“Nothing is too controversial, but you have to think about how to do it with sensitivity.” —Stewart Lee
By Omoniyi Salaudeen
There is something curious about former President Olusegun Obasanjo, which needs to be interrogated as he continues to bestride the political space like a colossus.
In these latter days of his life, his regular public engagement does not show that the youthful energy in him is about to wane. Unlike most of his contemporaries who have retreated to the back seat, at 86, the old codger still gyrates about in the political arena in a most curious manner. In and out of office, politicians, traditional and religious leaders have felt his ubiquitous power and influence.
More curiously, most of his commentaries often come more from a contrarian disposition than moral conviction. Characteristic of his penchant for controversy, this week, he roused another rabble, saying that the decision of three to five judges to overturn the choice made by millions of voters in the last governorship elections in Zamafara, Plateau, and Kano states was unacceptable.
He made the declaration at the high-level consultation on ‘Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa’, held at Green Resort Legacy, Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library, Abeokuta, Ogun State capital. He labeled the Appeal Court judgment, which sacked the three affected governors as ‘cathedral pronouncements’ by the judges. The governors in the throes of the controversial litigation are Dauda Lawal of Zamfara State, Abba Kabir Yusuf of Kano State, and Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State.
Commenting on the recent sack of the three governors, Obasanjo said that the powers vested in the few judges are “totally unacceptable”, cautioning political leaders on the dangers of injustice if the trend was not reversed by the Supreme Court.
His words: “I believe whatever form of democracy we have or whatever system of government we have, three or four men in the judiciary should not be able to overturn the decisions of millions that have voted. Now, we have to find a way to handle that. I don’t know what the way will be, but for me, I think it’s unacceptable that millions (of votes), maybe 10 million on one side, maybe nine million on the other side. Then, you have five people sitting down, three of them agree, two disagree. And you come up and make cathedral pronouncements that cannot be changed; I believe that should not be accepted.
“So, I feel strongly about. It does not matter what you say about the judiciary, but only five people or seven will sit down. If there are five, three may agree, two may not agree, and the decision of three will be final.”
Whatever the merit of his argument, this commentary was incisive, hasty, and hypocritical. In a situation like this, decorum demands a little more circumspect, especially from statesmen like Obasanjo whose words are capable of spurring people into action. As many public affairs analysts have already commented, the scenario that is playing out in these states is another trial for the judiciary. But only the judiciary can do a self-cleansing of itself. No matter how highly placed, no one individual has the right to usurp the power of the judges or stampede them to resolve the logjam. In all manners of circumstances, the judiciary remains the fulcrum and bastion of sustainable democracy and cannot be assaulted for whatever reason or guise.
There are times when silence is golden if you can’t think of a good answer. As far as this matter is concerned, Obasanjo lacks the capacity to intervene in an ongoing trial. What he has said only shows his scant regard for the judiciary. In most of these cases, the judges decide the truth or falsity of the claim presented by the parties in dispute. And it is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary to review the action or inaction of the party leadership and correct whatever infraction has been committed by way of impunity.
In this case, there is an antecedent to serve as a reference point. It was in this same country that the Supreme Court in 2019 ordered the replacement of the All Progressives Congress (APC) members elected in Zamfara State for different positions, including the governor, national, and state assembly, after affirming a previous decision against the party’s primaries conducted in 2018.
The court, in a decision made by a five-member panel, presided over by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Muhammad, ruled that there were no primaries conducted in Zamfara State by the APC and that the party could therefore not have emerged winner in any of the state elections.
In a judgment read by Justice Paul Galinje, the apex court said the APC could not have won the elections since it had no valid candidates in the said polls.
It will also be recalled that the same APC as a ruling party suffered a similar fate in Rivers State when the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision by a five-man panel of Justices upheld the judgment of a Federal High Court barring the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State from submitting names of candidates for the 2019 general elections.
The apex court affirmed the judgment of the trial court that stopped APC from conducting its ward, local government, and state congresses in Rivers State, pending the determination of a suit that was filed by 22 aggrieved chieftains of the party.
By that ruling, the APC in Rivers State could not sponsor candidates in the governorship, National Assembly, and State House of Assembly polls held on March 2, 2019.
Whether these two judgments were given to satisfy the whims and caprices of any individual is a different ballgame. But if heaven did not fall then, certainly no one can collapse the roof now for selfish reasons.
What goes around, they say, comes around. Today, the same PDP that benefitted from the judgment, while the APC nursed its wounds in Zamfara State, is also the one crying injustice against the sack of Governor Dauda Lawal. The Court of Appeal, in its latest ruling, declared the March governorship election in the state as inconclusive. It, therefore, ordered a rerun in three local government areas: Maradun, Birnin-Magaji, and Bukkuyum.
The axe also fell on his counterpart in Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang of the same PDP. The three-member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Elfrieda Williams-Dawodu, citing Section 177 of the Constitution, held that the governor was not validly sponsored by the PDP for the election.
The aggrieved candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Nentawe Goshwe, had challenged his victory claiming that the governor was not validly nominated and sponsored by his party. The appellate court held that the party violated a court order directing it to conduct a valid congress in the 17 local government areas of the state.
For a similar reason, Governor Abba Yusuf of Kano State suffered the same fate. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of justices, held that he was not a valid candidate of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) in the gubernatorial election held in the state on March 18. It maintained that evidence that was adduced by the litigants showed that he was not a member of the NNPP at the time the election was held. Controversy is still raging over the Certified True Copy of the court’s judgment released days after. As intriguing as the case appears to be, the judiciary has to be allowed to clarify itself without any form of intimidation from any quarter.
For someone who has respect for the rule of law, the best Obasanjo can do in a circumstance like this as a statesman is to sit and watch how things pan out. His outpouring of emotion that five judges should not be allowed to determine what happens to the mandate of millions of voters in these states does not add up. When the judiciary barred its fang on the APC in Zamfara and Rivers states for the same reason of impunity and disobedience of Electoral Act, nobody cried blue murder. Why now? In any case, why should the former president who is known for his disdain for the judiciary be the one throwing the charge?
For crying out loud, Obasanjo lacks the moral standing to query the judiciary for its decision. While in office, he laid the foundation of the culture of impunity that has become a big threat to the country’s democracy.
It was his impunity that led to the withholding of the Lagos State local government funds which the Supreme Court ruled should be released. Ruling on the impasse arising from the creation of more local governments by the then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the appellate court stated unequivocally that President Obasanjo had no powers to withhold for any period whatsoever the statutory allocation of any tier of government in the federation. But Obasanjo defied the order, insisting that the state must revert to the 20 councils recognized by the constitution. His predecessor, the late President Umar Yar’Adua, with respect for the rule of law, had to release the funds later to former Governor Babatunde Fashola.
This is the antecedent of a man who is now always eager to preach respect for the tenets of democracy. He seems to have forgotten that the past and the present always co-exist together. Whatever you do today, affects your tomorrow. In this very instance, the motive for putting the judiciary on the spot is suspect. The world is watching.