Date Published: 05/26/09
Ten Years Of Uninterrupted Democracy: The Pains, the Gains.
by Chimezie Elemuo
No doubt that both the Federal and some State Governments will out the drums to celebrate Nigeria ’s ten years of uninterrupted democracy. It is a feat the country was accomplishing for the first time since the Union Jack was lowered on 1 st October 1960. It has been ten years of mixed feelings – one of despair and hope, gains and failures. Within these ten years, there have been moments of madness and sober reflection. Despite what government will reflect on its score sheet as its achievement these past ten years, Nigeria still has as its endemic problems the failure of leadership, corruption and fragile electoral process. The former created fertile grounds for the last two. It was the late Lord Denning who held in UAC V. MCFOY (1962) AC 152 that “you can’t place something on nothing and expect it to stand.” Leadership is the foundation for everything a nation can boast of. Like a poor foundation, once leadership is rickety, everything will collapse. That has been the bane of the Nigerian State since independence. We have seen ten years of misguided leadership, of misplaced piorities. We agree with our sages who have noted before now that Nigeria ’s problem is leadership.
Corruption without mincing words is the greatest problem bedeviling Nigeria . From the low to high places, corruption stinks like the dirty pig. From the hallow chambers of the National Assembly, the Presidency to the states and local governments, corruption like the hydra – headed monster has become the Achilles of the country blessed with both human and natural resources. From where did Nigeria as a country go wrong! Tracing the history of corruption in Nigeria , Justice Kayode Eso in his book, “Reflection on Thirty two years of Nigeria Nationhood” noted quite succinctly that:
“Corruption helped in a large sense in the destruction of two (first and second) republics, that even the grassroots sold their franchise for money! As soon as the first Republic was established, the ugly epithet ‘ten percents’ was evolved…. People lived beyond their means. Ostentation was exclaimed. The officials wore very rich robes even when they were begging for loans! Houses consequently sprang up in the priced and choicest area….The example was to show off the money stolen in a more reckless manner. That was our country of the First Republic . The second Republic did not fare better. Indeed, it was, from all accounts, worst.” It remains to allude that what Justice Eso described above is still the lot of Nigeria as she celebrates ten years of uninterrupted democracy. Commenting on corruption, Uwais CJN (as he then was) observed bluntly and without equivocation in ATTORNEY – GENERAL ONDO STATE V. ATTORNEY – GENERAL FEDERATION (2002) 9 NWLR (pt. 772) 222 at 306 that “corruption is not a disease which afflicts public officers alone but society as a whole. If it is therefore to be eradicated effectively, the solution to it must be pervasive to cover every segment of the society.” Still lending his voice on corruption, Omokri, JCA in ALTIMATE INV. LTD. V. CASTLE & CUBICLES LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.417) P.151 noted that “…it is important to mention that this is a time when the Nigerian Nation is fighting the difficult battle against corruption in all its ramification. All hands should be on deck to eliminate or eradicate this social ill. Corruption or corrupt practices, if not checked, threaten the peace, order and good government.” Mohammed JSC (as he then was) in ATTORNEY – GENERAL ODNO STATE V. ATTORNEY – GENERAL FEDERATION (supra) noted of corruption that “it is quite plain that the issue of corruption in Nigerian society has gone beyond our borders. It is no more a local affair. It is a national malaise which must be tackled by the government of the Federal Republic . The disastrous consequences of the evil practice of corruption has taken this nation into the list of the most corrupt nations on earth.” The Halliburton Scandal is an eye opener. Once corruption has been diagnosed as the greatest problem threatening the Nigerian state, as a cure, EFCC and ICPC and other agencies were created. The efficacy of these prescriptions are still in doubt. Law, no doubt, is a means of social hygiene but the government lopsided attitude in carrying out the letters of these laws helps in making Nigeria the haven of corruption.
Let us take a stop here and take a look at another social malaise – unemployment. Governments all over the world are fighting unemployment in the face of the current global financial crises. Nigeria , since her inception as a nation has been in a battle of wits with unemployment. Lord Snell, in his autobiography, “Men, Movements and Myself (1936) painted the picture of his personal emotional experience of unemployment when he said that:-
“Unemployment, which involves physical degeneration and the sense that a man is superfluous, as dismissed, unused and unwanted, as not enobling, it is entirely debasing. It is more likely to turn a man into a loafer, a criminal or a revolutionist, than into a balanced and creative citizen….The effect upon my life of continued unemployment might well have been disastrous…I had not asked to be born, and if the world was free to let me starve, was I not equally free to adopt any effective means to prevent it from succeeding”? That means is kidnapping and other forms of criminality perverting all strata of the Nigerian society today. The former Military Governor of the Western State noted in Sunday Sketch of 13 June, 1971 that “the growing wave of crimes in the country might prove difficult to contain unless the various existing measures by the government to arrest the worsening violent propensities are matched by equally bold measures for more employment opportunities”. This statement is still relevant and apt today than ever before. It is agreed that Government cannot provide employment for all and sundry but it must create the enabling environment to empower youths and talented Nigerians to achieve their dreams. Anything short of this is Government abdicating its duty.
