Former President Goodluck Jonathan has urged Nigerians to remain optimistic in the dream of building a great and prosperous nation.
He also urged the citizens to be resilient in the face of challenges facing the country.
Jonathan said this in a message to mark the 64th Nigeria’s independence anniversary by his media aide, Ikechukwu Eze, On Tuesday in Abuja.
He said that today marked a significant milestone in the nation’s history, emphasising the need for deepening the roots of democracy and a culture of credible, free and fair elections in the country.
According to him, since 1960, Nigeria has come a long way, making measured strides in various sectors and overcoming countless obstacles in its journey of nationhood.
“Over time, we have indeed made modest progress in our hopes and shared dreams as citizens of our nation.
“We have had sustained democracy in this 4th Republic for 25 years, after seeing the end of military rule in 1999.
“We have recorded perceptible growth in our economy and our gross domestic products (GDP). We have to sustain our unity and belief in the social fabric of our nation,” Jonathan said in the statement.
The former president, however, said that today Nigerians still faced significant challenges that test their resolve and resilience as a people.
These, according to him, border on the inability to meet Nigerians’ goals and expectations on security, economic growth, national cohesion and general infrastructure development.
“For us to deepen the roots of our democracy and foster inclusive economic growth, we must strengthen our institutions and develop a good democratic culture that will support peaceful, transparent, free and fair elections.
“This is the basis for good governance, sustainable democracy, national unity and peaceful coexistence.
“As a nation, we must recommit to the principles of justice, equity and inclusion.
“We must harness our diversity, tap into our youth’s potential, and leverage our natural resources for the benefit of all.
“As we mark this important day, I encourage Nigerians to remain optimistic, resilient and committed to our nation’s greatness, despite the odds.
“With a common purpose, zeal and love for one another, we can overcome our challenges and build a prosperous nation of our collective dreams, where every citizen has equal opportunities to thrive”.
• I bear no grudge against former President, says ex-CBN governor
• Dangote reveals places of ‘agent interests’
• Tinubu has appointed men, women of integrity to head critical institutions, says Shettima
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has refuted the claim by erstwhile Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in 2013 that $49.8 billion was missing from the government coffers.
The former President said he did not sack Sanusi over the alleged missing money.
The former CBN governor, who is the current Emir of Kano with the title Muhammadu Sanusi II, had raised the alarm over the missing money in the race to the 2015 general election.
Jonathan spoke yesterday in Abuja at the launch of a book, titled: Public Policy and Agent Interests: Perspectives From the Emerging World, edited by former Finance Minister Shamsuddeen Usman in reaction to Sanusi’s contribution in the book.
The ex-President said it was not true that such money was missing, adding that the former CBN governor was suspended to be recalled.
He said: “I do not agree completely with some of the issues raised by one of the contributors. But I don’t intend to join issues because he is our royal father. But because I have the opportunity to be here on some issues he raised that he was sacked because he blew a whistle that the Federal Government lost $49.8 billon is not quite correct.
“He was not sacked but suspended because the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) queried the expenditure of CBN; because it is the FRC that has the power to audit the CBN, not the Auditor General. And there were serious infractions that needed to be looked at. That was the reason. Somehow, the time was short but before we finished, his tenure elapsed. Probably he would have been called back.
“On the issue of $49.8 billion: till today, I am not convinced that the Federal Government lost such money.
“Let me tell you about a personal experience. The African Presidents and European Presidents had a meeting in Belgium. During those meetings, we had bilateral talks and the Chancellor of Germany then, Angela Merkel, requested that we should have bilateral meetings. I went there with some of my ministers. Even before I sat down, the German Chancellor said they heard that $49.8 billion was missing, and asked: What’s happening? That was what she used to welcome the guests.
“I smiled and said: ‘I said, Madam Chancellor, the economy of Germany is strong. So, if you lose $50 billion, you might not notice it. But if Nigeria loses $50 billion, the Federal Government won’t even be able to pay salaries. Then she said even in Germany $50 billion was a lot of money, and she didn’t ask any further question. Of course, that year, our budget was $31.6 billion.
“So, for a country that has a budget of $31.6 billion to lose $50 billion and salaries were paid and nobody felt anything, then the researchers that read this book should further research.
“So, when our revered royal father came up with figures that first $49.8 billon, later $20 billion, later $12 billion; so, I don’t even know the correct figure. Immediately that thing happened, we engaged PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers), which is one of the best financial gurus, to do a forensic audit. This is because nobody can sit down and say $50 billion was lost and nobody knew anything about it.
“The report they came up with was that there is $1.48 billion, that they didn’t give a proper account and that the NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, as then called) should send the money to the Federation Account. They didn’t say we lost any $12 billion or $20 billion or $50 billion.
“(Ahmed) Makarfi (former Kaduna State governor and senator) is still alive. He was the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. They used external professional auditors to look into the matter and they didn’t find any $12 billion or $20 billion or $50 billion…”
Responding, Sanusi said he bore no grudges against Dr. Jonathan and would not respond to his refutal due to the respect he had for the former President.
Vice President Kashim Shettima said the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration has ensured that men and women of knowledge, patriotism, integrity, and reputation are appointed to head critical institutions in the country.
The appointments, the Vice President said, were designed to safeguard the implementation of government policies from being undermined by private or special interests.
Shettima, who was represented by former Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Aliyu Modibbo, said the government, where necessary, was investing in building government officials, embracing technological innovations, fostering international cooperation and prioritising evidence-based policymaking and institutional reforms.
Such measures, he said, were essential in ensuring that good governance prevailed and that public policies were implemented in the best interests of all Nigerians.
Shettima said it was not surprising that President Bola Tinubu appointed Dr. Shamsuddin Usman, a distinguished academic, elder statesman, and exemplary public servant as the Chairman of the Ministry of Finance, Inc.
“As we gather to witness this public presentation of this book for policymakers, I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Shamsuddeen and his team for their immense efforts in shaping the narrative of governance in Nigeria.
“You have provided a light to generations in need of guidance and a compass to those charting the course of public service,” Shettima said.
Also, the Chairman of Dangote Group, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, said the issue of agent interest was not only focused on the public service.
Dangote, who was represented by Mansur Ahmed, said: “The public service agent is not working alone; never does. There is always a partner somewhere outside, lurking in the background, waiting for the public agent; if you like, who wants to divert policy intentions into personal interests.
“So, I think in this regard, we need to look at not just the role of the public servant but also those partners outside who help them.
“I think if we have been following the recent controversies about the Dangote Refinery, you will clearly see that the public agency interest is not just working from within the public service alone.
