The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Party supremacy

When party supremacy encounters ego

The important point to stress here is that our Constitution clearly makes a Registered Political Party the cornerstone of the activities of all the members of that Party, including those of them in the Legislature and the Executive, as well as those of them operating outside these two organs of Government. Indeed, the Registered Political Party is the sole source from which candidates for election, and elected members of the Legislature and Executive, derive their lifeblood for acceptability, public status and legitimacy. Any elected member or group of elected members of a Political Party who refuse to toe the Party line–that is, choose to break their link with the Party source–must, of a necessity, either quickly affiliate with another Political Party for a link to another Party source, or be doomed to political dehydration or anemia…..the Registered Political Party is supreme, and absolutely decisive in the conduct of our public affairs.”

Chief Obafemi Awolowo, “On the Supremacy of the Party over its Members” From the address delivered to the Oyo State Conference of the Unity Party of Nigeria on Saturday, 8th November 1980 reprinted in Voice of Courage, Selected Speeches of Chief Obafemi Awolowo Vol. 2 Akure: Fagbamigbe Publishers 1981.

“A political party as “an organized group of people who exercise their legal right to identify with a set of similar political aims and opinions, and one that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.”

ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

If we work with the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network’s definition for political party, then it is reasonable to identify with the sentiment expressed in Chief Awolowo’s position in the above quoted statement. If the defining mark of a political party is the identification of its members with similar political aims and opinions about governance, and if, based on this common identification, the party nominates and supports candidates for election, then the party has a superior moral authority over its members, especially those elected through its sponsorship, to hold them accountable for the promotion of those aims and opinions that bind them together.

Ideally, then, the criteria for registering for membership of a political party is the acceptance of the aims and opinions which the party espouses and commits to promoting and implementing if given the mandate by the electorate.

In the quoted passage, Chief Awolowo recognizes the inevitability of conflict between the institutions of governance over the best approach to promoting and implementing the aims and opinions of the party once it assumes power. At every level, between the executive and the legislature, conflict is real. But by the same token, resolution of any conflict is assured if the supremacy of the party is accepted. So, the sage expressed a great confidence in the smooth working of the political system provided the supremacy of the party is respected.

Of course, as we know, the reality of our political experience has been quite different from the ideal which Chief Awolowo endorsed in 1980. We should note also, however, that, for Chief Awolowo, his 1980 position has always motivated his approach to party politics since 1951. It was certainly his position in 1962 at the inception of the Action Group (AG) crisis. But that crisis was a forceful test of the viability of the principle of party supremacy in a liberal democracy in which other external actors and institutions are key players. In that context, the principle failed the test of operability. AG collapsed.

Fast forward to 1983, three years after the delivery of Awo’s address to the Oyo State Conference of the UPN. The conflict was not between the executive and the legislature. All stakeholders accepted in good faith the four cardinal principles of UPN. Rather, it was a conflict of personality and personal ambition. In Oyo State, it was between the governor and a member of his executive. In Ondo State, it was between the governor and his deputy.

With associates taking side, the conflicts soon engulfed the ruling party in the LOOBO states and gave room for the NPN to infiltrate and take over at least three of the states. Again, the supremacy of the party was put to the test of practicality and it failed.

It is common knowledge that Alliance for Democracy (AD) was registered as a political party as an appeasement of the Southwest, specifically the Afenifere wing of NADECO, in 1998. Interestingly, the party suffered the fate of AG and UPN, again due to competing ambitions which the ideal of party supremacy was not able to resolve. The original feud soon morphed into a bigger one anchored on the collapsing of the separate identities of Afenifere as a socio-cultural organization and AD as a political party.

ACN grew out of the ashes of AD buoyed by a principal actor with a mission to break boundaries and seek allegiances to advance the ideals of liberal democracy and promote the welfare of the populace. Not a bad motivation. Meanwhile, this motivation could not have come at a more opportune time. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which had ruled the country since 1999 was collapsing under the weight of the combined burden of executive malaise, party paralysis, and disparate interests and ambitions.

The challenge for ACN leadership was to find allies with sufficient interest in its ideal of breaking boundaries and promoting welfare liberalism to form a formidable political party that could also win national elections. This effort required a good understanding of two realities. First, politics is a game of numbers and therefore the more the merrier. But second, while understanding the importance of numbers, it is also important to recognize the significance of commonality of interests and unity of purpose.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the attraction of the need for numbers may have outweighed consideration of commonality of interests and unity of purpose. APC was formed with the merger of ACN, CPC, ANPP, and a faction of APGA. Shortly after its formation, it received with open hands, members of New PDP, governors and National Assembly members, who battled PDP, the ruling party, to a standstill. In the national elections of 2015, PDP succumbed to the newly formed APC, which won the presidency, the National Assembly, and many state houses and executive mansions.

However, APC had hardly assumed its new status as ruling party when crisis broke out, again due to ambition which had no respect for the principle of party supremacy. But this time, the ambitious individuals who challenged the party didn’t have to worry because the party did not raise a finger. With the president as the leader of the party folding his arms and implying that he can work with anyone, those individuals who breached party protocol had a field day. They consolidated their power against a humiliated leadership. Before the party woke up from slumber, its political dam had been breached. The spate of defections is the natural extension.

Chief Awolowo made an important observation in the address from which I quoted above. Our constitution provides for Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy which require that our governing institutions must focus on the identified principles and policies for the advancement of the welfare of the citizens.

These principles and objectives are to be promoted by any party in power at any level of government from local to national. This means two things. First, while the political parties may have their ideological foundations, these cannot conflict with the fundamental objectives enshrined in the constitution. Second, no matter which political party an individual lawmaker or executive aligns with, citizens must require them to, at the minimum, implement the constitutional mandates enshrined in the Fundamental Objectives.

