When the former President of the United States of America (USA), Mr. Barack Obama, advised African nations to make efforts at building strong institutions rather than strong leaders, it was obviously out of concern that countries on the continent were and still are under the yoke of weak institutions, a malaise exploited by those who find themselves in government. Owing to weak institutions, African leaders become larger than life and figuratively indulge in wrongdoings most of the time. The U.S. numero uno then, therefore, wanted Africa to fortify its institutions and make its countries strong and relevant.
The concern President Obama harboured was founded. It is in Africa that presidents and heads of state easily suppress the opposition, exploit lacuna in the law, change the constitution, infiltrate and compromise the judiciary, all with the aim of assuming political power and also perpetuating themselves in office. Many of them have become presidents for life. Others rule perpetually and place their children in vantage positions to take office after them, as if government is a fiefdom. In the midst of all these, selfishness is at the centre, rather than national interest. The majority of those who cleverly manipulate things to get into power and sit tight do not add value to the development of their countries. They feed fat on the commonwealth, while the majority of the populace wallow in penury.
The weak institutions phenomenon in Africa is partly the reason for the backwardness of most of the countries on the continent. Were government institutions in these African countries strong and alive to their responsibilities, the rape of governance and democracy would not occur. Were the legislatures of the countries, nay National Assembly, for instance, strong enough to hold their own, leaders would not get the constitution or the law changed to suit themselves. Were the judiciary strong and independent, leaders would not have judges and justices at their beck and call to give their illegality a seal. Were election commissions strong and independent, they would do their job diligently, without fear or favour.
Currently, a drama is playing out in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on the status of the party’s candidate in the November 11, 2023, governorship election in Imo State. Senator Samuel Anyanwu occupied the office of national secretary of the PDP. He entered the governorship race in the PDP for Imo State. He won the PDP governorship ticket. He was the party’s governorship candidate in the election in Imo State. He lost the election.
After losing the governorship election, it does appear that Senator Anyanwu desires to continue as the national secretary of the PDP. A Federal High Court in Abuja, recently, restrained the PDP from removing him as the national secretary, pending the determination of the case. Two members of the PDP, Geoffrey Ihentuga and Apollos Godson, had gone to court with a prayer that the court should stop the PDP from removing Anyanwu as the national secretary. They cited Article 47 (1) of the PDP constitution (as amended), which said: “All national, zonal, state, local government area and ward officers of the party shall hold office for a term of four years and shall be eligible for re-election for another term and no more.”
For these two PDP members and, by extension, Anyanwu, officials of the PDP must spend four years in office, even if they, within the period, engage in other ventures or keep other political jobs. For them, Anyanwu should be in office until the end of his stipulated term of office. It does not matter to them that Anyanwu was a governorship candidate of the PDP in Imo State, which came about through a political process governed by law. This could only be a fallacy. In saner societies, no law permits the holding of two political jobs at the same time.
The laws of the PDP are clear on this. Article 47 (5) of the PDP constitution states that an official of the party seeking elective office should resign his position. The provision says: “Any officer elected in the Executive Committee of the Party at any level may resign his or her office by giving thirty days notice in writing to the appropriate Executive Committee, except in the case of resignation for the purpose of vying for an elective office, which shall be effective within the period stipulated in the guidelines issued for such elective office by the National Executive Committee of the party or the State Executive Committee, in respect of Local Government elections.”
Anyanwu should have resigned his position of national secretary of the PDP soon after picking PDP’s governorship ticket in Imo State and prior to the election. The PDP would have given itself away as a huge joke if Anyanwu did not resign as national secretary of the party to contest for the governorship ticket of the party and the election in Imo State. Even if Anyanwu did not want to resign his position as national secretary, the onus was on the institution called PDP to have ensured that this was done. What stands out an institution is the ability to enforce its rule at all times.
However, it is lacking in honour if Anyanwu is contemplating continuing in office as national secretary after his political adventure in the Imo State. He cannot have his cake and eat it. He ran for the position of governor and could have become governor, being a candidate. Article 48 (1) of the PDP constitution states: “Subject to the provision of the constitution, any member holding any office in the party at any level shall be deemed to have resigned that office, if he or she assumes any of the following offices: President, vice president, minister, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, special adviser or special assistant to the President or vice president, membership of the National or State Assemblies, ambassador as well as governor or deputy governor of the state.”
