a likelihood of their being threatened, the individual rights of those allegedly responsible must take second place, in favour of the greater good of society,” he declared.

Predictably, a chorus of critics have descended on the president for his controversial comment. Many of the commentators were quick to reference the president’s past. Take the reaction by Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka as an example.

“Here we go again! At his first coming, it was ‘I intend to tamper with Freedom of the Press’ and Buhari did proceed to suit action to the words, sending two journalists Irabor and Thompson to prison as a reward for their professional integrity,” he said.

“Now, a vague, vaporous, but commodious concept dubbed ‘national interest’ is being trotted out as alibi for flouting the decisions of the Nigerian judiciary.”

Soyinka wondered if Buhari’s incarceration by former President Ibrahim Babangida’s regime was also in the “national interest”.

I suspect that the comment comes out of the government’s discomfiture with trying to justify the continued detention of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Ibrahim Dasuki (rtd) – in a democratic setting – long after the courts have granted him bail. It is a position which, despite their public posturing, would leave many of the senior lawyers in the administration ill at ease.

Although Buhari has run to a certain Supreme Court ruling for cover, the trouble with the newly-espoused doctrine is that national interest is such a nebulous concept which is open to diverse interpretations, misinterpretations and manipulation by malevolent forces.

What is in the national interest of a country is often down to what the individuals who run it think it is. There are hardly ever any objective parameters for defining it. So, take for example, a country like Venezuela where the socialist government is battling to contain anarchy as the economy crumbles and the misery of the populace deepens by the day.

Is it against the national interest when the opposition conservative party and its allies – reacting to the suffering – holds mass rallies calling for the resignation of the government? President Nicholas Maduro who is clinging to power has been using the security forces to ruthlessly suppress the protests – all in the ‘national interest.’

‘National interest’ is what dictatorial regimes hide under to clamp dissidents in detention. But the moment a more liberal administration takes over, one of its first acts is often the release of detainees – in the ‘national interest’ – in order to score points locally and internationally and shore up support.

The argument becomes even more complicated where the constitution has spelt out clear roles for the different arms of government. Their leadership at different points would interpret their uses of their powers at each point as being in the ‘national interest.’

We’ve seen instances when the United States’ government was shut down for days as the executive and Congress squabbled over the budget. The executive branch which wants its proposals passed so that government can continue providing services would argue that it is acting altruistically.

Would the legislature be justified is making the same point when it says that its acting as a check of the executive is in the ‘national interest’ – even in the face of a temporary disruption of services?

It is important that the president and those in government today never give the impression that the rule of law is something that can be cavalierly sacrificed in furtherance of some supposedly larger ideal.

We can say to President Buhari that even in an imperfect state like Nigeria, there are still has enough institutions and provisions under the law to checkmate those who would want to subvert national security.

It is very important that the already very powerful executive branch not be perceived as executing a power grab where it begins to take on roles that have been set aside for the judiciary; or where it is seen as picking and choosing what orders of court to obey.

No democracy, indeed no society, can thrive when we start to make excuses for not allowing the rule of law take its way unfettered course. A day may come when someone else may use the same Supreme Court argument to abridge our rights – all in the ‘national interest.’ I doubt if anyone truly wants that.