If the above is true, then citizens need not worry where any defectors decide to seek his or her electoral fortune. Of course, the chameleonic character of defectors will hunt them at every point. But if they are not perturbed about moral integrity, nothing anyone can do. What we can do, however, is to hold them responsible and accountable for the discharge of the obligations of governance as enshrined in the Constitution.

August 3, 2018
Tinubu: party supremacy for its sake is nothing

To All Progressives Congress (APC) stalwart, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the essence of any party is to serve the people. The APC, he noted, has been doing that in the last three years. In his remark as the Special Guest of Honour at the 35th Annual Aminu Kano Memorial Symposium in Kano, Tinubu, said President Muhammadu Buhari has “spent tangible time clearing the mess institutionalised by past administrations as a national policy”. He was represented at the symposium entitled: “Democratic governance and the imperatives of party ideology and supremacy”, by Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi.

ACCOLADES and commendations are due the organisers of this event, the Aminu Kano Center for Democratic Research and Training. By extension to Bayero University, Kano, for having the vision and social commitment for having such a center that adds to the public discourse on the important issues that shape our nation.

This 35th Annual Aminu Kano Memorial Symposium and its theme: “Democratic governance and the imperatives of party ideology and supremacy” are indeed timely.

The two speakers today are among Nigeria’s finest thinkers regarding the issues at hand. Their addresses will be fertile ones giving us much to think about and much to do.

I am honoured simply to be invited to such an important event, let alone to be told that I am the Special Guest of Honour.

Our nation resides in a period of historic transition. We struggle to give birth to a better Nigeria. This also means we struggle to eject the malpractices of the past. That which is good contests against that which is not.

This contest has a high moral content and it is here that we turn to Aminu Kano for inspiration. For it is here that Aminu Kano set the path we must follow.

This great man could have lived an easy life by exploiting for selfish objectives all the opportunities opened to a man of his great abilities and social station.

Instead, he devoted himself to the welfare of the people. He took the harder path because it was the true and correct one.

As Aminu Kano did, we must do!

The spirit of this great man must guide more than our deliberations here today. That spirit must direct our political intercourse and actions.

If we do so, we shall come to the realisation that democratic governance is more than going through the motions of mimicking certain processes and functions that have been deemed to connote democracy.

We must come to a better understanding of the moral and social principles that underlie these processes and functions. The existence of parties and of elections does not of itself mean democracy is present. For form without substance is but an empty box, a hollow gift, not worth the giving.

Democratic governance must not only stick to proper form, it must bear proper fruits.

It must work for the betterment of the people and give them the chance to realise the best of their individual and collective aspirations in an atmosphere of peace, justice, and fair enterprise.

To me, this is what sets apart the current administration from prior governments of that other party.

The APC (All Progressives Congress) government may, at times be, imperfect in fulfilling the spirit of Aminu Kano, but, we are far from the PDP (Peoples Democratic Party), which has perfected the malign craft of giving selfish ambition primacy over the public good.

Consequently, the President Muhammadu-led Buhari government has spent inordinate time cleaning the rot and plugging the holes in the corrupt system the others had institutionalised as their strategic policy and national direction.

The APC has been working to steer our national ship from this awful direction in order that we may bring the people and their welfare into safe harbour.

Had the billions of dollars and trillions of naira that were stolen by past governments been used for the people, the nation would have been able to acquire the infrastructure and implement the programmes that bring greater development and economic justice to all.

Instead, the select few ate more than their bellies could contain. Distorting the cause of justice and hijacking the means of national welfare, they wildly enriched themselves and left the average Nigerian to dine on the passing wind.

Due to the drop in oil prices, this administration has had less money than those, which preceded it. However, it has done more with less.

The government has launched school feeding and stipend programmes for the poorest among us. These programmes have enabled millions to eat at least, one solid meal a day and for countless children to attend to their education instead of allowing the world to pass them by at an early age.

The programmes have also increased local economic activity by boosting consumer demand.

These things were done with the welfare of the people in mind.

When someone can do for you in three years what another did not even try in sixteen, any person with an open eye can see the difference between giver and taker, between friend and thief.

Of course, more needs to be done. I envision a time of even bolder action that modernises national infrastructure; implements an industrial plan that revives the textile sector and builds new industries; agricultural reform that provides farmers minimum incomes and greater access to credit; mortgage reform that opens the door to affordable housing for millions of families; pension reform that insulates our aged from poverty; and an expansion of the school feeding into every state and local government.

With regard to ‘Party ideology and supremacy’, let me state that ideology and principle must hold supremacy over supremacy.

I think Mallam Aminu Kano would have said the same thing in this regard.

Calling for party supremacy by and for its own sake is nothing but an invitation for people to install and then perpetuate themselves in positions of authority in the party. They will arrogate power so that they come to dictate to the rest of the party instead of serving the collective will of party members.

Recent events in our party confirm this observation. Party discipline is vital but even more vital is adherence to humane and democratic ideals and principles.

With such principles, a party exercises internal democracy, which better enables it to govern democratically.

Without such adherence, a party becomes a vehicle to lord over its members, instead of a tool to empower its members to realise good and beneficial aims.

We must always remember that the political party is meant to serve the people and not the people to serve the party.

I dare not steal more time as you have come not to listen to me but to our designated speakers and their wisdom.

Again, I thank you for honouring me with this invitation and I look forward to a robust and enlightening symposium today.

April 18, 2018
Party supremacy and personal integrity

Liberal democracy, our system of politics, combines two of the ideals of the modern world. The first is the freedom of the individual to determine the kind of life that he or she wants to live without societal, religious, or traditional encumbrance. The second is democracy.

