By Akintayo Balogun

On Sunday, September 5, the world was greeted with the sensational news of a military coup d’état in the Republic of Guinea, a country on the far western side of Africa. The coup, led by Lieutenant Colonel Mamady Doumbouya, head of the Guinean Army’s Special Forces Group, overthrew the government of President Alpha Condé. The President had just recently begun a six-year term, after completing his initial two terms of five years each. Just as the news filtered in, reactions from the international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union, the African Union (AU), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as well as some governments including the Nigerian government, condemned the military coup d’état in Guinea and threatened to impose sanctions on the country if the action is not reversed.

The decision by uniformed men to overthrow a civilian government and the reaction of international organizations, as well as other African leaders, brings back memories of the happenings in Guinea that has allowed President Alpha Condé to be in power despite exhausting his two terms of five years each as President of Guinea, as provided for in the Guinean Constitution.

Back in the 90s, President Condé was better known as an opposition figure, who had suffered several confinements under previous administrations, due to his activism and advocacy for the entrenchment of democracy in the Republic of Guinea. However, in 2010, he became the first democratically elected President of Guinea. In 2015, President Condé was re-elected to serve his second and final term. As his second term in office was coming to a close, President Condé began suggesting that the constitution needed to be updated to usher in badly needed social changes, especially for women, with reforms including a ban on female genital mutilation and underage marriage. Although the new constitution sought to be passed into law still limited the tenure of the president to two terms, in actual fact, it was enacted to reset the entire timeline to zero to make the president eligible to contest for another two terms of six years each in the elections that would follow its enactment.

This position was vehemently rejected by the opposition, but the president still proceeded with the proposal. This was put to a referendum in March 2020, a process boycotted by the opposition. Nonetheless, the result of the referendum still stood and therefore allowed the president’s time to start counting afresh. Condé subsequently contested and won a controversial presidential election in October 2020 for another six years in addition to the 10 years already spent in the office.

Such brazen manipulations are not strange in Africa. This has been the technique used by several leaders to perpetuate themselves in office indefinitely. In 2002, Togo, conducted a constitutional amendment that allowed President Gnassingbe Eyadema, who had been in power since 1967, to seek re-election without limit. When he died in 2005, his son Faure Gnassingbe took over and has since won all four contested elections. In 2005, Uganda carried out a constitutional reform that scrapped limits on presidential terms. This allowed President Yoweri Museveni, who had been in power since 1986, to stand for re-election in 2021. The constitutional amendment was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Uganda in 2019. Also in 2005, Chad, after a disputed referendum, adopted a constitutional review, which allowed President Idriss Deby Itno, who has been in power since 1990, to remain in power, until his gruesome murder in 2020.

In 2015, Rwanda conducted a constitutional referendum which allowed President Paul Kagame to secure a new term in 2017 and to potentially rule until 2034. In 2015, The Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) conducted a constitutional referendum which allowed Denis Sassou Nguesso to run for a third term. He was re-elected in 2016.

Also in 2015, Burundi was plunged into a bloody political crisis in which at least 1,200 were killed after President Pierre Nkurunziza won a highly controversial third term.

In 2018, Comoros conducted a constitutional referendum which allowed President Azali Assoumani to be elected a second time in 2019, at fraud-tainted polls, according to international observers. In 2018, Algeria revised the Constitution to quash the limit on the number of presidential terms, which allowed President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who has been in power since 1999, to be re-elected in 2009 and 2014. He was forced to resign in April 2019 following massive popular protests.

Read Also: Coup in Guinea

And in Nigeria, there was an attempt in 2006 to review the constitution which would have allowed the then president to run for a third term which the National Assembly aborted.

One striking thing in the cases listed above is the manipulation of the constitution by incumbent leaders.

The sit-down tight syndrome of African leaders has been one of the reasons many African countries have suffered unnecessary and avoidable political unrest. The case of Guinea is not in any way different.

I strongly disagree with the admonition of the ECOWAS and even the Nigerian government on the sanctity of Guinea’s constitution. If the supremacy of the constitution had been upheld in the first place and not subjected to selfish and egocentric amendment, Condé would not have been sitting as the president as at when his government was overthrown.

I do not justify the takeover of power by uniformed men. No, not in any way. It is a bad omen that sets a country on the part of retrogression. Neither President Conde, nor Lieutenant Colonel Mamady Doumbouya did uphold the supremacy and sanctity of the constitution. Had they upheld it, neither of them would be laying claim to the office.

When President Condé was subverting the process, where was the ECOWAS? Where was the AU and the UN? Where was the Nigerian Foreign Minister? Where were the other African presidents that are now crying blue murder? Why did it take the same unconstitutional seizure of power by uniformed men for the international organizations to call for sanctions?

If they did not see anything wrong in malevolently changing the constitution, obviously, they should not see anything wrong in suspending the constitution. It is the same wrongful act in different clothing.

Whatever sanctions, restrictions, embargos, and forced actions are taken or imposed on countries where the government is forcefully overthrown by uniformed men, the same should be imposed on countries where the president conceitedly amends, reviews, or adopts a new constitution, primarily to give himself the room to perpetually remain in office or to contest elections indefinitely. What is unconstitutional should remain unconstitutional on all fours and not selectively. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa.

• Balogun Esq., is a legal practitioner based in Abuja.