“That is why it is so critical that in analysing it, in trying to find solutions to how the agency interests affect our economy, we must also look beyond just the public service.”
…I hold no grudge against you for removing me as CBN governor, Sanusi replies
…agent interests not just in public sector, says Dangote
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has said he did not sack Emir of Kano, Mohammed Sanusi II, as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria in 2013 for whistleblowing that $48.9 billion was missing from the government coffers.
Jonathan said this at the launch of a book “Public Policy and Agent Interests: Perspectives from the Emerging World” in Abuja on Thursday edited by former Finance Minister, Shamsuddeen Usman.
Jonathan was reacting to a contribution by the Emir of Kano in the book that was being launched.
The former president said it was not true that such amount of money was missing.
He said the former CBN Governor was only suspended and would have been recalled.
Jonathan said: “I do not agree completely with some of the issues raised by one of the contributors. But I don’t intend to join issues because he is our royal father. But because I have the opportunity to be here on some issues on the one he raised that he was sacked because he blew a whistle that the federal government lost $49.8 billon is not quite correct.
“He was not sacked but suspended because the Financial Reporting Council queried the expenditure of CBN because it is the FRC that has the power to audit the CBN not the auditor general. And there were serious infractions that needed to be looked at. That was the reason. Somehow the time was short but before we finished, his tenure elapsed. Probably he would have been called back.
“On the issue of $49.8 billion, till today I am not convinced that the FG lost such money. Let me tell you about a personal experience. The African Presidents and European Presidents we had a meeting in Belgium and during those meetings we had bilateral talks and the Chancellor of Germany then Angela Merkel requested that we should have bilateral meetings and I went there with some of my ministers and even before I sat down, the German Chancellor said they heard that $49.8 is missing that what is happening. That was what she used to welcome the guests.
“I smiled and said, ‘I said Madam Chancellor, the economy of Germany is strong, so if you lose $50 billion, you might not notice it but if Nigeria loses $50 billion dollars, Federal government won’t even be able to pay salaries. Then she said even in Germany $50 billion is a lot of money and she didn’t ask further question. And of course, that year our budget was $31.6 billion dollars.
“So for a country that has a budget of $31.6 billion dollars to lose $50 billion and salaries were paid and nobody felt anything, then the researchers that read this book should further research.
“So when our revered royal father came up with figures that first $49.8 billon, later
$20 billion, later $12 billion so I don’t even know the correct figure. Immediately that thing happened, we engaged PwC which is one of the best financial gurus to do a forensic audit because nobody can sit down and say 50 billion dollars was lost and nobody knew anything about it.
“The report they came up with was that there is $1.48 billion that they didn’t give a proper account and that NNPC should send the money to the federation account. They didn’t say we lost any 12 billion or 20 billion or 50 billion.
“Makarfi is still alive. He was the chairman of the Senate finance committee. They used external professional auditors to look into the matter and they didn’t find any 12 billion or 20 billion or 50 billion. So I am pleading that when we are giving accounts of our stewardship, if we have to go into some of these areas, it is good to mention so that someone reading the book won’t go with the impression that 50 billion got lost during Jonathan’s administration. I didn’t steal billions of dollars from this country.”
The Emir of Kano, who also graced the event, said he was not going to respond to the issue raised by the former president at the forum out of respect for him.
He said he holds no grudge against former President Jonathan for removing him as the Central Bank governor in 2013.
Sanusi said vested interests who have profited from Nigeria’s continued importation of petrol were frustrating Dangote refinery.
He said, “There may be issues around the refinery. I don’t know what the details are, but this is a country that has been importing petroleum products for so many years faced with an opportunity for winning itself from importing petroleum products. Instead of grabbing this opportunity, you know, with open arms, we are frustrating it.
“Why would anyone stop us from having the capacity to produce our own refined petroleum products? This is because there are vested interests who have profited from Nigeria continuing to import these products.
“There could be people locally who have been profiting from these subsidy scams. And this is the end, because every excuse disappears when you’re no longer importing and you’re producing locally. And these are the kind of instances and examples that we see, left, right, and center, which continue to get in the way of Nigeria transiting from being a rentier state to a developmental state.
“And for me, this is the most important thing. The faces may change, the parties may change, the characters may change, but we have to continue to address this issue. How do we turn the Nigerian state into one that understands it is an agent of the people and not an agent of those who control the levers of political power? I think this is a big lesson in this book”.
Vice President Kashim Shettma said the present administration has ensured that men and women of knowledge, patriotism, integrity, and reputation are appointed to head critical institutions in the country.
These appointments, the Vice President said, are designed to safeguard the implementation of government policies from being undermined by private or special interests.
Represented by a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Aliyu Modibbo, he said moreover, where necessary, the government is investing in building for government officials, embracing technological innovations, fostering international cooperation and prioritising evidence-based policymaking and institutional reforms.
These measures, he said, are essential in ensuring that good governance prevails and that public policies are implemented in the best interests of all Nigerians.
He said it is therefore not a surprise that President Bola Tinubu appointed Dr. Shamsuddin Usman, a distinguished academic, elder statesman, and exemplary public servant as chairman of the Ministry of Finance, Inc.
Shettimma said Usman’s expertise and commitment to public service are reflected not only in his leadership, but also in the profound contributions he has made through his book.
He said the book was not merely an academic treatise, but offered practical lessons grounded in both global and local contexts, making it an essential resource for policymakers and stakeholders alike.
“As we gather to witness this public presentation of this book for policymakers, I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Shamsuddeen and his team for their immense efforts in shaping the narrative of governance in Nigeria. You have provided a light to generations in need of guidance and a compass to those charting the course of public service,” Shettima said.
He said the greatest wisdom in the sphere of policymaking lies in looking to predecessors and contemporaries as mirrors.
“Through their successes and setbacks, we can gain not only a nuanced understanding of the complexities of governance, but also insights into the value of that knowledge, accumulated over the years by individuals who have shaped governance as we know it today.
“I’m honoured to share with you all the joy of this day, the joy of revealing a profound book, and I congratulate each and every one of us here for the difference that we are making. We are all aware that public policy and agents’ interests represent indispensable components of governance. They are the dilemma we must accept in addressing the needs of our people and the greed of those who aspire to undermine us.
“Whether in education, health care, the economy or politics, this is the reality. This is so because the objectives of the individuals and institutions responsible for implementing these policies can sometimes divert from the broader public interest. When this occurs, the public good is undermined and the political progress of our nation is impeded.
