Joshua Omoloye, Abuja
Controversies continue to trail the demand by the new Electoral Act 2022 that political appointees have to resign their positions before they can be eligible to vote and be voted for at party primaries.
For example, a former Senate President, Bukola Saraki and a legal practitioner, Monday Ubani, are maintaining different positions.
While Saraki said it is a welcome development, Ubani, a former Vice President, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, said it is unconstitutional The Trumpet gathered.
Read Also: We settled over 90% of GenCos’ invoices in four years, NBET insists
According to the former governor of Kwara State, it is absurd that some people who are already occupying positions will hold on to that while seeking other positions.
Saraki said several other eligible persons have been short out of the opportunity to contest for offices occupied by political appointees.
“Why should someone be in political office use the influence of political office to contest? We talked about participation of youth? What chance does the young Nigeria have to contest somebody who is sitting in public office; has access to power by influence; has access to funds of government?
“If you want to contest, for heaven’s sake, go out, resign and go and contest? Why would you stay in political office? It’s even wrong for us to be debating it. It is so selfish.
“If you truly want to represent this country, why do you have to remain in political office? Step out and contest. And if we are talking about youths, we’re talking about people having an opportunity.
“What chance does a 25 year old young man or woman have against somebody who’s a director in a government agency? We should not encourage things like that. What we should do is let us ensure more people come out”.
Kicking against it, Dr. Ubani described as a negation of the 1999 Constitution as amended and an infringement on the fundamental rights of the appointees.
Ubani stated this in an article he authored with the caption, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S84(12) AS ARGUED BY PRESIDENT BUHARI
According to him, “if the groundnum of the land does not disqualify a political appointee from voting and contesting for an election in his political party, the new Amended Electoral Act does not possess the requisite vires to so do, and as long as it tends to do this, it has to be set aside as it runs contrary to the express provision of the 1999 constitution with regards to Right against Discrimination. The validity of this assertion shall be so tested in our vibrant judiciary.”
He though commended the new Electoral Act saying the truth of the matter is that Nigerians will never get it right with leadership if the Electoral legal framework remains archaic and bereft of principles that ensures that the votes of the majority count.
He pointed out that Section 84(13) further provides that “where a political party fails to comply with the provision of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue”.
This section, he argued, truly speaking, disenfranchises political office holders who are appointees of the governor or president from participating at the primary election of the party either as a delegate or as a candidate.
Ubani further argued that Section 84(12) restricts a political appointee from contesting or voting in the primary election of his political party unless he resigns but the same law allows legislators, governors, local government chairmen who are members of the same political class with the Appointees to remain on their seats to vote and be voted for. This appears absurd, illogical and unacceptable.
He said “if the constitution of 1999 as Amended and approved by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Segun Oni Vs Fayemi held the view that A Political Appointee is not bound to resign from office 30 days before election as Section 318 of the Constitution never qualifies him or her as a Public Servant where does S 84(12) derive its validity to disenfranchise the office of political appointee from voting and contesting for a primary election in his political party?
“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 for conflicting with the supreme provision of the constitution That is the essence of S1(3) of the 1999 constitution as Amended. It provides and I quote “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”.
The legal icon concluded by saying that “if the ground um of the land does not disqualify a political appointee from voting and contesting for an election in his political party, the new Amended Electoral Act does not possess the requisite vires to so do, and as long as it tends to do this, it has to be set aside as it runs contrary to the express provision of the 1999 constitution with regards to Right against Discrimination, Association etc. The validity of this assertion shall be so tested in our vibrant judiciary”.
