Governance And Nigeria’s Mercantile Politics

By Dr.Muiz Banire SAN

Few days ago when I read about the imminent defection of the
Governor of Zamfara State, Bello Muhammad Matawalle, from the
People’s Democratic Party ( PDP), the platform on which he was
elected, to the All Progressives Congress (APC), my exasperation
attained the peak. This is because, over time, this issue has been
agitating my mind but with no opportunity to vent it. The act of
defecting is not new in Nigeria, as it is already a pattern in the
political firmament of the nation. Right from the inception of
civilian rule, otherwise disguised as democracy in Nigeria in 1999,
several defections or, if you like, call it cross-carpeting, have
taken place. It started with the ruling party then, the PDP, when
some elected officials of other parties, particularly the smaller
ones, moved into PDP.

Now with the APC as the ruling party, the trend has continued.
Although the Nigerian Constitution will seem not to forbid such
decamping in case of the elected executive members, in the case of
the legislators, however, it forbids defection, except where there
is crisis in the leadership of the party in which the defecting
elected officer belongs. Thus, executive cross-carpeting has been
the order of the day in Nigeria without restraint. With respect to
the legislators, those defecting in those days always looked for
one excuse or the other, bordering on fractionalization of the
political party, in order to defect, but, in recent times, no such
caution exists. This is done with impunity now and without regard
for the constitutional dictate. They now defect with reckless
abandon.

The reason for this trend is not difficult to decipher. It is
simply because of the delay and frustration in the administration
of justice in Nigeria. I am sure that practically all of them rely
on the fact that, by the time such cases travel between the court
of first instance and the apex court for determination, their
tenure would have expired. Hence, they safely embark on such
gamble.

The question, however, is, should this act of reckless defection
be encouraged or accepted by the society, including the political
actors? Me think not.  The reason for my conviction lies in
the need to grow and strengthen the country’s democracy. Political
party, as globally recognized in democracies, is a vital, if not
fundamental, component of a democratic evolution and good
governance. This is underscored by the fact of the Nigerian
Constitution making specific provisions for its existence and
operation. In fact, as the Nigerian Constitution stands today, no
person/aspirant can vie for an elected political position without
being a member of a political party.

Unfortunately, however, as paramount as political parties are in
the election of the political leaders of the country, one cannot
safely say, in the strict sense, that there exist political parties
in Nigeria. This realization stems from the fact that all the
political associations in Nigeria today are mere platforms for
grabbing power. They are political entities without any clear-cut
political ideology with their constitutions being largely ‘cut and
paste’ aside from the fact that they lack consideration for fair
play or playing by the rules. They are all virtually identical in
their provisions to the extent that one can hardly differentiate
them. They are regurgitations of the provisions of one another.
Where are the distinct manifestoes? Lost in transit. Little wonder,
therefore, that the politicians operate with ease in defecting from
one political party to the other.

They have no core value that attaches them to any political
party. But, be that as it is, this is not my destination. My
challenge lies in the fraud being perpetrated on the electorate by
the defecting elected officials in such instances described above.
Like it is known, several political parties do contest each
election with the electorate allegedly choosing by way of exercise
of franchise of which political party they prefer. Where such
choice is made by the electorate based on whatever parameter they
relied upon, leadership of the party, purported manifesto or some
other parochial reasons they believe, it becomes an article of
faith with the party and the elected official. In other words, the
presumption is that the trust in the political party informed the
electorate’s choice and as such the mandate donated must be
respected. It is in my view a sacred trust that must be cherished.
The implication of this, therefore, is that the votes cast for the
political party are premised on the conviction of the electorate.
This is a trust that is morally binding, to say the least.
Consequently, where such elected official decides to leave the
political party, which grounded his election, it behooves him
morally to leave behind the mandate of the political party he is
defecting from.

This is the least that is expected of an honourable person. He
certainly must vacate the seat to enable the electorate make their
choice again. In other words, he needs to revalidate his mandate
through another election in which he will test his popularity and
acceptability among the electorate. Doing otherwise amounts to
breach of trust and act of immorality. Regrettably, the trend has
been to elope with the mandate of the victim political party. This
is not surprising in the country, as values and virtues have
completely vanished. So many aberrations are committed daily by our
political leaders with impunity, as there is moral collapse in the
nation. There is no minimum content of national ethics again as
everything, in our sense of right and wrong, has suddenly become
relative. Just last week, the Secretary of Health in Great Britain,
Matt Hancock, resigned his position simply because he violated
social distancing rule.

There was also the case of the Home Secretary that resigned
simply because he spoke to an official of his department on an
application before the Home Office. Several other instances abound
in the UK and other civilized and progressive nations. I can
replicate them to no end. Regrettably, however, it is not in the
character of Nigerian public officials to exhibit such integrity in
office. The refusal of these defecting officials to vacate their
seats or offices is, in my view, not only immoral but despicable.
Nigerians need to rise up against such elected officials,
particularly those in their constituencies who are victims of the
electoral daylight robbery Failure to right this wrong will lend
credence to the allegation that the electorate’s votes do not count
and are valueless in the determination of the elected leaders of
the people in Nigeria. The electorate that refuses to act on such
profanity will also be equally guilty. No doubt, it will continue
to enlarge or widen the electoral apathy in the nation. Now, beyond
the immorality of political defection, the legal position is
equally not favorable to the defecting elected officials.