“The consequences of allowing agent interests to conflict with public policies are regrettable and unacceptable. They can be destructive not only to our developmental goals, but also to our national security. This is why we must welcome the intent of books like this, which offer profound analysis of critical subjects, one that lies at the heart of national progress and public trust.
“Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, whether in the form of political interests, special interest groups, or bureaucratic interests, these agent-driven motivations represent tangible expressions of the political adage, who gets what, when, and how. When these interests manifest in corruption, misgovernance, or policy capture, they threaten the very foundation of national progress.
“Dealing with this agent interest so as to minimise their negative impact on policies that promote the public good requires the establishment and maintenance of transparent and accountable institutional frameworks. These frameworks must be designed to ensure open decision-making, strong oversight mechanism, and active citizen participation in the policy-making and implementation processes.
“Only in such an environment can we ensure that agent interests are aligned with the public interests, rather than working at cross purposes. Thankfully, under the leadership of His Excellency, President Bola Tinubu, this administration is taking significant steps to confront these challenges head on. We have embarked on institutional reforms aimed at promoting the public good and preventing policy capture by agent interests,” he said.
Chairman of Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote, said the issue of agent interest was not only focused on the public service.
Represented by Engr Mansur Ahmed, he said, “The public service agent is not working alone, never does. There is always a partner somewhere outside lurking in the background waiting for the public agent, if you like, who wants to divert policy intentions into personal interests.
“So I think in this regard, we need to look at not just the role of the public servant, but also those partners outside who help them. I think if we have been following the recent controversies about the Dangote refinery, you will clearly see that the public agency interest is not just working from within the public service alone.
“And that is why it is so critical that in analysing it, in trying to find solutions to how the agency interests affect our economy, we must also look beyond just the public service.”
Usman while speaking on the issue of budget padding and constituency projects, said lawmakers were not alone in the corrupt practice, but always worked with the executive.
He said: “If we don’t get the politics right, we won’t get anything right. I battled with the national assembly regarding budget padding and constituency budget. I remember during the 2008 budget after we got it back, we sat down and took out all the padding and constituency budgets and sent it back. That was the beginning of my trouble.
“Like someone said, it takes two to tango. For every constituency project, someone in the executive side is involved. Either a perm secretary or a Director is conniving. Many times, we blame lawmakers but there is collaboration with some people in the executive”
He expressed appreciation to all who made the book a success.
The book was reviewed by former Director-General, Bureau of Public Service Reforms, Dr Joe Abah.
The event was well attended by dignitaries which cut across various sectors in the country.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has called on all political actors and stakeholders to work towards deepening the nation’s democracy by prioritising peace and security in the Edo governorship election on Saturday.
Jonathan in a statement by his Media Adviser, Ikechukwu Eze in Abuja, urged politicians to pursue their interests within the confines of the law and refrain from activities that could undermine the peace and stability of the state.
“It is encouraging that civil rule has endured in the Fourth Republic for 25 years but we should remind our people that democracy loses its value when citizens cannot exercise their political choices in a free and fair atmosphere,” he said.
Jonathan also charged state institutions involved in managing the process of the election to maintain neutrality, to create a level-playing field and ensure free and fair election.
He said that the Edo election placed a moral burden on state agencies especially the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to rise to their constitutional responsibilities as independent arbiters in Nigeria democratic process.
“Security agencies must conduct themselves in optimal neutrality and desist from actions that could alter the setting for a level-playing field and compromise the credibility of the electoral process.
“On its part, the INEC must live up to expectations as an unbiased umpire and inspire confidence in all actors through a transparent voting process.
“There is no doubt that loss of confidence in an election encourages political disputes, social unrests, voter apathy, increased polarisation and other far-reaching consequences that could undermine development and democratic consolidation.
“For democracy to endure, our leadership recruitment process must be devoid of all forms of manipulation and state institutions have the obligation to guarantee peaceful, credible and transparent elections.
“That way, citizens will be able to elect leaders of their choice who they will entrust with the legitimacy to deliver good governance, peace and prosperity,” he said.(NAN)
Can a person who has taken the oath of office twice as president or governor (in acting and later substantive capacities) take it for a third time? Can a governor whose tenure was interrupted twice contest/be sworn in again? Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE’s deep dive into the constitutional provisions and court decisions, along with the views of legal giants, provides the answers.
Ahead of the 2023 presidential election, it was speculated that former President Goodluck Jonathan may join the fray.
But the question was: having taken the oath of office twice, could he have validly contested had he sought and obtained a party’s nomination? Can he run for President in 2027?
Former Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva finds himself in a similar situation. It will also apply to Ondo governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa should he win in November and wish to contest again after four years.
To address the question of whether a deputy governor or Vice President, who inherited the unexpired term of a dead, incapacitated or impeached governor or President can enjoy the right to two terms as allowed under sections 137(1)(b) and 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly altered the Constitution in 2018.
The amendment, now referred to as the Fourth Alteration Act, which became effective on June 7, 2018, included sub-section 3 to sections 137 and 182 as a disqualifying factor.
Section 137(3) provides: “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.”
Section 182(3) states: “A person, who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as Governor, shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”
The provisions ignited huge debates when it was rumoured in 2022 that Dr. Jonathan would contest the 2023 presidential election.
The legal community was divided with lawyers like Femi Falana (SAN), Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) and Dr. Reuben Atabo (SAN) arguing for and against the effect of the amendment to Jonathan’s legibility to further contest a presidential election.
While Falana and Akinseye-George were of the view that Jonathan could no longer contest any presidential election having completed the unexpired term of the late President Umar Yar’Adua and concluded another term in 2015, Ozekhome and Atabo argued otherwise.
Ozekhome and Atabo did not fault the amendment to the constitution. They contended that the new provisions could not be applied retrospectively to bar Jonathan, who entered his tenure before the law took effect.
What the court said in Jonathan’s case
The position held by Ozekhome, Atabo and others was upheld in a judgment rendered on May 27, 2022, by a Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
The judgment was given by Justice Isa Hamma Dashen on a suit, marked: FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022 filed by Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham (who claimed to be members of the APC). Defendants in the suit were Jonathan, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Solomon and Abraham had argued that by the provisions in Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the constitution, the former president was no longer eligible to vie for the office of the president because he had taken an oath to that office on two previous occasions.
Justice Dashen held, among others, that Section 137(3) of the constitution did not bar Jonathan from contesting the 2023 presidential election because the provision could not be applied retroactively.
The judge held that the oath taken by Jonathan on May 6, 2010, after the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, complied with a constitutional provision and not because he contested and won the election.
He noted that the 2007 general election produced the late Musa Yar’Adua as the President and not Jonathan, adding that Section 137(3) could not have a retroactive effect to stop him from contesting the 2023 presidential election.
