Category: Featured

• North-Central governors split on chairmanship

• Aspirants demand open contest

• Buhari expected to break logjam

• Caretaker Committee mulls scrapping of BoT; proposes fundamental amendments to party constitution

Some of the aspirants seeking to become the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) are kicking over the zoning of the office to the North-Central as preparation for the party’s national convention on February 26 gathers momentum.

The aspirants want an open contest as against the decision of most of the governors elected on the party’s platform and other party leaders to cede the seat to the North-Central.

The APC Caretaker Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) is understood to be mulling the scrapping of the party’s Board of Trustees (BoT) in addition to some other fundamental amendments to the party’s constitution.

North-Central governors of the APC are said to be sharply divided on the issue of zoning of national chairmanship to the zone.

Governors Yahaya Bello (Kogi) and Abubakar Sani Bello (Niger), according to party sources, are not keen on conceding the national chairmanship to the North-Central while their Kwara State counterpart, Abdulrahman Abdularazaq, is disposed to it coming to his state.

Governor Abdullahi Sule of Nasarawa State is similarly disposed to his state clinching the post.

The Nation gathered that Plateau State Governor Simon Lalong is preoccupied with the 2023 presidential bid of his friend and mentor, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi, the Minister of Transportation.

Sources said some members of the APC Caretaker Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) seem to be in agreement with those clamouring for an open race.

Some leaders have however warned that the party risks running into crisis if the chairmanship seat is not zoned.

Many party faithful are looking up to President Muhammadu Buhari, who the governors have conceded the choice of new chairman to, to save the party from what is fast turning into a stalemate.

There were indications yesterday that some party leaders had made representations to the President on why every aspirant should be allowed to contest.

Those in the race are ex-Governor Abdulaziz Yari;  Mallam Saliu Mustapha (Turaki Ilorin); ex-Governor Umar Tanko Al-Makura; Senator  Sani Mohammed Musa and ex-Governor Ali Modu Sheriff.

Others are Sunny Sylvester Monidafe; Mohammed Estu; ex-Governor George Akume; ex-Governor Isa Yuguda and Dr. Sani Abdullahi Shinkafi.

Also speculated to be interested are ex-Governor Abdullahi Adamu and a former Chief Whip of the House of Representatives, Hon. Bawa Bwari.

Investigation by our correspondent revealed that the tempo of the race changed yesterday following agitation by some aspirants against zoning the office to the North-Central.

It was learnt that Governor Yahaya Bello and some aspirants like ex-governors Isa Yuguda, Abdulaziz Yari, Ali Modu Sheriff, Sani Abdullahi Shinkafi and Sunny Sylvester Monidafe prefer an open race.

A reliable source, who spoke in confidence, said the concession of the chairmanship seat to the North-Central has not gone down well with some aspirants.

The said aspirants have been lobbying the CECPC and party stalwarts to give everyone equal stake.

Some leaders of APC were also said to have kicked against North-Central which they claimed has produced more chairmen of political parties in Nigeria than any other geo-political zone in the country.

A reliable party source said: “Zoning is breeding a cold war in APC. This is why the CECPC, led by Governor Mai Mala Buni, has not made any pronouncement on it. Our leaders have not been able to reach any compromise.

“We are facing this zoning dilemma because President Muhammadu Buhari is exiting power in 2023 and he comes from a geo-political zone with a huge voting strength. We have to be meticulous in managing elective offices to appeal to all the six geo-political zones.

“For the office of the APC national chairman, the President, the governors and party leaders will soon meet to work out a zoning template which can assuage the feelings of all the geo-political zones in the country.

“I can tell you that zoning is an issue we have not resolved. Whichever zone produces the incoming APC chairman will go a long way to shape our permutations for 2023 poll.

“Already, zoning is causing disaffection among all the aspirants for the office of national chairman. Some are not happy over speculations that the slot may go to the North-Central. Yet, the party has not made any pronouncement.”

A chairmanship aspirant said: “Leading parties is not the birthright of the North-Central. That was how the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost its bearing.

“The North-Central has produced many chairmen of political parties in this country. Can’t they aspire to other offices?

“In any case, the people of North-Central have said that they will want presidency more than party chairmanship.

“Any person talking of North-Central is an enemy of APC. As we speak, the North-East is managing our party and it should be allowed to complete its tenure. The party has already identified who will lead it from the North-East.

“Why are they even jumping the gun? Have you seen anybody that has come out to say that the chairmanship is zoned to North-Central?”

Another aspirant warned APC against alienating the North-Central if it wants to win the 2023 poll.

The aspirant said: “We have just heard that the CECPC is under pressure to throw the chairmanship race open after most of our governors and leaders have conceded it to North-Central for equity and justice.

“Look at the APC present zoning structure; what is the status of North-Central? The Presidency is from the North-West, the Senate President is from the North-East, the Speaker belongs to the South-West, the Deputy Senate President hails from the South-South and only Deputy Speaker from the minority part of North-Central.

“The same North-Central has not benefitted from other political appointments like other zones. President Muhammadu Buhari should allow our zone to produce APC national chairman.”