The foremost apostle of individual freedom was John Stuart Mill. Its primary creed is encased between the covers of On Liberty:

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…. the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his (or her) will, is to prevent harm to others. His (her) own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant.”

Our national fight against Boko Haram is predicated on this powerful doctrine, whether we acknowledge it or not. That evil sect is bent on causing harm to others. And it is doing so on account of its warped logic of saving people from themselves, based on its understanding of religious obligation. For Mill, that is an unjustifiable infraction of individual freedom. Therefore, society has a good reason to intervene on behalf of innocent victims.

Democracy is the second ideal in the liberal-democracy juxtaposition. Democracy is essential to the extent that a thoroughgoing pursuit of the ideal of freedom might lead to the unintended consequence of anarchism. Indeed, as Robert Paul Wolf has argued, anarchism would be the only justifiable social state compatible with absolute freedom. However, anarchism is counter-productive in view of our knowledge of human nature. Therefore, there is need for a second best, a political state in which individual freedom is reconciled with political obligation to a political community based on the voluntary renunciation of absolute freedom by the individual.

The prudential and moral justification of the renunciation of unenforceable absolute freedom in favour of guaranteed limited freedom is a no-brainer. It is better to accept such a limitation as long as others are also committed to it. Where absolute freedom is the deal and it cannot be guaranteed for anyone, no one is really free.

Assume then that limited freedom is acceptable to all; the next question is how do we organise society to effectively realise the beneficial outcome? We could go with monarchy, or military dictatorship, or feudal authority. None of these structures has the potential to maximise individual freedom because each is an instrument in the hands of one or a few.

Democracy is the only political structure that is inclusive of all. It guarantees that every individual of mature age has a say in how he or she is governed and in the amount of limitation that is placed on individual freedom. While liberalism is a social ideal that favours individual freedom, democracy is the structure that ensures the effective protection of this ideal to the extent that it is possible in a political setting. In the enduring sentiment of one of its foremost modern architects, democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

That Lincolnian definition is, however, only half true. For we know that in a modern democracy, not everyone participates in government. What was possible in ancient Athens is not possible in 21st century Nigeria. Therefore we have to improvise with Representative Democracy, so that we approximate the ideal of government of the people by the people and for the people.

An essential institution in this improvisation is the political party. Whereas in a city state there is no need for a bridge between the people and the state, in a modern behemoth that approaches the stature of a Leviathan, a go-between is essential. This is the role that a political party assumes in a modern liberal democracy such as we practise.

It is not a coincidence that our constitution recognises this important, indeed, indispensable role of the political party in our political system and prescribes that the party constitution and ideals must be in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of the State. In other words, the political party is the institution that the constitution recognises as the agency to monitor and ensure the effective implementation of those principles and policies through its control over the executive and the legislature.

What the foregoing means is that if the political party performs its oversight functions effectively, the legislature and the executive would move the nation forward in the matter of implementing the constitutionally mandated fundamental objectives and directive principles of state. The corollary is simply that if it fails in these oversight functions, the nation may fail to move forward on those principles and objectives, especially where the executive and the legislature pursue disparate agenda.

It is for the foregoing reason that one of the most constitution-conscious and politically savvy national leaders of all time insisted on the doctrine of party supremacy. In an address to the Oyo State Conference of the Unity Party of Nigeria in 1980, Chief Obafemi Awolowo made the following remarks:

“…our Constitution clearly makes a Registered Political Party the cornerstone of the activities of all the members of that Party, including those of them in the Legislature and the Executive, as well as those of them operating outside these two organs of Government….Any elected member or group of elected members of a Political Party who refuse to toe the Party line—that is, choose to break their link with the Party source—must, of necessity, either quickly affiliate with another Political Party for a link with another Party source, or be doomed to political dehydration or anaemia. In other words, by express provisions as well as necessary implications in the Constitution, the Registered Political Party is supreme and absolutely decisive in the conduct of our public affairs.”

As an outstanding achiever in the realm of constitutionalism, Chief Awolowo approached the matter from that perspective. As a moral leader of no mean repute, he could also have approached it from the perspective of ethics and morality.

There is a moral tie that binds a member of the executive or legislature to the source of his or her election into the legislature or the executive branch. That tie demands an obligation of fidelity to the ideals, programmes and policies of the sponsoring party. In particular, because the party is the link between the electorate and the government, it is morally imperative for the individuals so elected to avoid anything that might break that link or sour the relationship between the party and the electorate. In the recent past, we have seen how the break in such a link adversely impacted the fortunes of the party in subsequent elections.

Where does the foregoing observation on the supremacy of the party leave the integrity of the individual? Can personal integrity be reconciled with party supremacy?

The answer to this fundamental question is fairly simple. Since no one is forced to join a particular party, the choice to associate with a political party is voluntary. Being a voluntary decision, one expects that it is taken with due consideration for the ideals that the particular political party endorses and the programmes it plans to implement. To the extent that this is the case, then it is reasonable to assume that an individual makes the decision to join such a party because there is correspondence between his or her ideals and those of the party in question.

If personal and party ideals coincide, then the individual’s integrity is intact. On the other hand, if the implementation of the ideals subscribed to by the individual and the party poses a threat to the perceived interest of an individual, it is the personal interest of the individual that is at stake, not the individual’s integrity. Since this conflict of interest is always a possibility, personal integrity recommends personal sacrifice in the larger interest of the party ideal. This is where our democratic journey must lead us. Obviously, we are still far away from that desirable destination.