The judge held that Section 137(3), which came into effect on June 7, 2018 “cannot apply retrospectively, except the Legislature, in clear terms, expressly stated their intention for it to be so.”
Justice Dashen noted that had Jonathan won his re-election bid in 2015, he would have been inaugurated as president without any legal impediment.
The judge said: “In my opinion, the position being propounded by the first defendant (Jonathan) that he is eligible to contest, is tenable.
“It is the duty of the plaintiffs to direct this court to where the Legislature stated that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the constitution are to apply.
“I, therefore, find the arguments of the first defendant, that he has only been elected into the office of President once in 2011, not only irresistible but established, and I so hold.
“In law, he who asserts must prove. I find that the plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law.
“I, therefore, find merit in the argument of the first defendant that the introduction of Section 137(3) to the constitution does not affect his right to contest for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 general elections.”
The judge added: “I declare that the provision of 137(3) of the constitution acquired the force of law with effect from 7th June 2018, and as such does not have retrospective application.”
Justice Dashen dismissed all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their originating summons dated 16 May 2022.
What the Court of Appeal said
The judge also referenced an earlier judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered on March 3, 2015, in an appeal by Cyriacus Njoku, who said he was a member of the PDP. The judgment resolved the question about Jonathan’s eligibility in the face of the provision of Section 137(1)(b) of the constitution.
Section 137(1)(b) provides that: “A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections.”
Njoku first filed the suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in 2012, with Jonathan, the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
Njoku contended among others that, having taken the oath of office twice as a president (2010 and 2011) Jonathan was barred by sections 135(2) and 137(1)(b) of the Constitution from contesting in 2015 for the post of president.
In a judgment on March 1, 2013, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi held in favour of Jonathan, a decision Njoku appealed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja in 2013.
He raised two issues for determination:
• Whether Section 135(2) of the Constitution which specifies a period of four years in office for the President is only available or applicable to a person elected on the basis of an actual election or includes one in which a person assumes the position of President by operation of law as in the case of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan.
• Whether Section 137(1) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections applies to the first defendant who first took an Oath of Office as substantive President on May 6, 2010, and took a second Oath of Office as President on May 29, 2011.
In its judgment on March 3, 2015, a five-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the oath Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the unexpired tenure of the late President Yar’Adua.
It further held that by virtue of Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan only took his first oath as a president in May 2011, adding that disqualification is through election, not oath-taking.
In the lead judgment, Justice Abubakar Yahaya held: ”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 the unexpired tenure of the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.
“Section 137(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 the process of choosing a person to occupy a position by voting.
“When election is given its literal meaning, it connotes when 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 Vice President 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 Section 130 (1)(2) of the 1999 Constitution…
“It was not the election that produced the first respondent (Jonathan) in May 2010. The oath he took then was not an oath of the 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 taken 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.”
The Sylva case
Other similar cases include those of Sylva and Aiyedatiwa.
While Sylva has been argued to have taken the oath of office as a governor twice, Aiyedatiwa has only done so once, with the possibility of a second time should he win the governorship election on November 16.
Sylva had contested and won the governorship election in Bayelsa State in 2007 as a candidate of the PDP.
His victory was, however, changed by Ebitimi Amgbare of the defunct Action Congress (AC) before the Bayelsa State Election Petitions Tribunal.
The tribunal upheld Sylva’s election, a decision Amgbare appealed before the Appeal Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment on April 15, 2008, set aside the tribunal’s decision and nullified Sylva’s election.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the then Speaker, Werinipre Seibarugo, be inaugurated to replace Sylva as acting Governor, pending when a new election would be held within 90 days.
When a new election was held on 24 May 2008, Sylva was again elected and was sworn in.
Sylva was, however, sacked on January 27, 2012, when the Supreme Court terminated his tenure along with other four governors – Ibrahim Idris of Kogi State, Aliyu Wammako of Sokoto State, Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State, Liyel Imoke of Cross River State.
What the Court of Appeal said in the Sylva case
In a judgment on October 31, 2023, the Court of Appeal in Abuja set aside the October 9, 2023 judgment given by Justice Donatus Okorowo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which had voided the nomination of Timipre Sylva as the candidate of the APC in the Bayelsa State governorship election scheduled for November 11, 2023.
Justice Okorowo’s judgment was on the suit by Demesuoyefa Kolomo, who claimed to be a registered voter and a member of the APC.
Kolomo sought Sylva’s disqualification on the grounds that he had been sworn in as governor in 2007 and 2008.
The plaintiff asked the court to determine “Whether having regard to the indisputable fact that Sylva occupied the office of governor of Bayelsa May 29, 2007, to April 15, 2008, and May 27, 2008, to January 27, 2012, he is qualified to contest and be elected to the office of governor of Bayelsa for another four years term in view of Section 180(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
Kolomo prayed the court to among others, declare that, by virtue of Section 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Sylva was not qualified to contest the election to the office of the Governor of Bayelsa on the APC platform or on any other political party’s platform in the election.
In his October 9 judgment, Justice Okorowo upheld Kolomo’s case. He held that Sylva, having been sworn in twice and served for five years as governor of Bayelsa, would breach the Constitution should he be allowed to contest again.
Justice Okorowo declared that Sylva was not qualified to contest the November election because if he won and was sworn in, he would spend more than eight years in office as governor.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Marwa vs Nyako, the judge held that the drafters of the constitution stated that nobody should be voted for as governor more than twice and that the parties to the suit agreed that Sylva had been voted into office two times.
Appeal Court speaks on Sylva
But, in its October 31, 2023 judgment on the appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/1061/2023 filed by Sylva, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court, Abuja lacked the jurisdiction to have heard and determined the case filed by Demesuoyefa Kolomo, who described himself as a registered voter and a member of the APC.
The court held that having not been an aspirant, who participated in APC’s governorship primary, Kolomo lacked the locus standi to approach the court to challenge the nomination of the party’s candidate.
In the judgment read by Justice Binta Zubairu, the court held that since Kolomo was not an aspirant and did not participate in the primary from which Sylva emerged as APC’s candidate, he cannot be clothed with the requisite locus standi as provided under sections 285(14) of the Constitution and 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022.
The court added that from the provision of the law, one must be an aspirant, who participated in a primary before he can challenge the conduct or outcome of the primary.
It found that Kolomo failed to establish he was an aspirant in the APC primary and, as such, clothed with the requisite locus standi to institute the action on which the judgment disqualifying Sylva was given.
She said: “Having held that the first respondent is not an aspirant, he lacked the locus standi to have instituted the matter under whatever guise before the lower court.