The argument may be that Anyanwu did not win the governorship election nor assumed the office of governor. This is true. However, this does not preclude the fact that he contested for the office of governor in Imo State. The fact remains that he ought to have resigned his position of national secretary to contest the office of governor. It would have been improper for Anyanwu to have been the national secretary of the PDP and also governorship candidate of the party in Imo State at the same time. Nomination forms of political parties’ candidates sent to INEC are usually signed by the national chairman and the secretary. Could Anyanwu, after being nominated as governorship candidate in Imo State, have signed his own nomination form as national secretary of the party, as stipulated by law, and also signed as candidate of the party for governor? If this was not the case, it shows that the PDP knew the right thing and did it, which means that Anyanwu was no longer the national secretary of the party at that time and should not be at present.
Those who are in court to fight Anyanwu’s cause are doing him a disservice. If he supports the court action, he is equally doing himself a disservice. The case on his continuation in office as national secretary weakens his claim to be the PDP governorship candidate in Imo State in the last election. Yes, laying claim to the office of PDP national secretary puts his nomination as the party’s governorship candidate in Imo State in jeopardy, as this means that he did not resign that position before vying for the office of governor. Non-resignation from certain offices before contesting an election is also a point to seek nullification of an election.
Sections 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulate that public officers seeking to contest elections must resign at least 30 days to the date of the election. This provision should apply to political party officials, since political parties are not private institutions.
The PDP would be proving itself to be a strong institution by upholding its constitution, as it applies to resignation of an official or qualification to contest an election. No matter the shenanigans, Anyanwu should not continue as national secretary after contesting to become governor of Imo State at the same time. When he won the governorship ticket of the PDP in Imo, he became a governorship candidate and was no longer national secretary. Therefore, the PDP should defend its constitution. The court should equally uphold the PDP constitution.
The PDP and other Nigerian political parties should believe in something and stand for it. Political parties in the country should embrace global standards and affirm them. It was, indeed, a shame that in the last general election, a political party endorsed nomination fraud by giving tickets to individuals who did not, at the stipulated time, participate in its internal primary election for the selection of candidates. What in the world would justify the fact that people contested for the presidential ticket of the APC, at the time the party had concluded primaries for the senatorial tickets, only to come back to be given the senatorial tickets of their political party? The APC did this and the court affirmed this. What manner of political party is that? What manner of judgment is that?
Political parties and the courts should not continue to make Nigeria a laughing stock with regard to democracy and electoral processes. It is high time political parties started behaving like the authority they are. Elected office holders occupy positions because political parties give them platforms. Political parties should, therefore, be more powerful than elected government officials because the latter derive the power, authority and mandate from the former, in the main. This is why political parties should not keep quiet while people elected on their platforms defect to other parties and still retain their mandates, for instance, as we are seeing in the country. By pronouncement of the court, elected positions belong to political parties, not persons or candidates.
A time has come for Nigerian political parties to show that they are strong institutions involved in democracy and governance. This happens in other countries. In 2018, the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa proved that it was bigger than the President of the country at that time, Jacob Zuma. The party pointedly asked Zuma to resign from office when it could not tolerate him. The party first dumped Zuma as leader. It then picked his then deputy and now President, Cyril Ramaphosa, as the new leader. The political party thereafter asked Zuma to resign. That was the genesis of Zuma’s vacation of the office of President in South Africa.
Here in Nigeria, political parties seldom call their members to order, whether elected into public office or appointed. Political parties here lack the will to caution their members, even when it is obvious that the people concerned are not doing well. Despite the failings of former President Muhammadu Buhari in office, which people are now freely saying, including members of his political party, the All Progressives Congress, as the political party in power, defended and praised him till the end of his government. Nigerians are today suffering the consequences of this conspiracy of silence by his political party.
Regarding the office of national secretary of the PDP and Anyanwu, the world is watching the main opposition political party in Nigeria. The world is also watching the judiciary, which is looking into the matter. The way the matter is resolved would determine how seriously Nigerians will take the PDP. And the court, too! If Anyanwu continues in office as national secretary, the PDP should bury its head in shame.