October 23, 2015
Apc: Between people’s soverignty and party supremacy

Key leaders of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) continue to be understandably elated and pleased at the internal turmoil that remains the lot of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) following the unexpected outcome of the National Assembly leadership election of June 9. Despite the party’s numerical majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, the APC leadership failed to get its preferred candidates for Senate Presidency and Speakership of the House, Senator Ahmad Lawan and Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, respectively, elected. Rather, those who lost out in the APC internal mock election process for picking candidates for the positions, Senator Bukola Saraki and Honourable Yakubu Dogara, triumphed on the floor of both chambers with the support of the PDP leadership and legislators who naturally and eagerly seized the opportunity to humiliate an APC leadership that had engineered their party’s devastating defeat in the March 22 and April 12 national and state elections.

To worsen matters, not only did the PDP’s Ike Ekweramadu emerge as Deputy Senate President through the connivance of a minority of APC dissident senators, a situation utterly unimaginable under the PDP, the rebel Saraki and Dogara factions continue to resist the party’s position on filling other principal offices of the National Assembly. This is a key reason for the APC federal government’s incapacitation to take off full blast a month after formally assuming power. Ironically, however, the APC’s initial setback in this regard is also an indication of how Nigeria is slowly but surely changing in a positive direction in the emergent President Muhammadu Buhari dispensation.

Under the Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan administrations, the PDP was completely subsumed under the presidency. Both men exercised maximum control as the undisputed leaders of the party. The party was only another parastatal of government at the beck and call of the presidency. The President’s word and will was law in the party. Party leaders were elected and removed at the president’s pleasure. Intra party democracy was an illusion. Yes, Honourable Aminu Tambuwal, with the support of the then opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) emerged as Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2011 against the choice of his party.

Although the PDP hierarchy was irritated by this development, it tolerated the situation because Tambuwal and other principal officers of the House remained PDP members. However, when Tambuwal as Speaker decided to bite the bullet and formally joined the APC, the PDP bared its fangs. The party immediately sought an ultimately abortive judicial decision to oust the Speaker from the office. Tambuwal’s security details were withdrawn. In an incident with no historical precedence, the police tear gassed the National Assembly in another futile effort to prevent him from presiding as Speaker on the chamber’s resumption from recess. It was clearly the imminence at the time of the last election that saved Tambuwal.

A fresh wind of change is blowing under Buhari. The president is not flaunting his position as leader of the APC by virtue of being number one citizen of the country. By declaring at his inauguration that he is for everybody and not for anybody, he signalled his determination to elevate his presidency above party partisanship. Buhari is President of those who voted for him, those who voted against him and those who chose not to vote at all. This stance enhances the dignity and credibility of his presidency. Does this mean he must not have a firm position on issues and a specific and clear sense of direction? That is certainly not the case. He has a decisive mandate from a majority of the Nigerian electorate to fulfil an agenda presented to the people on the platform of his party. It is his responsibility to pursue this agenda decisively without fear or favour.

Does Buhari’s elevating his presidency above partisanship mean that he should be indifferent to and disinterested in matters of his party including those who hold key positions such as the principal officers of a National Assembly in which his party enjoys a clear numerical majority? Again this cannot be the case. It is neither practicable nor desirable. The APC leadership, in my view, could not have formally backed candidates for these offices without reading the president’s body language and enjoying his tacit support. Unlike the vulgar style of the Obasanjo and Jonathan PDP presidencies, Buhari obviously deliberately chose to be subtle and unobtrusive in his approach to the National Assembly leadership elections to protect the twin doctrines of separation of powers and party supremacy.

The blunt truth is that given the immense powers and resources at the disposal of the Nigerian presidency, Buhari could easily have imposed his preferred candidates on the party and would also readily have had his way in the National Assembly. With the security agencies, the anti- corruption outfits and the country’s treasury all at his disposal, even a sizable number of PDP legislators could have been coerced, cajoled or bribed to do the President’s bidding. It is significant that Buhari has chosen a different path. He has opted to be a ‘President of precedents’ in terms of integrity and respect for systems, structures and processes. It is obvious that the likes of Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara, in deciding to so brazenly violate their party’s position, have mistaken Buhari’s restrained, dignified and cultured presidential style as a sign of weakness. Beneath his unassuming exterior, however, those who think this way may ultimately discover that Buhari remains a shrewd military tactician who you can take for granted only at your peril.

In defending his action, the Speaker, Honourable Yakubu Dogara, has reportedly made the interesting argument that the sovereignty of the people supersedes party supremacy. Yes, in a democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people. Government derives its mandate from their expressed will at the polls. But then, the people do not govern themselves directly as in the ancient Greek City states. They do so through elected representatives in both the legislative and executive arms of government. Again, however, these elected representatives are not elected on their personal recognition as individuals. The constitution as at today has no place for independent candidates. Rather, public office holders can only be elected on the platform of registered political parties, which are the only constitutionally recognised organs for the expression of popular sovereignty. It is thus those who violate the tenets of party supremacy that impugn the sovereignty of the people.

The late Chief Obafemi Awolowo made this point with characteristic pungency on Saturday, 8th November, 1980, with reference to the 1979 constitution, which hardly differs from our current 1999 constitution. Whatever may have occurred in the past, we can only begin to strengthen our democracy as we urgently begin to adhere to the sage’s admonition. Permit me to conclude by quoting him at some length: “Members of the Legislature and the Chief Executive of any Government are, in the first place, candidates of the Registered Political Parties and, in the second place, in the case of those elected into the legislature, enjoined by the constitution, under pain of severe sanction, to remain loyal to the registered party which sponsored their election… Indeed, the Registered Political Party is the sole source from which candidates for election and elected members of the Legislature and Executive derive their life-blood for acceptability, public status, and legitimacy. Any elected party member or group of elected members of a Political Party who refuse to toe the party line – that is choose to break their link with the party source – must, of necessity, either quickly affiliate with another Political Party for a link with another party source, or be doomed to political dehydration or anaemia. In other words, by express provisions as well as necessary implications in the Constitution, the Registered Political Party is supreme and absolutely decisive in the conduct of our public affairs”.