“Where a party lacked the locus standi to institute a case, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine it, Justice Zubairu said and proceeded to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja was without jurisdiction to have heard the case.”
She proceeded to set aside the Federal High Court judgment, allowed the appeal filed by Sylva and granted all the reliefs sought.
The court also awarded N1million cost in favour of Sylva.
The Court of Appeal, however, did not determine the question as to whether in view of the provisions of sections 180(2)(a) and 182(1)(b) Sylva was still eligible to contest the governorship election having been sworn into that office twice.
Sylva’s lawyer, Wale Balogun had, while arguing the appeal, faulted the decision of Justice Okorowo, to the effect the Sylva took oath of office twice as Governor of Bayelsa State.
Balogun said: “In 2007, he (Sylva) was elected the Governor of Bayelsa State, but within eight months, the Court of Appeal (which was then the final court for governorship election petition) sacked him.
“He contested again in 2008 and won. The eight months that he earlier spent in office was nullified, so he could not have said to have spent that with months because it was voided by the court,” Balogun said.
The sack of five governors
Then Governors Idris, Wammako, Nyako, Imoke and Sylva, who were elected in 2007, had their election nullified, but won re-election in 2008 had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja in 2010 seeking the elongation of their tenure.
They claimed that their tenure began to run from when they assumed office upon winning the rerun election. They had also contended, among others, that Section 180(2)(a) which came into effect in 2010 did not apply to them.
Section 180(2)(a) reads: “In the determination of the four-year term, where a re-run election has taken place and the person earlier sworn in wins the re-run election, the time spent in office before the date the election was annulled shall be taken into account.”
The cases were numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/246/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/648/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/650/2010, FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2010 and FHC/ABJ/CS/665/2010.
Justice Adamu Bello, in a judgment on February 24, 2011, held that the governors’ tenure would not expire until 2012.
He held that the tenure of the governors legally started in 2008 when they took fresh oaths of office and allegiance following the nullification of their April 14, 2007 elections by the courts.
The judge held that since the 2007 elections were nullified and set aside by competent courts, the oath of office and allegiance subscribed to by the five governors had all been nullified and set aside along with the elections.
Justice Bello held that in line with Section 180 of the Constitution, the tenure of the governors legally commenced in 2008 and not in 2007.
He added that the 2007 elections, on which INEC relied to determine the tenure of the governors did not exist in the eyes of the law, having been legally declared null and void by competent courts as nothing can stand on nothing.
He held that although section 180 of the 1999 Constitution was amended in 2010 by the National Assembly and signed into law by President Goodluck Jonathan, the amendment did not affect the five governors since their rerun elections were conducted in 2008.
Justice Bello held: “There is nowhere in the world where a constitution takes retroactive effect as erroneously held by INEC.
“The said amendment cannot be used to determine the tenure of the governors who took oath of office in 2008.”
He ordered INEC to put on hold the governorship election in the states and held that elections would only take place in the states in 2012.
He said: “INEC cannot validly conduct elections in the five states until 60 days to the expiration of the tenures of the present occupants.
“The notice of elections, received nominations, and timetable issued by INEC for the April 2011 elections are unlawful, illegal and contrary to Section 180 of the constitution.”
The Supreme Court’s decision
INEC appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal in Abuja and lost, prompting it to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment on January 27, 2012, set aside the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts and ordered the five governors to vacate office on the grounds that their tenure could not be extended beyond the four years allowed by the constitution.
In the lead judgment of a seven-member panel of the apex court, Justice Walter Onnoghen (as he then was) said: “From the language used in section 180 of the 1999 Constitution, it is very clear that the Constitution intended that a governor of a state shall have a tenure of four years from the date he took the Oaths of Allegiance and of Office and nothing more, though he may spend less where he dies, resigns or is even impeached. In all, a governor has a maximum tenure of eight years under the 1999 Constitution…
“I hold the considered view that since the acts performed during the period prior to the nullification of the election remain valid and subsisting and the same person contested and won the re-run election thereby taking another set of oaths and since what was nullified was the election, the oaths they took on May 29, 2007 remains valid.
“The starting point in calculating their four years tenure of office as governors of their respective states particularly as the 1999 Constitution does not envisage a tenure exceeding four years by the same person who took the first oaths following the election which kick-started the tenure.
“To accede to the argument of the respondents is to bring uncertainty into the clear provisions of section 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution which will render the tenure of governors indefinite as what it will take an elected governor whose election is nullified to remain in office almost indefinitely or for life is to continue to win the re-elections which would then be nullified to continue the cycle of impunity.
“I hold the considered view that to uphold the validity of the acts of the governors in office prior to the nullification of their election and reject the period they spent in office during which time they performed those acts in the determination of the period of their tenure is contrary to common sense and the clear intention of the framers of the constitution.
“The fact that there was an election in 2007 as a result of which the respondents (governors), took their Oaths of Allegiance and of Office, are facts which cannot be wished away, just as the acts they performed while occupying the seat.”
The Justice added: “It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended.
“It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states.
“To calculate the tenure of office of the governors from the date of their second Oaths of Allegiance and Office while ignoring the period from 29th May 2007, when they took the first oaths, is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the governors to occupy and act in that office which would be unconstitutional.
“It is, therefore, clear and I hereby hold that the second Oaths of allegiance and of Office taken in 2008, though necessary to enable them to continue to function in that office, were superfluous in the determination of the four-year tenure under section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution.
“In conclusion, I resolve the issue against the respondents. In allowing the appeals, which have been demonstrated, to be meritorious and set aside the judgments of the lower courts…”
The case of Aiyedatiwa
Governor Aiyedatiwa took his first oath of office on December 27, 2023, following the death of Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.
He has secured the ticket of the APC to contest the governorship election scheduled for November 16 in Ondo State.
If Aiyedatiwa wins and serves out the term, will he be eligible to run for the same office again given the provision of section 182(3)?
Lawyers’ perspectives
Lawyers, including Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), Otunba Tunde Falola and Babs Akinwumi are of the view that with provisions 180(2)(a) 182(3), Aiyedatiwa and others in a similar situation may be unable to stand for election twice.
Nwobike said: “In my view and following the provisions of sections 137(3) and 182(3) of the constitution of FRN (as altered), any person, who assumes office of the President or Governor of a state in Nigeria under the circumstances enumerated in those subsections cannot insist on the two terms of four years each as provided under sections 137(1)(b) and 182(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered).
“The right to two terms of four years each provided under sections 137(1)(b) and 182(1)(b) was qualified by the addition of subsections (3) in those sections.
