WEDNESDAY COLUMN BY USSIJU MEDANER
info@medaner.com| justme4justice@yahoo.com
From the outset, I decided to keep mum on the issue of the legality of the APC Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) constitution and leadership as was raised by several public commentators. As the Director of Organisation of the ruling party, I would admit I wasn’t in the dark as to how the committee emerged out of necessity following a thorough deliberative process. The legality question was one of the topics that were discussed, considered and put to rest before the decision was finally taken to birth the current composition of CECPC. At this point, I felt the urge to add my voice to this same issue that is perhaps the latest controversy in both the public and legal domains.
The import of the media debate as regard the legality of the party’s CECPC leadership is beyond the acknowledgement of the truth or otherwise of the controversial submission. Before we establish the veracity of the points raised in the public, there are salient issues that deserve consideration; one is the medium through which some sources, particularly partisans, choose to propagate their worry about the party and its leadership. While the issue remains an internal affair of APC, the act of some of the ruling party members, has given yet the opposition a focus of attack on the ruling party; not only in the present but also in the nearest future. Many still hold the opinion that these individuals with concerns over the party affairs enjoy unrestrained access to the party leadership at all levels, and by virtue of their position, could access the President and all other relevant leaders of the party to table their legal observations or more precisely, opinions, concerns or contributions, but they choose to lay the party’s “presumed shortcoming,” as they put it, open to the public with all the consequentialities. Indeed, it is unbecoming of some party leaders of caliber and it speaks more of their intent – or otherwise – to prolong internal disunity and their inordinate ambitions which Article 21 of the APC Constitution identifies as probable offences.
Also, we must remind ourselves that the Supreme Court justices, as a matter of convention, often have political leanings whose biases and prejudices cannot be divorced from their judgments in all cases, particularly as it affects preferred political positions. This is an open secret in the US Supreme Court, which is a model of ours, whereby most of the justices either identify as or have sympathy for either the Republican or Democratic Party. We cannot, therefore, ignore such sentiments in our clime where also some justices have direct relationships with known party leaders. Hence, a decision from justices with partisan affiliation ought to be critically considered, if not suspected.
Back to the main matter. The legality question being raised is a needless controversy which exhibits serious misinterpretation and, perhaps an intentional miscommunication of the wordings of the Party Constitution and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria over Article 17(iv) and Section 183 respectively and it is expected of the party to respond appropriately, not to castigate the source only, but more importantly, to douse the pressure of the untrue misinterpretations of the message by the opposition and Nigerians who are already misled by the perceived authenticity of the source.
Article 17(iv) of the APC Constitution cannot be interpreted in isolation from 17(1) which provides the basis for the misinterpreted Subsection iv. The article prohibits tenured officials of any organ of the party from concurrently holding executive positions in the country. The current chairman of CECPC of the party as well as other members of the committee are not tenured officeholders of the party as they were not elected to run a four-year re-electable term in office as the chairman of the party or members of CECPC but were appointed as an interim measure as a caretaker committee by the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party – to chart the party out of a peculiar crisis situation. At this point, it is necessary to also consider Section 12.3 of the APC Constitution which confers NEC membership to the governors – and by extension, the president – elected under APC to carry out duly laid out functions in the same Party Constitution. It may interest our esteemed readers to know that the APC NEC is composed of both elected party officials of various organs and a cream of elected public officials from the party, who typically hold high positions. It includes the governors, president, president of the Senate and Deputy President of the Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly and other principal officers of the National Assembly who are from APC. This membership and the privileges they confer naturally follow the positions of these elected public officials; and for anyone to accuse them in carrying out the mandate of NEC as laid down in the Party Constitution is nothing but a mischief or sheer ignorance. It is all more suspicious to see a minority judgement of the Supreme Court premised on a rather limited legality per Section 183 of the Nigeria Constitution and Subsection 17(iv) of the APC Constitution while ignoring other superior provisions confer powers to NEC members to make decisions on behalf of the party in special circumstances. His Excellency Mai Buni is a member of NEC and there is a valid NEC resolution that appoints him to head the caretaker committee that manages the affairs of the party in the interim. We may also have to consider and clear the wrong notion that His Excellency is the substantive chairman of APC – he is not! To call him such is to presume he has, after assuming as an executive governor, contested in the party’s National Convention to have emerged as a chairman which obviously was never the case! The simple truth is that he heads a caretaker committee empowered by NEC by virtue of Article 13.3 (vi). Perhaps, if the preceding point I raised were considered in both the legal and media debates, the erroneous conclusion of illegality wouldn’t arise.
