Lawyers Divided Over Parties’ Adoption Of Candidates – TheNigerialawyer

In the heat of preparations for the election of the leadership
of the 9th National Assembly on Tuesday next week, some Nigerian
lawyers are sharply divided over the legality or constitutionality
of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) choosing the
principal officers of the legislature for the lawmakers.

While some argued that the APC constitution and directive on the
issued must prevail, others asserted that national interest and the
nation’s constitution were superior to party interest.

Those, who endorsed the APC’s position on the NASS leadership,
said that senators and members of the House of Representatives
opposed to the party’s choice of Senator Ahmed Lawan and Hon. Femi
Gbajabiamila for the positions of the Senate president and Speaker
of the Lower House, were acting in error.

According to them, both the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and
the APC’s Constitution were very clear on the matter.

But, the opposing lawyers, who also cited Section 51 (a) of the
1999 Constitution, insisted that where there is a conflict of
interest, the country’s constitution holds sway.

The above section stipulates that “there shall be a Senate
President and Deputy Senate President who shall be elected by
members of the House.’’

In other words, the provision abhors the imposition of
candidates for these elective positions, the opponents
insisted.

The controversy was sparked off yesterday by an Abuja-based
lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, who asserted that the APC leadership
acted within the ambits of law when it directed the lawmakers
elected under its platform to accept Lawan and Gbajabiamila as the
helmsmen of the National Assembly..

He pointed out that no APC lawmaker has the right to disobey the
party’s directive on its choice of who should be the president of
the Senate or speaker of the House of Representatives.

According to him, the party’s directive that APC members should
vote for Lawan and Gbajabiamila was in line with Sections 65 (2)
(b),67 (3) (g) and 222 (c) (d) of the constitution.

Substantiating his claim, the lawyer quoted Section 65 (2)(b),
which states “he is a member of a political party and is sponsored
by that party.’’

Okpanachi quoted other relevant sections of the constitution and
sub-sections to buttress his points.

He said that the nation’s constitution recognises every
political party’s constitution and its binding effect on
members.

Okpanachi insisted that the APC’s directive to its
senators-elect and members-elect was not only conventional but
constitutional.

He said that a violation of same by any member should be
severely sanctioned either by expulsion in order to send a clear
signal to others.

The legal practitioner said that it was pertinent that the
legislators must at all times belong to a political party unlike
the executive.

Okpanachi said: “All elected members of the APC subscribed to
the party’s constitution and ideals, which clearly emphasise
party’s supremacy.

“Consequently, they cannot afford to disobey the party like the
executive without huge consequences,’’ he said.

Also citing the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the APC
Constitution, the opponents argued that the two documents prohibit
the imposition of candidates by the party leadership or any leader
at all for elective positions.

The lawyers opposing the imposition of candidates said the
constitutional provision for the emergence of the leadership of the
Senate for instance is clearly spelt out.

They said that if the constitution allows imposition, there
won’t be room for election which is the hallmark of democracy.

The lawyers held that Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution states
that “this Constitution is binding on all Nigerians and government
agencies. It went further to say that any other law that
contravenes the provision of the Constitution is null and
void.”

They further held that even the preamble of the APC Constitution
prohibits discrimination of any kind, stressing that informed while
the party’s constitution insists on conducting primaries or
following due process to field candidates for elective posts.

The legal practitioners also held that it is against the
fundamental or human rights duly enshrined in the constitution by
denying some people of the privilege of their rights to vote and be
voted in the build-up for any elections.

In this school of thought are Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), Chief
Mike Ozekhome and Alasa Ismaila.

While opposing the imposition or endorsement of the APC
leadership, Ahamba said: ‘’Section 51 (a) of the 1999 Constitution
says that ‘there shall be a Senate President and Deputy Senate
President who shall be elected by members of the House’. In other
words, it prohibits imposition of candidates for these elective
positions.

‘’If the constitution allows imposition, there won’t be room for
election which is the hallmark of democracy

‘’Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution clearly states that ‘this
constitution is binding on all Nigerians and government agencies,
hence any other law that contravenes the provision of the
constitution is null and void to the extent of its
inconsistencies,’’ he said.

Ismaila, who also opposed imposition, said: ‘’The preamble of
the APC Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind, which is
to tell why the party constitution insists on conducting primaries
or following due process to field candidates for elective
posts.

‘’It is against the fundamental or human rights duly enshrined
in the constitution by denying some people of the privilege of
their rights to vote and be voted in the build-up for any
elections.

‘’The endorsement of Lawal and Gbajabiamila for Senate president
and speaker by the APC leadership contravenes the letters of the
constitution and highly selfish on their side.’’

In his submission, Barr. Wale Balogun noted that though it is
the general position of the law that constitution of a political
party is binding on every member of the party, individual lawmaker
has sworn to protect the constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and not the constitution of any party.

According to Balogun, in a situation where the directive of the
party is against the conscience of an individual lawmaker, the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is superior.

“The oath of allegiance sworn to by every lawmaker is to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and not to any political party.
Therefore, when the conscience of such lawmaker contradicts the
directive of the party, he is bound to act according to his oath
and protect the constitution and not the party’s constitution.

“In other words, if a lawmaker is not convinced that the
preferred candidate of the party will serve the best interest of
the nation, such a lawmaker is free to support another candidate,”
he said.

He stated further that the lawmaker may end up serving the
interest of party leaders as against the interest of the nation, if
the party’s directive is upheld without restrain.

“The constitution envisaged that the party will act on the best
interest of the nation. However, since a lawmaker by his oath of
allegiance is loyal to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, he is bound to act according to his conscience,” he
added.

Also, Ozekhome noted that Okpanachi was wrong, as he said the
election of presiding officers of the National Assembly is not a
party affair.

“The lawyer is wrong, check Section 50 of the constitution,”
Ozekhome said.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!