“Although there appear to be some significant conflicts between the rights donated under subsections 1(b) of sections 137 and 182, those conflicts cannot dwarf the legislative objective and impetus of the amendments contained in subsections 3 of sections 137 and 182 respectively.
“Some constitutional scholars have argued that since the word elected was used in subsections 1(b) of sections 137 and 182, the circumstances enumerated in the subsequent amendments cannot be interpreted and applied in any manner as to take away the rights conferred under subsections 1(b) respectively.
“In my view, the correct interpretation of the constitution in other to give effect to the clear and intentional provisions of subsections 3 in the two sections should be imperative,” he said.
Nwobike said any person about to assume office of a governor or president under the circumstances contemplated in subsection 3 of sections 137 or 182 can decline the office if he or she intends to exercise the rights provided in subsections 1(b) of sections 137 and 182 respectively.
“In the end, once the right to assume office is exercised, the person becomes bound by the provisions of subsections 3 of sections 137 and 182 respectively. The Rule has always been not to have to eat your cake and still have it,” Nwobike said.
Kehinde shared Nwobike’s position and said given the provision in Section 182(3), Aiyedatiwa may not be able to contest any other governorship election after the coming one.
According to Falola, the sections are clear.
The Abuja-based lawyer said: “There has not been any judicial pronouncement in respect of sections 137(3) and 182(3) of the Constitution. However, the provisions of the sections are unambiguous.
“The provisions do not require external aid in interpreting them. In other words, the words used in those sections by themselves, declare the intentions of the draftsmen of the Constitution.
“The law is well settled in a plethora of cases that where the words used in an enactment are clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to it.
“In a clear term, the point being made here is that since the provisions of Sections 182(3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution are clear and unambiguous to the extent that a person who was sworn in as a governor or president as the case may be, to complete the term for which another person was elected as such, shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.
“There should be no other interpretation to be given to those provisions other than those express and unambiguous words.
“Therefore, once a person was sworn in as governor or President to complete the term for which another person was elected as the case may be, the person stands disqualified after the expiration of a single term in office excluding the tenure he completed.
“The law is also trite that if a statute covers a situation, it will be an impermissible exercise to go beyond the statutory and by extension, constitutional provision,” Falola said.
Akinwumi noted that the Fourth Alteration was meant to cure the specific ills of perpetuation in power by initial inheritance which could be up to four years in itself.
He cited Section 137(3), which states: “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.”
Akinwumi added: “That section(sub) uses ‘shall’. On several occasions, the courts have interpreted ‘shall’ to be mandatory (not as always anyway), but most times.
“Thus, an insistence in that direction would amount to an attempt to breach the constitution which the person has sworn to uphold.”
All politics is local, but certain peculiarities define political players as either prescient or improvident in their quest for political power. The ideals political leaders pursue define their place in history. Circumstances often dictate such ideals. But the circumspect weigh the options rationally before putting their first foot forward. This happens across all continents and political climes.
In Africa, many political leaders appear very addicted to the corridor of power. They are always reluctant to leave political office. It is because power is alluring. Only a few are motivated by patriotism, or the desire to offer selfless service. Most of them are merely interested in the pecks and afraid to be off the radar of privilege and relevance.
When they are forced out by circumstances beyond their control, either through a coup or legitimate election, which underscores their rejection by the people, they are still willing and eager to stage a comeback, thereby reclining themselves as other circumstances may permit.
For African politicians, retirement is never contemplated. The label of statesmen in advisory capacities is rejected as they scheme for active participation in national affairs through the ballot box.
They hide under the constitution which guarantees their fundamental human rights to aspire – like other citizens. But on many occasions, they are also desperate to circumvent the rules to pave the way for their return, even without justification.
As former leaders, they exert influence on the slippery political class, which they can toss around at will because of their stupendous wealth, and which also tosses them around, as the situation permits, because the former leaders and other political actors are “same of the same” and confederates in their hunt for power.
If Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, president of Nigeria between 2009 and 2015, is being contacted by some unidentified Northern elements to vie for the president, it is not new. He also has the inalienable right to contest. Ahead of last year’s poll, some faceless people attempted to fly the same kite before returning to their sheds after courage deserted them. After some days of noise-making in the media, their voices faded. They went into oblivion. Jonathan has neither acknowledged nor denied the aspiration.
It is the height of political kleptocracy for certain leaders to always see Aso Villa in Abuja, the seat of government, as their permanent home, when there is no evidence that they possess some superior ideas to back their inordinate ambitions.
The tenures of the two leaders – Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari – who successfully staged a comeback, were not inspiring, despite their touted soldering credentials and cumulative leadership experience spanning decades. There is no certainty that past leaders, who never bowed out of power in a blaze of glory, should be depended upon for salvation.
The disease crept into the body politic around the 1970s. War-time Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, who was expected to unfold a transition programme in October 1970, floundered. He told the anxious nation to wait for the handover in 1976. He was toppled in 1975 by his boys, led by the Communications Minister, General Muritala Mohammed, who succeeded him.
Curiously, Dr. Gowon, who spent nine years at Dodan Barracks in Lagos as Commandant-General, was overshadowed by covetousness in blissful retirement. Seventeen years later, he sought presidential nomination on the platform of the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) from his Kaduna base. Also, another former Military Head of State, General Obasanjo, was taken aback. “What did Jack forget in Dodan Barracks that he is going to take?” he queried. Gowon was stopped at the first stage of Option A4. The transition arrangement eventually hit the rock in 1993.
Also, after five years of power hijack, General Sani Abacha attempted to transmute from a maximum ruler to a civilian president. His military government was tension-soaked. Nigeria was in chaos. Nobody could predict the kind of doom awaiting the country, but it was clear that a huge crisis was looming. Suddenly, General Abacha died. It was the end of a national nightmare.
Ironically, Obasanjo, who later loomed large on Nigeria’s political stage as president between 1999 and 2007, succeeded where his former boss, Gowon, had failed. But after eight years, there were signposts of a sit-tight agenda which found expression in the inexplicable third term, a tenure extension project that sparked uproar and rage among Nigerians.
The Evil Genius, Military President Ibrahim Babangida, who bowed out of power in disgrace after his elongated transition programme crashed, sought the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential ticket ahead of 2007. The pact between him and Obasanjo on succession, if any, could not be ascertained. He failed because apart from the factor of Obasanjo, whose succession agenda was not immediately clear, the mood of the nation was totally against the prospect of the reemergence of the ‘Prince of the Niger.’