Next is the cancerous growth called Nigeria ’s electoral process that has become a spinal in the wheel of Nigeria ’s nationhood. The recent re-run election in Ekiti State is a specimen and acid test of what our electoral process is all about. If this is not properly managed by the present Government, the shout of hurrah of ten years of uninterrupted democracy may be an early celebration. Those who have held us hostage for years may have cause once again to short eureka! The Federal Government in its wisdom decided to reform the electoral process in Nigeria by inaugurating the Uwais Commission. This laudable initiative may turn out from what we saw in the Ekiti imbroglio as a storm in a tea cup. Government did not help matters by rejecting or modifying some of the sensitive but laudable recommendations of that august panel. These recommendations will help modify our obsolete Electoral Act that has aided to fan the ember of electoral fraud in our polity. Commenting on the Electoral Act, 2002, Belgore JSC (as he then was) noted in OBASANJO V. BUHARI (2005) 13 NWLR (pt.941) that “I wish next elections will have a better, more civilized and considerably less cumbersome Electoral Act.” His wish never came through and we are where we are today. Let us say it with outright bluntness that before any credible election will be held in this country, INEC must be truly independent. The independence of INEC can only be achieved by amending the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2006. Like Lord Viscount Simonds noted in MAYOR & ST. MELLONS RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL V. NEWPORT CORPORATION (1951) 2 ALL ER 839, 841 that “…if a gab is disclosed the remedy lies in an amending Act.” The election re-run in Ekiti State is a pointer that INEC is still an appendage of the Federal Government. It has become germane that in subsequent appointment, the INEC boss should be a man of character, somebody whose impeccable reputation speaks for him. This among other things will make INEC truly independent. In ENEMUO V. DURU (2004) 39 W.R.N. P.98 Fabiyi JCA noted that “perhaps, I should add, in rather subtle manner, that those charged with the responsibility of conducting elections in a democratic dispensation should appreciate that democracy can only thrive through election and not selection of people’s representatives. They are looked upon as men and women of affairs whose opinions should be respected. They should be fearless and courageous. Above all, they should operate with due honesty of purpose if democracy in our land must take firm root and continue to germinate.” So how would one juxtapose this notable comment with the attitude of MRS. ADEBAYO, the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Ekiti State ? She had shown that she is not a person to rely on. Did she really resign? How does the law treat her resignation? These are million dollar questions. But surely we shall set the ball rolling on answering them. First, it should be noted that neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act provided for the way and manner of resignation of an Electoral Officer. Let us note once more that neither the Constitution, the Electoral Act nor the Interpretation Act defined the word “resignation”. In BENSON V. ONITIRI (1956 – 1960)NSCC Vol. 1 P. 52, the facts of the case put briefly were that the Appellant was appointed a member of the Lagos Executive Development Board, a body corporate pursuant to S.3(8) of the Lagos Town Planning Ordinance. S. 10(1) (d) of the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954, provided that no person should be qualified to be elected as a Representative Member of the House of Representatives who held office in any public office. The Appellant contested election into the House of Representatives against the Respondent and was declared and returned the winner. The contention of the Respondent are in the main.
1. That the Appellant did not resign his appointment as a member of the Lagos Executive Development Board since the Minister did not acknowledge his acceptance of the resignation.
2. That his purported letter of resignation was not delivered to the appropriate authority, the Minister of Lagos Affairs.
3. That the Appellant could not resign because the Ordinance under which he was appointed did not provide for resignation.
The Supreme Court per Ademola, C.J.F. (as then was) delivering the leading judgement and answering all these questions in the negative held that “resignation dates from the date notice was received….The correct approach, in my view, is that there is a right to resign an office unless there is a reason or reasons to show that a man cannot resign…it is difficult to see under which law the learned trial judge based his conclusion that there is no right to resign….There is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept notice. In the present case, I do not think it matters to whom the notice of resignation was addressed, whether to the Minister who made the appointment or to the Board, on which Benson was serving.” Adopting this view in ADEFEMI V. ABEGUNDE (2004) 29 W.R.N. P. 150, Onnoghen, JCA, held that “I am of the firm view that this is still good law, there being no other authority to the contrary.” The effect of this is that the resignation of Mrs. Adebayo stands and it does not matter to whom she addressed her letter. Whether to Iwu, INEC Headquarters or the Presidency. From the foregoing, the only option left for Mrs. Adebayo as at the time of her resignation was to declare the winner of the re-run election based on votes already collated. The subsequent re-run conducted by her after her resignation in the two local governments of Oyo – Ekiti is null and void and of no effect. Also, the publicized rejection of her resignation by the Federal Government is not known to law since there is absolute right to resign. Mrs. Adebayo could only be re-appointed as ex-officio member of INEC. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no doubt that these past ten years, the judiciary has given a good account of itself, particularly the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recognized the wise dictum of the Court of Appeal in ENEMUO V. DURU (supra) that “the failure to live up to expectation would subject the entire system to jeopardy and ridicule.” The Supreme Court has been fearless in some of its decisions and this is a call for the Court of Appeal to follow such steps. ESO, the Lord Denning of our time noted in ODOFIN BELLO V. THE STATE suit No. SC282/66 that “a fearless judiciary, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion. It is the duty of everybody, be it an individual or a group, to assist in keeping it so.” The judiciary must provide leadership too. Like Louis Jaffe put it that “a judiciary which too much reminds itself that its power is limited by the dogmas of parliamentary responsibility may lose the function (of creating safeguards against the abuse of executive and administrative power)….If the Judges are complaisant towards governmental power, Government will of course, take what it is given. If the judiciary is prepared to provide leadership, its voice will be listened to with respect and gratitude.” I agree no less.
Despite what government will roll out as its achievements these ten years gone, Nigerians like Oliver Twist are yearning ever than before for more.
Chimezie Elemuo is a Port Harcourt based Legal Practitioner.224 Old Aba / PH Road , Port Harcourt , Rivers State . 08070600117