July 11, 2015
Lasun Yusuf: Between party supremacy and defiance

HON. YUSUF Sulaiman-Lasun represents Irepodun/Olorunda/Orolu/Osogbo Federal Constituency of Osun State in the House of Representatives. He was elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC). He emerged the Deputy Speaker in an election on June 9, 2015. Lasun polled 203 votes to beat his rival, Hon. Mohammed Tahir Monguno, also a member of the APC from Borno, who scored 153 votes.

Lasun was a member of the 7th Assembly (2011-2015) also on APC platform. He was the deputy chairman of the House Committee on Water Resources. The hitherto little known politician from Osun State came to the limelight when he joined the race for the Speakership two weeks to the inauguration of the Assembly. Many believed he was out to play the role of a“spoiler” because his aspiration was not in tune with the South West APC’s resolve to present the former Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila as sole candidate. Lasun’s move became suspect when he held meetings with Hon. Yakubu Dogara from Bauchi State. He later stepped down for Dogora who eventually emerged as Speaker. The intrigue finally played out when Lasun was nominated for the post of Deputy Speaker by the “Eighth Assembly Consolidation Group” loyal to Dogara.

Analysts say the election of Lasun was to balance the equation and to give room for federal character principle. But his acceptance to be Deputy Speaker has drawn the flak of the APC leaders in his constituency and in Osun State. The general impression is that Lasun betrayed the party for forging alliance with Dogara, the opponent of Gbajabiamila who was positioned for the covet position by the South West APC.

In one its reactions to the election of Lasun as Deputy Speaker, the APC (Aiyedire/Iwo/Ola-Oluwa Federal Constituency) said: “The acceptance of the position of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives by Honourable Lasun Yusuff was a complete betrayal of, and disloyalty to the party as well as a negation of the directive of the party on this sensitive issue”.

The statement signed by the chairman, Hon. Johnson Opakanmi, and secretary, Pade Olaniregun, reads in part: “That Honourable Lasun Yusuff by this action allowed his personal interest and inordinate ambition to becloud his sense of loyalty to, and interest in overall development and stability of the party that nurtured him and on whose platform he was elected. That his action negates the principle of the supremacy of the party for which All Progressives Congress (APC) is known. That we out rightly condemn and dissociate ourselves from this ignoble action in its entirety. That we urge party members to put the ugly events behind them and continue to stick to the path of loyalty, discipline, cohesion, stability and progress for which our party is known”.

Defending his integrity, Lasun told his critics that his loyalty to the party and the Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, was not in doubt. He recalled the role he played during the struggle to restore the mandate of Aregbesola between 2007 and 2010.

A statement signed by a group Truth and Justice that is saddled with the responsibility of protecting the image of the Deputy Speaker claims that the critics “can attest to the verifiable contributions of Rt. Hon. Lasun Yusuff to the struggle to restore the mandate of Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, and even beyond his constituency, spread across the State of Osun, Hon. Sulaiman Lasun Yusuf is an avid supporter of the governor, and also the party through the evolutionary path from the Action Congress through the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) till date.”

The statement signed by the Coalition’s Coordinator, Adeyemi Olakunle, said: “Contrary to the insinuation that the Deputy Speaker was driven by personal interest , inordinate ambition that beclouded his loyalty, he was elected in 2011 on the platform of ACN which transformed into APC in 2011 and won”. Based on satisfactory performance and effective representation, he was drafted by the people of his constituency to represent them for the second term, and he won. So at what point did he manifest inordinate ambition; or did he manifest disloyalty? The coalition asked.

It asked further: “How has the emergence of Lasun Yusuff compromised or jeopardised or affected the fortune of the APC and the collective interest and well being of our people in the federal constituency or the state and the Yoruba race. What injury is suffered by the party at any of the levels from ward to state?”

A party stalwart has described Lasun’s defence as post-mortem thinking. He said his defiance of the party’s decision, particularly in the South West zone was an act of treachery. He said: “The party zoned the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the South West and the zone anointed the former Minority Leader Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila for the office given his brilliant performance as Minority Leader. But Lasun came out to challenge the decision of the party by offering to contest the Office of Speaker. He stepped down and struck a deal with the Dogara group that ‘robbed’ the South West of the Speakership.

“Lasun may not realise the implication of what he did now but it will certainly affect his political career in future. His loyalty to the party is questionable. It is true that he was close to Governor Aregbesola. In fact it was the governor’s intervention that won him the party’s ticket for second term. The people in his constituency had wanted to drop him for lack of effective representation but for the governor’s grace, he was returned to the House. All his four years in the House, he didn’t sponsor a motion let alone a bill.

“Since he was elected Deputy Speaker, has the governor granted him audience? Have you seen the people of Osun celebrating? No, because in the State of Omoluwabi, (Upright people) we don’t betray people. We stand by the collective decision of our people. It is unfortunate that Lasun has brought us to this level among other Yoruba states.”

But Lasun believes his position as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives will further add value, complement the efforts to turn around the fortunes of the state by Governor Aregbesola, “thereby helping to make life better for our teeming people across the length and breadth of the state.”

The APC leader challenged Lasun to mention what he achieved in four years when he was the deputy chairman of the House Committee on Water Resources. How many communities in his constituency benefitted from the Federal Government’s water project? It was now that he realised that he knew the importance of water in human life when he told a delegation that went to congratulate him over his election that the Federal Government should look critically at into the issue of lack of drinkable water for the sizeable number of the populace.

