President Muhammadu Buhari’s recommendation of maximum punishment for ballot box snatchers drew reactions from various quarters yesterday.
The President’s comment triggered arguments among senior lawyers with some pitching tent with the President.
They said that only those with the intent to snatch ballot boxes will be afraid of such remarks. Others felt that such directive, if carried out, would amount to extra-judicial killing.
House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara faulted the directive.
Dogara told reporters yesterday in Abuja that the President’s directive amounted to a call for extrajudicial killings of would be electoral offenders.
He said: “These statements clearly indicate that our democracy has become the victim of a full-blown dictatorship, when one considers that a democratically elected President would give a directive that is in clear violation of the laws of the land, which by his oath of office, he is to defend and protect.
“In view of this statement by the President, it is obvious that the military has been given a central role and coopted into the conduct of the election despite the fact that they have no constitutional role in our electoral process”.
Lagos lawyer Femi Falana said Buhari must have made the statement to scare riggers.
He said: “I want to believe that the President made the statement with a view to instil fear in the polluted minds of intended ballot snatchers. Without any attempt to support electoral offenders the act of snatching ballot boxes does not attract the death penalty. In fact it is a misdemeanor whose penalty is 24 months imprisonment by virtue of section 129(4) of the Electoral Act. “I plead with security officers not to risk their own lives by engaging in extrajudicial killing of ballot snatchers and other electoral offenders. It may interest President Buhari to know that due to the culture of impunity in the land the hundreds of electoral offenders including sponsors and perpetrators of politically motivated killings arrested by the police in the last six months have been let off the hook due to pressure from highly connected criminally minded members of the political class. I am tempted to call on the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) to advise the President to withdraw the illegal directive as soon as possible because similar illegal orders of two former Presidents of had led to the brutal massacre of unarmed people in Odi, Bayelsa State (1999), Zaki Biam, Benue State (2001) and Gbaramotu, Delta State (2009),” he said.
Lawyer and human rights activist Monday Ubani hailed the Buhari’s directives.
He said the only way to ensure that the election would be free and fair is to have the ballot boxes and voters protected by security agents at the polling units.
Ubani cited the case of Abia State where he alleged that election results had been prepared for election that was postponed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). “I travelled to my village in Abia last Saturday for the election. The party that wrote the election results has been threatening people not to come out this Saturday for voting if they love themselves. They have hired thugs from neighbouring states to disrupt the rescheduled election on Saturday. This is why I’m supporting the President’s directives that those involved in rigging should be severely dealt with. The Federal Government should massively deplored military and police to polling units”.
The Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, Joe Igbokwe, said the directive was timely.
He said: “Election rigging is worse than robbery; it has become a way of life because since 1999 no one has been brought to book”.
Igbokwe said with this directive President Buhari would restore sanity to our electoral process. This is the kind of change I voted for.
But the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman in Lagos State, Taofik Gani, described the president’s directive as a panicky measure. He said the directive is capable of sending wrong signal to innocent voters who may decide not to come out to exercise their civic duties out of fear.
To him, armed security men should keep away from the polling units. Anyone found rigging should be arrested and prosecuted.
Southwest APC chieftain Ayo Afolabi said snatching the ballot is like snatching peoples’ hope and aspiration.
“For someone to go out of his way, to start snatching ballot boxes, amount to snatching the future of Nigerians. So, if the man snatching ballot boxes loses his life in the process, to hell with him,” he said.
Lagos State APC chieftain Lanre Razak said whoever “tries to disturb the process of election is trying to plunge the country into chaos and probably war”.
He said: “The President is not saying they should shoot them, but the punishment for people who are trying to plunge the only country we have into anarchy is severe punishment. The President is saying that the existing laws provide for punishment.”
Seyi Sowemimo SAN, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) and lawyer-activist Jiti Ogunye said it was wrong to see the president’s comments as a call to security forces to kill or harm innocent people.
But Sebastine Hon (SAN), Sylva Ogwemoh (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) said the statement could be interpreted as a call to jungle justice and murder.
Sowemimo reasoned that the President was merely sending a strong message that electoral offences would no more be tolerated.
He said: “We should be charitable enough not to ascribe to the President that he wants to encourage security agents to kill people. I think with the postponement and the reasons given for the postponement, you can tell that it’s been a disappointment for everybody, including the president himself and maybe more so for him, because it may have appeared as if it is a failure on his administration.
“So, I think the man was trying to send a very strong message out there, that all these things that have militated against elections going on, like buildings being burnt down and all that.
“I think it’s just right that he should let people know that we really can’t afford to have any disruption in our plans anymore. So, I don’t think he’s asking them to murder people.”
He added: “The duty of the president is to enforce all laws in our country. That’s why they are the executive arm of the government. They are to enforce laws and to stop criminality in the land. So, he’s merely saying the obvious, that ‘I will enforce the law, I will punish the offender according to law’. So, what is unconstitutional about that?
“There are laws that prohibit crime, electoral offences and so on. So, if you contravene them, he is saying he will enforce the law. He is merely saying the obvious. What is his duty if he cannot say that? Then who else will do it? That’s executive function.”
Ogunye said there is a constitutional basis for killing an armed ballot box snatcher.
He said: “When a ballot box snatcher, armed with offensive weapons, including a gun, is shot dead by security agents, he has been brought to justice in accordance with the law.”
He referred to Section 33(2)(a-c) of the 1999 Constitution.
It says: “A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary –
“(a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property;
“(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
“(c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.”
But Hon disagreed. He said the president’s order was “ultra vires his powers and is clearly unconstitutional.
“Section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution has guaranteed right to life as a fundamental right, to be infringed upon only in execution a death sentence imposed by a court of law; or in suppression of a riot/insurrection; or when one is exercising his right of self defence. Snatching of ballot boxes or commission of electoral offences is not one of the exceptions or limitations of right to life.
“Mr. President’s order is, without any shred of doubt, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void. Nobody should obey such an order. The international community, perhaps in hindsight, preempted the President, when it issued stern warnings against instigating, ordering or participating in violence during the election period.
“Let me quickly add that pronouncements like this further alienate Nigeria from the enlightened global community and regress us to the backward abyss of time. I advise the President to withdraw that directive without delay.”
For Ogwemoh, the comment was “sad”, coming from “the respected office of a President in a democracy.
“The President cannot be heard to be calling for violence or recourse to self-help in a country regulated by laws. Perhaps if the President had signed the new Electoral Act into law it would have taken care of the seeming frustration inherent in the statement. The point again must be made that no political office, no matter how high it may be, is worth the blood of any Nigerian.”
Owonikoko viewed the president’s language as being “not too suited for the occasion and time.”
He said: “As a charge for a battle ready fully mobilized army to be unleashed on an enemy of the state , the President would have scored a (five)-star. To threaten voters who prove unruly or fall foul of electoral laws with ruthless treatment; or to be prepared to pay with their lives is a cynical euphemism for saying that they will be risking state sanctioned-extra-judicial death.”