Many notorious soldier-politicians often delude themselves into thinking that Nigerians are enveloped by collective amnesia. In 2011, the residue of ‘June 12’ travellers were planning an onslaught when news filtered from Kaduna that Northern elders had chosen Atiku Abubakar, and not Babangida, as its anointed candidate. On that note, Babangida’s bid to return to power permanently collapsed. Whereas if Babangida had honoured his promise to hand over voluntarily thereby liquidating his self-acquired power, it would have been possible for him to return to power after Abiola’s presidency. The annulment will remain a permanent cross he has to carry for the rest of his life – and perhaps for as long as history will remember.
Unlike these leaders, shoeless Jonathan from a minority area of Otuoke in Bayelsa State came into the limelight from obscurity. Well-educated, gentle and peaceful, he was catapulted to stardom by fate. He was the opposite of his boisterous and pompous boss, Ijaw Governor General Diepreye Alamiyeseigha, whose larger-than-life image completely dwarfed the personality of the colourless yet affable deputy and spare tyre.
Without displaying an ambition for the driver’s seat, the position landed on his palm when his governor misbehaved.
After Obasanjo threw his weight behind Umaru Yar’Adua for president, he found Jonathan the most suitable candidate for the running mate. He did not know the good fortune that awaited him at the PDP Presidential Convention. In 2007, he became vice president.
Two years later, he became the acting president, through the Doctrine of Necessity, and later, president, following Yar’Adua’s death occasioned by a prolonged illness. After completing the residue of tenure, Jonathan, aided by the tutor, Obasanjo, beat Atiku Abubakar at the primary and defeated Nuhu Ribadu of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) during the 2011 election.
But instead of taking a bow and exiting the stage when the ovation was loudest in 2015, he insisted on his constitutional right to seek reelection so that he could be sworn in for the third time.
The decision showed that Jonathan was not a student of history, particularly the history of conventional zoning or power rotation, which underlined the strength of his party. The study of PDP antecedent revealed that any time zoning was jettisoned, the platform was engulfed in an intra-party conflagration.
Besides, Jonathan’s government had been rendered unpopular and weakened by consistent criticisms and war by the opposition, assisted by the media. His main rival in the then-ruling party – Atiku – said the former president was clueless. Other foes reechoed the dark side of an administration that had overstayed its welcome. Protesters occupied Lagos and Abuja to decry his policies and programmes. The zoning battle raged ahead of 2015 polls, and the critical North/Southwest alliance favoured rotation or power shift to the North with justification – to foster equity, fairness, and justice.
Although Jonathan viewed the struggle for power as purely political and constitutional, those with a sound knowledge of history perceived it as more of a moral issue. Tension arose between the constitution and party convention, which the former president, with the weight of office, flagrantly violated. The rest, as it is said, is history.
Jonathan displayed wisdom when he was ousted. He never contested the validity of the poll. Unlike Obasanjo, he did not allow anybody to tear his party membership card for him. But by personal design, he opted for a nominal role in the party that gave him privileges.
In a post-Jonathan era, the former president never built or nurtured a structure. At home, many of his supporters even teamed up with David Lyon of the All Progressives Congress (APC) against Douye Diri of the PDP in 2019. Neither has he been a reconciliator or rallying point in the party.
As Atiku and Nyesom Wike are locked in a supremacy battle ahead of PDP’s mini-convention, Jonathan is not yet in the picture. If some northern regional interests are said to be positioning him for 2027, which party is their best bet? It is illusory to ever think that Jonathan would obtain the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential ticket in 2027, even if he defects today.
Gone are the days when interested or entrenched regional voices hijacked party tickets and started chasing a former president and begging him to join the race with the assurance that he would pick the ticket.
From all indications, Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed’s subtle campaign for Jonathan does not represent the North’s position. He is demonstrating loyalty to his former boss who appointed him as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister while serving in the Senate. But his remark is significant.
As a PDP leader, he is conscious that in the spirit of fairness, equity, and justice, the South should still produce the next president.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan, Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, former Governor Seriake Dickson, and former Managing Director, Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) among others have arrived at Port Harcourt, Rivers State, for the Niger Delta Stakeholders Summit.
While Jonathan is the chairman of the occasion, Akpabio doubles as the chief host and representative of the special guest of honour, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has expressed optimism that the country will soon overcome the current socio-economic challenges facing the people.
Jonathan stated this in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State capital, yesterday, while formally declaring open the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Yenagoa Law Week 2024 with the theme: ‘The Legal Profession In A Time Of Socio-Economic Uncertainty’.
The ex-President, represented by a lawyer and first-class monarch in Bayelsa, King Collins Daniel, noted that the Federal Government is doing its best to salvage the situation.
He commended the Somina Johnbull-led NBA Yenagoa for organising the 2024 NBA Law Week 2024 for successful hosting of the event, saying the theme was not only apt but well-chosen in view of the present economic hardships in the country.
He said the topic presents an opportunity for a reflection on general governance issues and the need to address them urgently for the wellbeing of the citizenry.
Jonathan said: “May I also remind us that the present economic hardships ravaging this country is not limited to the legal profession as it pervades all professions and sectors, including the high and low.
“We therefore need collaborative efforts in finding solutions to it.
“Socio-economic uncertainty is not a new phenomenon in human race. After the First World War, the world also suffered from economic hardships as a result of economic depression which occurred about 1929/30. Nigeria was not also left out.
“Between 1984 and 1987 there were also economic challenges in Nigeria under the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babagida’s administration, which led the Federal Government to introduce an economic recovery programme called the Structural Adjustment Programme, codenamed SAP. The country experienced scarcity of essential commodities, and the citizens suffered severe hardship. God was with us and the country bounced back.
“Between 2016 and 2019 the whole world went through another economic recession.
Nigeria also had her own share of the hardship, but we were fortunate we were able to get out of the recession in a few years.”
Also speaking, the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Senator Heineken Lokpobiri, said whatever economic challenge Nigerians have in the country, it is not peculiar to Nigeria.
Lokpobiri said: “Whatever you see here is what happens everywhere in the world. As a government, President Bola Tinubu is doing whatever that is necessary to see how the country can support the most vulnerable people in the society. For any society to be good, there will be times like this for a very bold decision for the interest and prosperity of this country.
“If the president had not taken that decision the day he was sworn in, Nigeria would have been like Venezuela. The government means well and we are doing whatever that is necessary.
“The lawyers, like I said, have so many opportunities. Whatever happens here is not different from what happens in New York. For any lawyer to be successful, they must first be hard working, secondly, they must be honest. I want to assure the lawyers that there are so many opportunities that they haven’t explored and I gave a few of them. No lawyer that is hardworking will lack. We want them to hold on and keep the flag flying.”