Lasun was quoted saying: “One of the major problems we have in the country is that there is water everywhere but no water to drink. We take this sector lightly. We have not come to terms with the fact that to turn water to a drinkable level costs a lot. People at the top have not appreciated that there is the need to spend money on water.” Why has he just realised this? The party leader was of the view that the Deputy Speaker made the statement to seek public attention and relevance. Lasun is interested in the aroma and perquisites of office, he added.

The Deputy Speaker drew the ire of the public recently when he defended the N150 billion budgetary allocation for the National Assembly. Reacting to public criticism on the salaries and allowances of senators and members of the House of Representatives, Lasun argued that the N150 billion received by the National Assembly yearly is only 2.67 per cent of the national budget. To him, there is nothing wrong in the National Assembly getting more allocations than other strategic sectors of the economy like Agriculture that was allocated 1.47 per cent in the 2015 budget.

July 4, 2015
Why lawmakers should respect party supremacy, by Rep

The lawmaker representing Oyo federal constituency, Prince Akeem Adeyemi, has said members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the National Assembly must abide by party supremacy to aid development.

According to the Oyo prince, who spoke in Oyo town after a stakeholders’ meeting, added that the party’s interest must supercede any other interest, except in few cases.

He said: “The ugly incident at the National Assembly is unfortunate. Why would ambition divide us at a time we are supposed to be seen as change agents? We all contested under the platform of the party and by doing so, we have indirectly pledged to abide by all its directives. Without discipline, the party will crash.

“However, it has happened. What we need now is to move forward. It must not be allowed to fester because we have suffered for long as a nation. Nigerians would be at the receiving end except we reconcile ourselves. But to prevent future occurrence, every stakeholders must be called to a stakeholders meeting where all the lingering issues would be ironed out.”

Adeyemi urged major stakeholders in the party to sheath their sword and move forward in the interest of the nation, reminding them of the sacrifices they made before the merger became fruitful.

June 30, 2015
Balarabe Musa: APC must insist on party supremacy

Abdulgafar Alabelewe in Kaduna spoke with Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the former governor of old Kaduna State.

Second Republic Governor of the old Kaduna State and prominent Northern voice, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa, has told the All Progressives Congress (APC) to insist on party supremacy in the current crisis rocking the party in the National Assembly.

Balarabe Musa however said, President Muhammadu Buhari must wade into the National Assembly crisis, should his party fail in doing so, arguing that, if the President fails to do so, the National Assembly will lead him into a worst situation than they led President Shehu Shagari in 1979.

According to the septuagenarian politician, APC cannot afford to let go of the developments in the National Assembly because its existence as a party depends on the loyalty of its members.

In his words, “No political party worth its name will sponsor a candidate and leave the candidate to do what he feels like, because at the end of the day, the party will be responsible for his conduct.

“Even as we talk of democracy and internal democracy, we cannot exclude the power of a political party over the power of a candidate it has sponsored in an election to represent it because there, they are representing the party.

“Under this circumstance, the APC should insist on the supremacy of the party without undermining democracy. It must insist on the loyalty of its members otherwise there will be no party and there will be no party government.

“First, the party through its National Chairman should try to convince the members of the party in the National Assembly of the need to listen to the party and take guidance from the party,” he said.

The first Executive Governor of Kaduna however advised that if the National Assembly members refuse to listen to the party chairman, the President must intervene between the party and members of the National Assembly.

“But this will be very difficult under the current circumstance because those he would be persuading are not members of his party, this is because it was PDP members who elected the Senate President and the Speaker, so there is a limit to how the party and President can prevail over these members. He will be trying to prevail over Senators and members of the House of Representatives who are not members of APC but PDP, the party he defeated just yesterday. So, it is not an easy task, it is a very difficult matter.

“But all the same, President Muhammadu Buhari has been elected as the President of all Nigerians, like the Yoruba say, ‘Oga patapata or Kabiyesi’ and the north would say ‘Sarkin yanka’. So, the President has enormous power irrespective of the party. If he is skillful, he can still prevail over the members of the Senate and House of Representatives to behave in the interest of the country,” he opined.

While he likened the current development to the 1979 regime of President Shehu Shagari, Musa advised Buhari to turn to Nigerians for assistance if the National Assembly insist on dragging him into Shagari’s predicament.

According to him, “at the end of the day, Nigerians will choose whether to support the president or the legislature and from the look of things, Nigerians will prefer to go with their president, rather than pitching their tent with the legislature.

“One example the President should be reminded, because he knows about it is that during the Second Republic, when Shagari was the President of Nigeria and we were governors, a serious problem arose within three months of our swearing-in. Members of the National Assembly attempted to fix their own remuneration. When Shagari realised that the economy of the country at that time could not support that, he called meeting of the National Economic Council and informed us that he called members of NPN in the Senate for a dinner and they refused to attend because he did not support the idea of National Assembly fixing its enumeration.

“So, he sought for our help irrespective of our party differences. Initially, we told him to handle it alone since it was an NPN internal matter, but after making us to understand that it will become a national issue, we agreed to form a 5-man committee, made up of a governor from each of the five parties. After the committee sat down and recommended remuneration for all public officers throughout the country, from local government to the Presidency.

“After submitting our recommendations to the President, he went to the press to publish the recommendations of the National Economic Council and the National Assembly was up at arms, the Senate in particular, under the leadership of Senator Joseph Wayas. They even threatened to remove governors from members of the National Economic Council.