It was gathered that Governor Yahaya Bello is opposed to the national chairmanship coming to the NC because of his own presidential ambition while Abubakar Sani Bello does not want the party position for the zone on account of his plan to be the running mate of the APC presidential candidate.

A source said: “It is no longer news that the Kogi State governor is aspiring to be President and he is averse to any discussion on APC national chairman.

“Despite having two chairmanship aspirants from his state, the Governor of Niger State is seeing a better prospect in being vice president in 2023.

“A presidential aspirant is closing in on him. He is not on the same page with Senator Mohammed Sani Musa (Niger East Senatorial District).

“Although a former Chief Whip of the House of Representatives, Hon. Bawa Bwari enjoys the confidence of the governor, the state may go for vice presidency if there is any opportunity.

“While Governor Abdullahi Sule is behind ex-Governor Umar Tanko Al-Makura as the next APC national chairman, his Kwara State counterpart prefers a former Deputy National Chairman of the defunct CPC, Mallam Saliu Mustapha for his state.

“It is not clear how long Governor Sule can cling to Al-Makura if President Muhammadu Buhari supports ex-Nasarawa State Governor, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, as the next national chairman of APC.

“Governor Simon Lalong is on his own because he is more concerned about the presidential prospect of his friend and mentor, the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi.

“So, you can see that the centre does not hold in North-Central.

Speaking with our correspondent last night, a national chairmanship aspirant, Dr. Sani Abdullahi Shinkafi, said: “If the party goes for consensus, I will have no objection; I will submit to party supremacy. But when the party starts to have an anointed candidate, it has lost its moral ground.

“What I will advise the party to do is to make it an open race. There is no provision or any chapter in 1999 Constitution that has given room for consensus. It is alien to our constitution.

“And if the party decides to go for consensus, it has to come out with parameters. But in equitable democratic setting and according to Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of election is a contest which cannot be narrowed to a particular area or zone.

“I am ready to slug it out with moneybags, especially those former governors who are suffering from psychological trauma.”

A governor, who spoke with our correspondent last night, said: “There have been agitations and representations to the President and governors on the choice of a new national chairman.

“In fairness, we have left everything to the President to decide for the party. If he seeks our opinion, we will make some recommendations. And if he does not, we will respect his choice.

“All I can tell you is that Buhari has a mindset and he will tell us at the end of the day.

“As a sitting President, he has more security information and intelligence report on all the aspirants than the governors and party leaders.

“He knows where he wants the party to go. Buhari will definitely break the ice at the right time.

“He is enjoying how all the aspirants are trying to outwit one another. But by his style, Buhari does not follow the crowd.”

Caretaker committee mulls scrapping of BOT

Sources also said yesterday that the APC Board of Trustees (BOT) may give way to a National Advisory Council (NAC) being proposed by the party’s Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC).

This will be in addition to some other amendments to the party’s constitution expected to be ratified at the national convention.

The CECPC has already served notice of the proposed amendments to the constitution on members of the National Convention as required by Article 30 (iii) of the document.

Article 30 (iii) stipulates that such  notice be served at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the National Convention at which the proposed amendments are to be considered.

The Caretaker Committee had earlier established a Constitution Review Committee (CRC) under the chairmanship of Prof. Tahir Mamman (SAN).

The Committee adopted an all-inclusive approach which led to the draft proposals.

The proposed amendments seek to fill gaps in the existing guiding document.

The proposed amendments also seek to recognise and expand platforms for the participation of critical groups such as women, youth and persons with disabilities in the activities of the party.

THE Federal Government yesterday lost its bid to compel the 36 states to ensure financial independence for the judiciary and the legislative arm.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark pronouncement, declared as unlawful and unconstitutional the Executive Order 10 (EO10) issued by President Muhammadu Buhari to force the states to comply with the constitutional provisions on funding of state judiciary and legislature.

The apex court, in a 6-1 split decision, declared that the President exceeded his constitutional powers in issuing the Eo10.

The order was consequently set aside.

Some lawyers are divided on the court’s verdict.

Buhari had signed the order on May 22, 2020 with a view to encouraging the states to release appropriated funds to the two arms of government.

Among other provisions, the voided order empowered the Accountant General of the Federation to deduct from the allocations due to a state from the Federation Account, any sums appropriated for the legislature or judiciary which the state fails to release to the two organs.

Such deductions would then be paid directly to the affected arm of government.

Yesterday’s  majority decision of the Supreme Court adopted the expert opinions supplied by Musibau Adetunbi (SAN) and Mahmud Magaji (SAN), two out of the five amici curiae (friends of the court) invited by the court to advise it on the case.

The judgment, which was in respect of suit SC/CV/655/2020 filed by the 36 state governments against the Federal Government, decided two key issues: the constitutionality of the EO10 and the funding of superior courts in states by the Federal Government.

Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, in the lead majority judgment, said: “This country is still a federation and the 1999 Constitution it operates is a federal one. The constitution provides a clear delineation of powers between the state and the Federal Government.

“The President has overstepped the limit of his constitutional powers by issuing the Executive Order 10. The country is run on the basis of the rule of law.”