On her own part, the Chief Judge of Bayelsa State, Justice Matilda Ayemieye, said the legal practitioners play a vital role in adapting to changes whether by drafting new legislation, challenging unjust law or interpreting the legal proceedings in court.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan has expressed optimism that Nigeria will soon overcome the current socio-economic challenges facing the people of this country.
Jonathan stated this in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State capital, on Friday, while formally declaring open the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Yenagoa Law Week 2024 with the theme: ‘The Legal Profession In A Time Of Socio-Economic Uncertainty’.
The ex-president represented by a first-class monarch in Bayelsa, King Collins Daniel, noted that the federal government is doing its best to salvage the situation.
He commended the Somina Johnbull-led NBA Yenagoa for organising the 2024 NBA Law Week 2024 for successful hosting of the event, saying the theme was not only apt but well chosen in view of the present economic hardships in the country.
He said the topic presents an opportunity for a reflection on general governance issues and the need to address them urgently for the wellbeing of the citizenry.
Jonathan said: “May I also remind us that the present economic hardships ravaging this country is not limited to the legal profession as it pervades all professions and sectors, including the high and low.
“We therefore, need collaborative efforts in finding solutions to it.
Socio-economic uncertainty is not a new phenomenon in human race. After the first World War, the world also suffered from economic hardships as a result of economic depression which occurred about 1929/30. Nigeria was not also left out.
“Between 1984 and 1987 there were also economic challenges in Nigeria under the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babagida’s administration, which led the Federal Government to introduce an economic recovery programme called the Structural Adiustment Programme, codenamed SAP. The country experienced scarcity of essential commodities, and the citizens suffered severe hardship. God was with us and the country bounced back.
“Between 2016 and 2019 the whole world went through another economic recession.
Nigeria also had her own share of the hardship, but we were fortunate we were able to get out of the recession in a few years.”
He said the legal profession has credible, intelligent men and women, noting that the ingenuity of the profession in advocating for the common good and better life for the underprivileged had been one of history.
He added: “One good thing about the profession is that it discusses current issues and create fora for intellectual engagements always.
“The galaxy of legal icons gathered here, is a positive development. This great meeting of minds by learned silks, judicial icons, jurists and other brilliant members of the bar will definitely set the tone for fruitful deliberations.
“Lessons learnt will serve useful purpose for policy formulation as well. I therefore, enjoin all participants at this conference to take advantage of the convivial atmosphere, to deliberate on the knotty issue of socio-economic uncertainty by proffering solutions that will lead to speedy economic recovery in our country. On this note, I hereby formally declare this conference open.”
Also speaking, the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Senator Heineken Lokpobiri, said whatever economic challenge Nigerians have in the country, it is not peculiar to Nigeria.
Lokpobiri said: “Whatever you see here is what happens everywhere in the world. As a government, President Bola Tinubu is doing whatever that is necessary to see how the country can support the most vulnerable people in the society. For any society to be good, there will be times like this for a very bold decision for the interest and prosperity of this country.
“If the president had not taken that decision the day he was sworn in, Nigeria would have been like Venezuela. The government means well and we are doing whatever that is necessary.
“The lawyers like I said there have so many opportunities. Whatever happens here is not different from what happens in New York. For any lawyer to be successful, they must first be hard working, secondly, they must be honest. I want to assure the lawyers that there are so many opportunities that they haven’t explored and I gave a few of them. No lawyer that is hardworking will lack. We want them to hold on and keep the flag flying.”
On her own part, the Chief Judge of Bayelsa State, Justice Matilda Ayemieye, said the legal practitioners play a vital role in adapting to changes whether by drafting new legislation, challenging unjust law or interpreting the legal proceedings in court.
She said lawyers serve as a cornerstone of stability, justice and governance during times of uncertainty by upholding the law and advocating for fairness.
She said: “Legal practitioners play an importing role in safeguarding the interest and individual rights in troubling times. The relationship between the bar and the bench has been cordial in the state.”
In his welcome address, the NBA Yenagoa Chairman, Somina Johnbull, thanked all the dignitaries that graced the event.
He said with the panelists, jurists, judges, politicians and other important personalities present, the lawyers would learn a lot of lessons from their well of knowledge and experience.
Former president of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, has said that good leaders must have vision for development and empowerment of the residents.
He spoke yesterday at the inauguration of the facelifted Edo state government Secretariat Complex on Sapele Road, Benin.
The former President said: “When I read in the newspapers that he (Obaseki) is going to be paying N70,000 as the minimum wage in Edo State, I was worried. I hope he can pay it.
“To be a leader, especially a political leader, you want to be a local government chairman, governor of a state or president of a country, you must be somebody who has vision, and not just I want to be this or that, and when you get to office, you do not know what to do with the office.
“If you have vision, no matter the challenges, you must find a way to do what you need to do, and that is why you were elected.”
Jonathan also berated some Nigerian governors who were encouraging criminals, because of election, instead of emulating Edo Governor, Godwin Obaseki, who is promoting and encouraging the best brains, through his administration’s automatic employment of First-Class graduates of the Edo origin from any of the country’s universities.
He reiterated that Obaseki’s government’s automatic employment slots cut across political divides, while urging other Nigerian governors to emulate the “wake-and-see” Edo governor.
Ex-president Jonathan said: “The young First-Class graduates that you (Obaseki) employed, I thank you. If you go to some states of Nigeria, governors are busy encouraging criminals, because of politics, people that will rig elections for them, carry ballot boxes, carry knives and cutlasses to pursue people, but you are encouraging the best brains.
“The brains do not come from one political party. The brains come from all political parties. The brains come from those who are supporting all candidates. So, you are not supporting these brains, because you want to win election, but because you want to build a state. For you to build a state, you have to build the people.
“Let me also join the civil servants in Edo State to thank you in improving their welfare. Before this time, civil servants have been going home with salaries that could not take them home. Now, you are paying them salaries that can take them home.”
A former Chief of Staff to ex-president Jonathan, Chief Mike Ogiedomhe, who hails from Edo state, while lauding the achievements of Obaseki, prayed that God would give his successor the ability and capability to build on his legacies.
Obaseki, in his address, disclosed that Edo secretariat complex in Benin was the first place he visited, shortly after he assumed office as the governor, and it was in a very sorry state.
Edo Head of Service, Anthony Okungbowa, while also speaking, noted that Obaseki was revolutionising and digitalising the state’s civil service, and provided a conducive environment for the state’s workers to be effective in their day-to-day assignments.