“Again, the President on our advice decided to involve party leaders to prevail on their members in the National Assembly because they were all sponsored by parties. So, Awolowo, Zik, Aminu Kano, Waziri Ibrahim and Akinloye were all invited to a meeting of party leaders with governors. In spite of the animosity between Shagari and Awolowo, Awolowo did not prevent his party governors from attending the meeting to help Shagari because he saw it as a national matter, but to our surprise, Senate President came to the meeting laughing. We later discovered that the President had approved the money they wanted.

“Now, that failure of the President to restrain the National Assembly members from fixing their own remuneration opened the gate of corruption, stealing and criminal waste of resources in this country, which we are still battling with. If Shagari had been able to stop them, we wouldn’t have been where we are today. Immediately they got that, they began to give themselves all sort of allowances and harass ministers, asking for contracts and all that.

“Now, APC’s President Muhammadu Buhari is now facing the same problem that Shagari faced and could not deal with it. Now, if the President fails to prevail on the members of the National Assembly and fails to call on Nigerians for support, they will lead him to the same situation as they led Shagari and his own will even be worse because the state of the nation as it is today is more negative, 100 times more negative than it was in 1979,” said Balarabe Musa.S

June 28, 2015
Party supremacy: APC faces acid test over National Assembly leadership

Ahead of today’s inauguration of the National Assembly, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has picked Ahmed Lawan and Femi Gbajabiamila as its consensus candidates for the Senate presidency and House of Representatives speakership. But, other aspirants to the two offices are kicking. They have vowed to contest the positions in defiance of the party’s directive to stick with its position. Will party supremacy count today on the floor of the National Assembly? Asks Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI.

THE rancour generated within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) by the race to elect the National Assembly leadership will perhaps be the first test for the party that has just been voted into power to give the country a new direction. As a party that rode to power on the ‘change’ mantra, the APC, according to observers, must do things differently if it must deliver on its pre-election promises. It must get all the issues pertaining to leadership, responsibility and discipline right from the starting point.

Officially, the party has ruled out the application of a zoning formula in the election of leaders in the Eighth National Assembly. It has stated that merit will be used in determining the outcome of today’s contest.

The Northeast and the Northcentral are locked in the battle to produce the Senate President and the fight for the House of Representatives speakership is between the Southwest and the Northeast. The battle, which is reminiscent of the party’s presidential primaries, has seen the powerful caucuses within its fold scheming to determine the principal officers in the Red and Green Chambers.

There are divergent views between President Muhammadu Buhari and the party leadership. The President has not left anyone in doubt that he does not want to repeat the mistakes made by previous governments, by insisting on particular candidates.

But, the party leadership feels that such an important matter cannot be left to the whims and caprices of influential caucuses within the legislature.

At the weekend, it moved to ensure that its members go into the chambers undivided. It selected its consensus candidates at a mock contest, where Senators Ahmed Lawan (Yobe State) and George Akume (Benue State) emerged as the APC’s candidates for the positions of Senate President and Deputy Senate President. Former House Minority Leader Femi Gbajabiamila (Lagos State) and Mohammed Mongonu (Borno) were also picked for the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. But, the contests were boycotted by supporters of Senator Bukola Saraki (Kwara State) and Yakubu Dogara (Bauchi State). They alleged marginalisation in the process.

Following the fallout, the APC has asked its members to abide by the party’s consensus decision and stick with Lawan and Gbajabiamila. It reminded all party faithful that the two legislative chambers are part of the vehicles for the delivery of the much-desired change to Nigerians.

According to political scientists, party supremacy presupposes that party members must be subordinated to it. The party, they say, makes the rules or policies and that any member elected on its platform is duty-bound to implement same within his/her own sphere of authority. This, they argue, is because a political party is a body organised for the purpose of influencing or controlling the policies and conduct of government through the nomination and election of candidate to offices.

In fact, under the 1999 Constitution, nobody can be elected into any public office without being sponsored by a political party.

Ideally, for the relationship between the party leadership and members to be cordial, the party leadership is obliged to be above board in its decision-making.

Undiluted loyalty from

political office holders

As National Chairman of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Chief Bisi Akande said for the party to fulfill its campaign promises and also provide quality governance to the people, all its members must strictly abide by the tenet and ideals of the party.

Chief Akande, who spoke in Lagos at an induction training, organised by the party for elected members of the Houses of Assembly on May 24, 2011, reminded the lawmakers of the supremacy of the party. He told them that an undiluted loyalty was expected of them.

In his keynote address, Akande maintained that without any attempt to gag or deprive the members of their right, it would be of immense advantage for the party’s position if they build their legislative policies on principles since the party was progressive and development-oriented.

He told his audience: “ACN as a party of ideas which is built on principle, must be seen as a channel of control. No one, according to Chief Obafemi Awolowo, one of the foremost Nigerian political thinkers, however highly placed, is above the party, or the discipline and sanctions which the party might care to impose.

“Once the party takes a decision, it is expected that all loyal party members must abide by it because nobody is elected independently. So, once you are elected on the platform of this party, you are expected to be loyal and live by its principles.

“In your own right as a member of the House of Assembly, you have now become a leader-very important part of the party structure.”

Party greater than individual

Ex-Director-General of the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), Tonie Iredia, had in an article, argued that no individual should be greater than the party.

His words: “The case of citizen Ifeanyi Araruame is germane. In 2007, Araruame, then a serving senator of the Federal Republic, aspired to govern his state (Imo) and applied to his party – the PDP – to sponsor him for the election. He was enlisted among party members for a governorship primary election to enable the party choose the best candidate.

“At the end of the exercise, the party declared him as the winner of the contest after certifying that he scored the highest number of votes. On the basis of what no one understands till date, his victory was later swapped by the party. He went to court and his plea was upheld but his party, in order to show party supremacy, worked against him and he lost the election, suggesting that the party believes in the rule of law minus some court judgments!

