The Power Of Democratic Elections As An Alternative To The Call For A Revolutionary Political System In Nigeria By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Of recent, there have been calls for a revolution of the
government in power by some persons in Nigeria and outside
Nigeria.

These calls have generated a lot of counter-reactions by the
government and a threat of arrest and the likely prosecution on any
one who attempts at any revolution against the government in power.
This paper aims at considering the legality of revolution in a
Nigerian democracy while recommending democratic elections as
alternative to revolution.

‘Revolution’ according to the
online Webster dictionary, means
‘the usual violent attempt by many people to end the
rule of one government and start a new one’. As a full definition
‘a sudden, radical, or complete change b. a fundamental change in
political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation
of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the
governed’. From these definitions, it means, in my
humble view, that revolution has the tendency of violently changing
the political organization or the political system of a government
or nation. Also, this agitation for revolution is characterized
with disorderliness or break down of law and order, blood-shed,
destruction of the economy of the nation, global embarrassment to
the nation, loss of national integrity, etc.

Furthermore, it is my considered view, with due respect to any
contrary view, that revolution is not permissible and or legal in a
democratic system, considering the provisions of
sections 1(1) and (2) and 45 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after
referred to as the Constitution. Section 1(1) and (2) of the
Constitution provides thus ‘1.—(1) This Constitution is Supreme and
its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and
persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) The Federal
Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or
group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any
part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this
Constitution.’. Also, section 45 of the Constitution provides thus
‘45.—(1) Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of this
Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society— (a) in the interest of
defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public
health ; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and
freedom of other persons.’. Therefore, it is my
considered view that ‘revolution’ does
not form part of rights to which any citizen of Nigeria is entitled
or can lay claim to under the Constitution. This provisions under
section 45 of the Constitution have now validated the provisions of
sections: 37 and 41 of the Criminal Code Act and 410,
411 and 412 of the Penal Code (Northern Region) Federal Provisions
Act, 1960 (No. 25 of 1960) which provides thus (the Criminal Code
Act as a reference since they have similar provisions) ‘37. (1) Any
person who levies war against the State, in order to intimidate or
overawe the President or the Governor of a State, is guilty of
treason, and is liable to the punishment of
death.

(2) Any person conspiring with any person, either
within or without Nigeria, to levy war against the State with
intent to cause such levying of war as would be treason if
committed by a citizen of Nigeria, is guilty of treason and is
liable to the punishment of death.

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent
any act from being treason which is so by the law of England as in
form in Nigeria.

(3) (Inserted by L.N. 112 of 1964 and deleted by
L.N. 139 of 1965.)

1. Any person who instigates any foreigner to invade
   Nigeria with an armed force is guilty of treason, and is liable to
   the punishment of death.
2. (1) Where an offender who in the opinion of the
   court had not attained the age of seventeen years at the time the
   offence was committed has been found guilty of an offence against
   either section 37 or section 38 such offender shall not be
   sentenced to death but shall be ordered to be detained during the
   pleasure of the President and upon such an order being made the
   provisions of Part 44 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall
   apply.

(2) Where a woman who has been convicted of an
offence against either section 37 or section 38 alleges she is
pregnant or where the judge before whom she is convicted considers
it advisable to have inquiries made as to whether or not she be
pregnant the procedure laid down in section 376 of the Criminal
Procedure Act shall first be complied with.

1. Any person who-

(1) becomes an accessory after the fact to treason;
or

(2) knowing that any person intends to commit
treason, does not give information thereof with all reasonable
despatch to  the President or the Governor of the State or a
peace officer, or use other reasonable endeavours to prevent the
commission of the offence; is guilty of a felony, and is liable to
imprisonment for life.

1. Any person who forms an intention to effect any of
   the following purposes, that is to say-

(a) to remove during his term of office otherwise
than by constitutional means the President as Head of State of the
Federation and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces thereof;
or

(b) to likewise remove during his term of office the
Governor of a State; or

(c) to levy war against Nigeria in order by force or
constraint to compel the President to change his measures or
counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in
order to intimidate or overawe any House of the National Assembly
or any other Legislature or legislative authority;
or

(d) to instigate any foreigner to make any armed
invasion of Nigeria or of any of the territories thereof; and
manifests such intention by an overt act, is guilty of a felony and
is liable to imprisonment for life.

A person charged with any of the felonies defined in
this section is not entitled to be acquitted on the ground that any
act proved to have been committed by him constitutes the offence of
treason; but a person who has been tried, and convicted or
acquitted, on a charge of any such offence cannot he afterwards
prosecuted for treason in respect of the same facts.’, among other
likely breached provisions under the Criminal Acts
(laws). In my humble view, from the above provisions
of laws on treason, revolution is criminal and illegal throughout
Nigeria. Also, revolution in my view is also an act of terrorism
under the section1 and 4 of the Terrorism Prevention
Act, 2013 (as amended).

Furthermore, in my humble view, what citizens of Nigeria are
allowed to do is to protest which is a form of expression of
displeasure of the citizens concerned either about the government’s
political system or its functions. This however, does not result in
calling or inciting members of the public against the government or
to violently change the political system or the government in
power.

Furthermore, in my humble view, with due respect to any contrary
view, there are two ways in democracy through which a government in
power can be changed. These are: (i) by democratic elections; (ii)
by constitutional removal under sections: 143 or 144 of the
Constitution. These two are in my humble view, alternative to
revolution. Most importantly, it is necessary for me to also
observe that once the President of the Federation has been elected
into power (whether he is capable of leadership or not) in
compliance with section 134(2) of the
Constitution, he can only be removed from power under
the above listed ways. That is, in case of democratic elections,
the citizens will have to utilize their electoral or voting rights
carefully, consciously, in good faith and with the intention of
pulling out the alleged bad government from power. So, in other
words, they would have to endure the pains that were self-inflicted
by themselves. What do I mean by ‘self-inflicted’?! The reader of
this paper would recollect that it has become the
political/electoral norm and custom that some materials such as
clothing; money; etc. are allegedly distributed to some of the
electorates at the expense of their votes during election campaigns
by some political parties, thereby selling their votes. So, how
could persons who have betrayed their country, conscience and
Nigerian leadership be confident to publicly accuse their
government of being bad?! With respect, this paper is not referring
to the current government as either bad or good because the purpose
of this paper is not an assessment of the efficiency of the current
government’s system but might possibly be considered in my other
articles. More so, democratic elections are about majority having
their ways and the minority having their say. So, it is just better
to base grievances on peaceful protest which is legal rather than
the acclaimed revolution which is illegal and criminal. So, in my
view, change of a government can arise at the time of considering
who the peoples’ candidates are at both the executive and
legislative houses and considering the manifesto of the contesting
political party and the candidates.

In conclusion, it is my considered view that while revolution is
inappropriate, illegal and treasonable in democracy, democratic
elections and removal of the President on the ground of gross
misconducts are alternative to revolution, which is legal,
constitutional and permissible. Also, the two terms of ‘protest’
and ‘revolution’ have to be considered in their various surrounding
circumstances to avoid misconception.

Email: [email protected]^[1]