Justices Centus Nweze, Ejembi Eko, Helen Ogunwumiju, Emmanuel Agim and Adamu Jauro aligned with his view.

But Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, in her dissenting ruling on the issue, held that EO10 was lawful and constitutional.

Her words: “We are not unaware of the hanky-panky and subterfuge played by state governors against the independence and financial autonomy of state Judiciary.

“It is a pitiable eyesore what judicial officers and staff go through financially at the hands of state executives, who often flout constitutional and court orders to their whims and caprices.

“Thus, the presidential Executive Order 10 is meant to facilitate the implementation of the constitutional provisions…the Executive Order is to aid the states legislature and judiciary in curing the constitutional wrong of their financial autonomy, which the state have always denied. This is not unconstitutional.”

On the second issue, four members of the panel rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to fund both the capital and recurrent expenditures of the superior courts created for states under Section 6 of the Constitution.

On this issue, Justices Nweze, Ogunwumiju and Abba-Aji agreed with Justice Muhammad’s lead majority judgment.

Three members of the panel – Justices Ejembi Eko, Emmanuel Agim and Adamu Jaro – gave a dissenting opinion, saying it was the Federal Government’s responsibility to fund both the capital and recurrent expenditures of all courts created under Section 6 of the Constitution.

Justice Eko, who authored the lead minority decision, said the money standing to the credit of the Judiciary on the Federation Account and Consolidated Revenue Fund Account should be applied to fund both the capital and recurrent expenditures of courts created under Section 6 of the Constitution.

However, all seven Justices unanimously rejected the request by the plaintiffs that the Federal Government be compelled to refund to them all that they have spent on the said courts in their states.

The court held that the states were not entitled to be refunded all they have spent before now to maintain those courts, which they put at N66 billion.

The apex court said the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to the refund they claimed.

Justices Muhammad and Eko were absent at the proceeding. Justice Muhammad’s judgment was read by Justice Nweze, while Justice Agim read Justice Eko’s judgment.

Read Also: Autonomy: Why governors are yet to comply with Executive Order 10

Ruling divides lawyers

Legal practitioners are divided over the Supreme Court’s verdict.

Former Second Vice Chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association, Mr. Monday Onyekachi, expressed shock at the decision, saying: “What it means is  that the autonomy that the President himself was decreeing  is no longer in a manner that all of us understand.

“I am really surprised that the Supreme Court said so because I have defended that Order 10 several times. But I am sure they must have done it with regards to the provisions of the constitution.

“If the federal government is not allowed to interfere with the judiciary at the state level, it then means that particular order will not be appropriate because it is more or less like imposing an order on a state when the President himself does not have the vires (the power).

“I am sure they must have looked at the provisions of the constitution vis-à-vis the powers of the federal government with respect to funding of the judicial system. So you cannot impose such a thing on them. That is what they are saying.

“I need to understand the full import of that judgment, but it’s something that I was a bit shocked to learn that that particular order was invalidated by the Supreme Court.  We need to really understand the import of that decision. It is very important.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Niyi Akintola, described the judgment as a welcome and pragmatic decision.

His words: “Executive orders should not take the place of legislation. Section 4 of the constitution vests the power to make laws in the National Assembly and the state assemblies.  They should be allowed to do their job.

“As a matter of fact, they ought to have challenged it in the state and the national assembles but they didn’t do anything.

“We thank the Supreme Court for rising up to the occasion to ensure that everybody keeps to his or her lane. Allowing the executive to make rules and laws is an invitation to dictatorship.”

The annulled Executive Order was designed to give teeth to the 2017 alteration to the Constitution by the 8th National Assembly.

Following agitation by state legislators, state judicial workers and other stakeholders for financial independence for the judiciary and the legislature in the states, Buhari in March 2019 set up a Presidential Implementation Committee on State Legislature and Judiciary to ensure that funds appropriated to the two arms of government were directly paid to them.

But the governors were not impressed with what they saw as an attempt by the federal government to interfere in the independence of the states.

They decided to go to court with several of them publicly kicking against the order.

Governor Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State, in a public lecture in Ado Ekiti in May 2021, said Executive Order No.10 was unnecessary because the constitution has already taken care of the independence of the judiciary and the legislative arm, saying “any governor who refuses or neglects to enforce these provisions would be in clear violation of his oath of office.”

He listed the governors’ complaints against the order as: empowerment of  the Accountant General of the Federation to deduct money without having recourse to court; prescription of what allocation should fall under a First Line Charge; dictation to a state how it should organise its governance and its processes, legislative and otherwise; prescription of the establishment of a State Judiciary Budget Committee; and, usurpation, by the  President, of the directive addressed to the House of Assembly of a State by Section 5 of the Constitution.

The rest  are: unlawful interference in the governance of states by the presidential directive to make special extraordinary capital allocations for the Judiciary; payment of recurrent expenditure, including the salaries of Judges and Khadis, by the Federal Government; stifling of States seeking the means of implementing S. 121(3); and that the Executive Order did  not take into cognizance the fact that the fiscal environment at the Federal level is different from what obtains at the State level, much as it also gives little attention to the question of legacy loans inherited from preceding administrations and ways to manage this.