Recently, former President Olusegun Obasanjo raised issues about “western liberal democracy.” Speaking in relation with a meeting organised under the auspices of Africa Progress Group, held at his presidential library in Abeokuta, Ogun State, he said that African countries should reexamine western democracy, as, according to him, this system of government is not suitable for the continent. He then proposed what he called “Afro democracy,” a democracy with an African touch.
Stating one of the things he has against liberal democracy, Obasanjo said this system of government was no longer about majority of the people, but increasingly anchored on the minority. According to him, “these few people are representatives of only some of the people and not full representatives of all the people… Invariably, the majority of the people were wittingly or unwittingly kept out.”
Proffering his own solution to this, Obasanjo said: “This is why we should have ‘Afro democracy’ in place of western liberal democracy.”
There is no doubt that Obasanjo was trying to think out of the box. As a former military head of state and ex-elected president, he has seen and practised “militarycracy” and democracy and, therefore, in a good position to say something about systems of government. Until he defines the components of the “Afro democracy” being proposed, there is nothing to say now. However, it must be stated that the problem is not really the form of government. The issue is the mode of practise and implementation of the systems of government.
Democracy may be a perfect government, but the practice and implementation may be faulty. The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” This means that the majority ought to determine things in democracy. Therefore, when the minority begins to determine the outcome of elections, rather than the majority of the people, it cannot be said to be democracy.
Looking at the Nigerian setting, there are a legion of questions: Is the country practising democracy, in the true sense of it? Can we really define the form of government we have in Nigeria? I guess, this was the point Obasanjo tried to make, in his criticism of western liberal democracy, when he said: “We have a system of government in which we have no hand to define and design and we continue with it, even when we know that it is not working for us.”
How do we define the system in place in Nigeria? It is apparent that what we practise in Nigeria defies definition. Here, people struggle to register to vote. Eligible voters go to the polls to exercise their franchise and face many challenges. They get threatened and intimidated. They face voters suppression. Sometimes when they vote, hoodlums and thugs invade the polling stations and destroy voting materials. Criminals also snatch ballot boxes and dare everybody to come and challenge them. During elections, already cast votes may be counted, but they do not count because what may end up at the collation centres could be entirely different. When results are eventually declared, the winner cannot be certain of the mandate until the judiciary pronounces him or her winner. In fact, it is the judiciary, at election petition tribunals, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that determines who is victorious in elections.
A drama is playing out in Plateau State and a dangerous one at that, as the wishes of the people are being snatched, as in the case of the state House of Assembly and being threatened, in relation with the governorship election. The people of Plateau State went to the polls to determine their leaders but the judiciary is now redetermining who the leaders would be.
For the avoidance of doubt, at the polls, the Plateau electorate supported Governor Caleb Muftwang, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). They also voted for candidates of the PDP for the state House of Assembly seats. With their votes they said, loud and clear, that Plateau was a PDP state. Today, however, the PDP lawmakers, who were put in office by the votes of the Plateau people, have been sacked by the Court of Appeal, which had the final say in election petitions for the National and State House of Assembly. The legislative candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who lost elections, are now in office, by the magic of the Court of Appeal. The seat of the governor is also at risk, as the Court of Appeal overruled the governorship election tribunal and nullified the election of Governor Muftwang. The APC is the beneficiary of this judicial voting.
In Plateau State, the second has become the first. The world looks in shock as those who lost elections have become the judiciary-elected. The only saving grace is that in the case of governorship election, the Supreme Court has the final say. The question, however, is this: Would the Supreme Court dispassionately look at the facts of the case and determine it appropriately or ignore the facts and become the “ultimate voter” in Plateau, whose one vote would be greater than the hundreds of thousand votes that gave Governor Muftwang victory at the polls? Would the Supreme Court support this obvious attempt at state capture?
It is pertinent to look at the facts of the case in Plateau State. This is important because the story out there is that the PDP disobeyed a court order regarding its state exco, which made it a political party “without structure,” at the time of conducting primary elections that determined those who became its candidates ahead of the February and March elections. The Court of Appeal, in its verdict, ruled that the PDP disobeyed a court order and therefore any action it took regarding the elections was null and avoid and of no effect.
A critical look at what transpired in the Plateau PDP, prior to the general election tells another story. The facts are these: The PDP had a crisis in Plateau State prior to the elections. The political party in an effort to solve the problem, had dissolved its state exco and constituted a caretaker committee to run its affairs. To ensure that it had a democratically elected party executives, the PDP then organised an election to pick the party leaders. One member of the party had gone to the state High Court questioning the eligibility of members of the Caretaker Committee participating in the election. While the case was pending in court, the PDP held an election for the state exco and inaugurated the winners.
Thereafter, the court ruled that members of the PDP caretaker committee should not participate in the state exco election. This verdict of the court came after the election to pick the state party leaders was held. The new state exco took over from the caretaker committee. However, in order to remove all encumbrances, the PDP dissolved the newly elected exco and called for another election. The state exco election was held thereafter, with officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) present to supervise. Those who won the election were inaugurated thereafter. This duly elected party exco, which had no link with the caretaker committee, conducted the primary election for the selection of the PDP candidates for the last general election.
It is pertinent to note that the judgment of the state High Court was about members of the caretaker committee. The first election that produced party exco, after the caretaker committee, was dissolved by the PDP, based on the court judgment affecting members of the caretaker committee. This took care of the state High Court’s judgment. The fresh election that produced the party’s state exco thereafter had nothing to do with the court judgment. Therefore, there is nothing like disobedience to court order. Also, there is nothing suggesting that the PDP had “no structure.” The elected state exco, arising from the second election, was a duly constituted PDP structure.
It is important, therefore, for the Supreme Court justices to understand the facts of the case and therefore not endorse the position of the Court of Appeal. Doing so would be miscarriage of justice. Apart from the fact that the PDP did not disobey any court order, going by the facts stated above, what is clear is that Plateau State people voted overwhelmingly for the PDP. With an elected PDP governor and majority of PDP lawmakers, before the Court of Appeal judgment regarding the state House of Assembly election, the PDP was the political party of choice for the Plateau people. Awarding victory to APC in the governorship election, as the Court of Appeal justices that handled the Plateau legislative election petitions did, is like rubbing Peter to pay Paul. It will be unfair and vexatious.
The onus, therefore, is on the Supreme Court, as the last arbiter in election petitions for governorship, to look at the facts and do the right thing. The right thing is to affirm that there is no case of disobedience to court order and therefore overrule the Court of Appeal. He who the people voted for should have the mandate. Indeed, the practice of courts taking election victory of people and awarding to others because of some minor infractions that could not have changed the outcome of the election should stop. In a situation where elections must be nullified by the courts because of infractions, which may not have affected the outcome of the election, the court should rather call for another election, so that the voters would have the final say in who rules them.
Plateau State is a litmus test for the Supreme Court. The facts are before the justices. The facts should prevail and justice done. The justice that should be done and seen to have been done is for the apex court to return the victory of the PDP in the governorship election.