It may also be of interest to note that Section 138 of the Nigerian Constitution applies to the President of the Federation of Nigeria in the same vein, mutatis mutandis as Section 183 of the same constitution which applies to the Governors. Yet, we all know that former presidents Obasonjo was Chairman of AU in 2004, and Yar’adua and Jonathan – all from the PDP – were at different times Chairmen of ECOWAS in 2008 and 2010 respectively and they all carried out extra-executive orders and proceedings of these political bodies. Are we to say all these PDP past presidents have violated the Nigeria Constitution? Certainly no as these bodies, just like political parties are registered associations, political entities, whose membership in the case of certain elected public officials in no way violates Section 138 of the Nigeria Constitution. To even consider it as an illegality is preposterous! we cannot therefore, with any prejudice hold a view that His Excellency Mai Buni as the Chairman of the APC CECPC – not as a substantive, duly elected National Chairman – holds such position illegally or the proceeding of APC NEC that establishes CECPC is an act of ‘lawlessness.’ I am quite confident that, if Governor Mai Buni was included as a defendant in the lawsuit, he surely has a defensible case to clear his name and put the needless controversy to an end.
Another point to note in the legal standing of the Mai Buni-led caretaker committee that seems to be hidden to those who are busy propagating the illegality of the committee, is that the committee was not appointed to act in the office of the party’s National Working Committee. Flashing back, to address the issue and lacuna created by the removal of the Oshiomole NWC, the party NEC, exercising its power as contained in Article 13(vi) of the Party Constitution, created the caretaker committee and delegated its power to manage the party, call for and organise congresses and convention of the party to a committee headed by His Excellency Mai Buni. By implication, the Mai Buni-led committee is an appendage of the APC second most powerful organ, the National Executive Committee and as I have stated earlier, He is also a member of NEC by virtue of his legitimate governorship position. No one or known law can deny him of this particular privilege. Until the National Convention of the party holds, when a substantial NWC is elected to run the party, the Buni-led committee would remain legal – acting the mandate of the party NEC.
As I argued earlier, the premises of the minority judgement of the Supreme Court in their rulings in the Akeredolu versus Jegede case is weak and no doubt misleads the general public as well as serves as a weapon for the opposition. Despite the political leanings and bias which could be credited to some sitting judges on the panel that heard the case in question, the fact that the court in its supremacy did not make any attempt to question the legality or otherwise of the Buni-led caretaker committee (CECPC) should have been enough to dissuade the untruth about CECPC presently in the public. The judges on both sides of the divide, raised the issue but clearly stated that the case might have been differently argued and considered if the legality of the caretaker committee was placed before it. Of a fact, that does not imply any negativity for the party. Moreover, the party can easily defend its position.
The implication of the Supreme Court judgement excludes and supersedes the much touted, ill-informed impression in the public despite trying so hard to appeal to authority by the public submission. I have refuted that notion herein. At no point, in the individual submission or general ruling was the legality of the Buni-led committee discussed or considered illegal. The minority justices literally submit they would only have considered the legality question if the committee chairman had been joined in the case submitted by Jegede and PDP. Now, if the legality of the committee was never a subject of discussion, where does the released and circulated misinformation get its base?
We must all recognise the fact that the party had legal advice and recommendations before taking the decision of appointing the caretaker committee; and of course, among the legal voices who advised the party were the same people who suddenly realised the ‘’committee is illegal.’’ It is expected that unnecessary smoke would be raised to create diversions and misinform the electorate as much as forcing the hands of the judiciary on issue for some personal gains by the opposition. What is baffling in the present issue is simply the source of the confusion. More so, this is an issue that had been previously tabled before an election petition panel and further resolved by an Appellate court. It has been roundly concluded that the party is in an accepted legal position to appoint the committee.
The act of delegation that birthed the Buni-led caretaker committee is not new to our system and is not without precedence as much as throughout our system; we have record of appointments of individuals who are either already political employed or are in some public paid employments into boards of parastatals, governing councils of universities, judicial council and similar systems.
It is very clear this would linger for a while; the loser party, PDP has seen a chance at a little break from reporting and propagating insecurity to amaze relevance. We will see the consummation of all efforts to deduce all conclusions from the baseless fact and finding all tunes to present the ruling party as a disoriented, lost entity; but as usual, it would all be a wasted outing, because PDP would come out of it all a sore loser.
However, because the issue has been raised a second time and the opposition would stop at nothing to take advantage of it to undermine our electoral processes with unnecessary litigations;
Does the Article 17 sub-section iv of the APC Constitution which states that “No officer in any organ of the Party shall hold executive position office in government concurrently” by direct or indirect implications, include the person of an executive position holder who is not elected into the executive position of the party National Working Committee, but appointed by the party National Executive Council, as a caretaker committee to act on its behalf to fill the vacuum in leadership and organise a convention to usher in a legally elected leadership for the party NWC?
Does the leadership of His Excellency Mai Buni to organise the party congresses negate in any form the dictates of the party and Nigeria Constitution, considering that he is not a substantial chairman but a caretaker committee in acting capacity?
Now, I speak to party men; the interest of a party ought to, at all times supersede our personal interest; the action of the source of the mischievous submission under scrutiny is totally an insult to the hard-earned internal coherence of the party, and we must exert measures to prevent reoccurrence of such humiliating public outburst coming from within the highs in the party.
Beyond all sentiments and emotional responses to this issue, I strongly recommend the party leadership take action to safeguard the party against unnecessary but possible litigations that may arise from the error already committed.
GOD BLESS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA!