“A unique convention of the PDP is its expectation that its members would operate by consensus. Anyone who breaches it can be in jeopardy. On this score, political analysts who follow the party’s activities must have been taken aback the week before when it was revealed that some PDP governors failed to vote for Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State – the party’s anointed candidate for the post of Chairman of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF).

“It is in earnest strange that the signatories to the consensus agreement turned out to be more than those that obeyed the party decision. If the party punishes some and not all the transgressors, the envisaged strong walls of party supremacy would inevitably become weakened by the lack of uniformity in handling members. Thus, for party supremacy to be credible, it cannot be used as a tool for discrimination.

Iredia said party supremacy can only thrive when no one is bigger than the party. He said the PDP was in order when it compelled its former chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, to drop his Chief of Staff because the party constitution did not provide for such a post.

Iredia said: “Yet again, a purely advisory body, led by a distinguished Second Republic Vice President, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, to help the chairman generate ideas and strategies on how to move the party forward was similarly opposed by the members because such a committee was unknown to their party’s constitution.

“One way of upholding party supremacy is to ensure that members elected into public office like governors are subordinated to the party.”

Former Works Minister Prince Adeseye Ogunlewe was of the view that a political party was virtually unquestionable and as such, any of its members who could not abide by a decision of his party should be shown the way out.

Party leaders and elected officers are equal partners who should work together for the success of their party at the polls. The main duties of party leaders, according to political scientists, are to broaden the party’s support base and lead the party to victory at the polls. Also, the rights of party members and the dictates of democracy must be paramount in all their dealings and as a result party leaders must create conditions for the party’s success and viability by observing democratic values, steering the party away from trouble and making members to feel vested in the party.

They are of the view that the tensions and conflicts inherent in the relationship between party leaders and elected officials cannot be minimised without attitudinal adjustments by both sides.

As a result, the APC has been warned not to fall into the trap that eventually led to the fall of the PDP. Under its 16-year rule, elected officials of the PDP sometimes acted against the party’s interest in the name of politics. Take governors, for instance, they are regarded as leaders of the party in their respective states. This may not be a bad in itself if such governors themselves abide by the party’s rules and prevail on others to do so. But, in most cases, the governors are the laws in themselves; they dictated to the party leadership, by determining who became a minister and who got the ticket to contest one position or the other.

One of such observers, who pleaded for anonymity, blamed the APC leadership for the present crisis over who emerges in today’s National Assembly leadership election. His words: “From day one, the party leadership told everyone that it would not abide by zoning and that members from all zones are free to contest and that the matter would be decided by merit. It is on this premise that Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara started canvassing for support for top positions in the chambers.

“It was clearly foreseen that this might lead to unnecessary division and rancor within the rank and file of our party, but the party leadership allowed the situation to fester. But, at the eleventh hour it started the move to come up with consensus candidates. If the party had made it clear from the beginning that the matter would be decided in-house, as it is now doing, there would have been no problem.”

The first and second republics

According to scholars, party supremacy was the order of the day during the First and Second Republics, because individual members of political parties were subject to the decisions of their party leaders. This was why Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, preferred to remain the leader of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) and Premier of Northern Region, instead of becoming the Prime Minister. Under the parliamentary system, then practised in the First Republic, the Sardauna automatically ought to have become the Prime Minister, as his party won the majority seats in the parliament. Rather than occupying the position, Bello conceded it to Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, deputy leader of the party.

Similarly, during the Second Republic, Chief Obafemi Awolowo was both the leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and the party’s presidential candidate in the 1979 general elections. Awolowo justified such arrangement, saying that while he was the party chairman, he was “just an applicant’’ for the presidency. The two frontline politicians stuck to party positions because at that time, no one dared challenge party directives, while the parties dictated the momentum of political processes.

There was no struggle for supremacy between elected political office holders and party leaders because the lines of duty were clearly defined and religiously followed.

However, the situation has changed dramatically in recent times, such that elected political office holders now call the shots.

The rancourous relationships in the political parties have been blamed on the pattern of party formation.

The argument is that there was party discipline in the first and second republics because parties were not “owned’’ by the moneybags, who did not only see themselves as bigger than the parties, but took the funding of parties as investments.

It was perhaps the need to eschew “personalisation’’ of political parties compelled the regime of military President Ibrahim Babangida to decree National Republic Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) into existence. Babangida dissolved all the political associations jostling for registration and created the NRC and the SDP to foster a situation where everybody will be equal members of the parties.

Analysts, however, opine that the dynamics of change will restore party supremacy in the country, as democracy cannot thrive without party supremacy. Nevertheless, they argue that party supremacy would be difficult to attain if over 50 per cent of the politicians are into politics just because they have no other job to do.

A simple majority of 55 votes of the 109 members is required for a Senate President to emerge. As at last night, the Lawan/Akume ticket was sure of 35 APC Senators-elect support, leaving Saraki with 24.

For Lawan to win, he will need 20 votes from the PDP and for Saraki to win, he will need 31. Both camps were busy at the weekend wooing their colleagues from the PDP. But the PDP Senators-elect want to vote as a bloc and they met severally to agree on who to back between Lawan and Saraki. The meetings were deadlocked. They could not agree.

Some PDP members broached the idea of one of their ranking members running. Top among those being tipped to run is former Senate President David Mark.

Should the APC leadership fails to prevail on Saraki to step down, party supremacy would have been disrespected.

“Once the party takes a decision, it is expected that all loyal party members must abide by it because nobody is elected independently. So, once you are elected on the platform of this party, you are expected to be loyal and live by its principles”

June 9, 2015