Nationnewslead reports that An Abuja-based lawyer, Kayode Ajulo, has warned the ruling All Progressives Congress against allowing political appointees to vote during its convention.
In a statement on Saturday, Ajulo described the court judgment on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 as a “booby trap” for APC.
The Federal Government of Nigeria had announced plans to implement the court judgement allowing political appointees to run for office without resigning.
This came hours after a Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, on Friday, nullified Section 84(12) of the newly amended Electoral Act, saying it violated the provisions of the Constitution, the Federal Government
The Senate had earlier unanimously rejected Electoral Act Amendment Bill sent by the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.).
However, elected officers including governors, deputy governors, the Vice-President and members of the National Assembly and the state legislature will be allowed to contest and participate in the primaries.
Section 84(10) of the Act specifically reads, “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”
However, Ajulo noted that the judgment of the court is per incuriam, adding that political appointees are not public servants.
He said, “Let us get a point clear, it is undoubted that Courts of Superior record by virtue of Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), have the power to declare an Act of the National Assembly unconstitutional, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.
“Moreso, a plethora of authorities have established the principle that where a provision of an enactment by the legislature conflicts with the express provision of the Constitution, the said extant law shall be declared null and void. That is the essence of S1(3) of the 1999 constitution as Amended. It provides that “If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”
“It is however instructive to note that in cases where legislation is contested for being in conflict with provisions of the Constitution, the courts have only one duty: “to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former… See the cases of U.S. v. Butler et al (1936) 297 U.S 1 (and Marwa & Ors v. Nyako & Ors (1980) LPELR-2936 (SC).
“In the case under review, the learned trial judge noted that the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act is inconsistent with the provision of Sections 66 (1) (f), 107(1) (f), 137 (1) (f) and 182 (1) (f) of the Constitution.
Suffices to state that a pensive justapoxing of the Sections of the Constitution relied upon by the learned trial judge require persons employed in the public service of either the federal government or state governments.
“Based on the doctrine of judicial precedents, it is quite apposite that the Appellate Court will set aside the decision of the trial court.
“For those who have mind to think, the perdurable questions to ask include:
Why was the suit filed in far away Umaiha, Abia State? Why were the National Assembly and Independent National Electoral Commission not joined as parties to the suit?
“It is instructive to note that the Peoples Democratic Party including other prominent political parties has concluded its Convention if the All Progressives Congress should rely on the ephemeral judgment of the Court and proceed to permit political appointees to vote and contest at its primaries and conventions, same is a disaster going somewhere to happen.
“What readily comes to mind is the decision of the Supreme Court in Zamfara State where the Apex Court held that there were no validly elected candidates in the various elective position in the state from the APC.” Continue Reading