As indicated earlier, while the illegality in the defection of
the executive may not be clear, that involving legislators is
obvious where there is no crisis in the political party from which
the elected official is moving. It is important in this regard to
note such crisis recognizable must in law be at the national level
of the political party. Most importantly, however, if the decisions
of the apex court are something to go by, it is purely illegal for
the elected officials to cross-carpet without losing their seats.
This arises from the fact that, by the law, as variously
interpreted by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, it is the political
parties that contest elections in Nigeria and, by implication, it
is only the political parties that own the votes cast for them. In
other words, the standard-bearers are mere beneficiaries of the
grace of the political parties. The import of this is simply that
where the candidate that is the ultimate beneficiary of the mandate
given to the political party defects, he must leave behind such
mandate.

He cannot elope with it to the new political party. This is the
net effect of the apex court’s decisions in several cases.
Ordinarily, by that logic, such victim political party is the one
that can replace the elected official defecting. If this is,
however, not to be embraced and seen as extreme, the least that is
capable of happening is the conduct of a new election by the
electoral umpire to either revalidate the choice of the erstwhile
official or the confirmation of the mandate of a new winner. This
is the only justice for the electorate in the circumstances. The
electorate’s will must be allowed to prevail at all times. The
courts and the people must not allow the people’s mandate to be
fraudulently stolen in such circumstances. This is also the only
way to grow our political parties and strengthen our democracy.
This act of brigandage is stultifying the growth of the political
parties and, by extension, the democratic process.

This issue has not been sufficiently interrogated by the victim
political parties for two main reasons. Firstly, because they all
engage and benefit from the illegality from time to time, they
remain silent in the face of this immorality and illegality.
Secondly, as said earlier, the time it takes to ventilate this
cause and the expense associated with it, discourage embarking on
it. Thus, as all the politicians and by extension, the political
parties benefit from this wrong, they remain silent in the face of
the wrong. It is simply pathetic as this is the selfishness of the
political class who has refused to see the bigger picture. All they
see and are interested in, is the increase in their ranks than the
growth of the political system.

Most of those elected officials  decamping are equally
doing so for selfish reasons in terms of self-preservation
(prosecutorial immunity) or personal aggrandizement. The duty is
now incumbent on the electorate and the people at large to compel
adherence to this simple principle of morality and conscience. The
obduracy in the system must be deprecated by all Nigerians. For the
victim political parties also, the time is ripe to start
challenging the immoral and illegal acts.  The political class
must see beyond its nose and join hands in building an enduring
political institution. Enough of this scavenging and mercantile
politics. On the part of the Courts, we plead that matters of this
nature that border on the mandate of the people must be given
priority going forward. The court needs to assist in strengthening
our democracy and building an enduring legacy as it has been doing
in recent times. Decamping whittles down the Country’s
democracy.

By Dr.Muiz Banire SAN

Few days ago when I read about the imminent defection of the
Governor of Zamfara State, Bello Muhammad Matawalle, from the
People’s Democratic Party ( PDP), the platform on which he was
elected, to the All Progressives Congress (APC), my exasperation
attained the peak. This is because, over time, this issue has been
agitating my mind but with no opportunity to vent it. The act of
defecting is not new in Nigeria, as it is already a pattern in the
political firmament of the nation. Right from the inception of
civilian rule, otherwise disguised as democracy in Nigeria in 1999,
several defections or, if you like, call it cross-carpeting, have
taken place. It started with the ruling party then, the PDP, when
some elected officials of other parties, particularly the smaller
ones, moved into PDP.

Now with the APC as the ruling party, the trend has continued.
Although the Nigerian Constitution will seem not to forbid such
decamping in case of the elected executive members, in the case of
the legislators, however, it forbids defection, except where there
is crisis in the leadership of the party in which the defecting
elected officer belongs. Thus, executive cross-carpeting has been
the order of the day in Nigeria without restraint. With respect to
the legislators, those defecting in those days always looked for
one excuse or the other, bordering on fractionalization of the
political party, in order to defect, but, in recent times, no such
caution exists. This is done with impunity now and without regard
for the constitutional dictate. They now defect with reckless
abandon.

The reason for this trend is not difficult to decipher. It is
simply because of the delay and frustration in the administration
of justice in Nigeria. I am sure that practically all of them rely
on the fact that, by the time such cases travel between the court
of first instance and the apex court for determination, their
tenure would have expired. Hence, they safely embark on such
gamble.

The question, however, is, should this act of reckless defection
be encouraged or accepted by the society, including the political
actors? Me think not.  The reason for my conviction lies in
the need to grow and strengthen the country’s democracy. Political
party, as globally recognized in democracies, is a vital, if not
fundamental, component of a democratic evolution and good
governance. This is underscored by the fact of the Nigerian
Constitution making specific provisions for its existence and
operation. In fact, as the Nigerian Constitution stands today, no
person/aspirant can vie for an elected political position without
being a member of a political party.

Unfortunately, however, as paramount as political parties are in
the election of the political leaders of the country, one cannot
safely say, in the strict sense, that there exist political parties
in Nigeria. This realization stems from the fact that all the
political associations in Nigeria today are mere platforms for
grabbing power. They are political entities without any clear-cut
political ideology with their constitutions being largely ‘cut and
paste’ aside from the fact that they lack consideration for fair
play or playing by the rules. They are all virtually identical in
their provisions to the extent that one can hardly differentiate
them. They are regurgitations of the provisions of one another.
Where are the distinct manifestoes? Lost in transit. Little wonder,
therefore, that the politicians operate with ease in defecting from
one political party to the other.

They have no core value that attaches them to any political
party. But, be that as it is, this is not my destination. My
challenge lies in the fraud being perpetrated on the electorate by
the defecting elected officials in such instances described above.
Like it is known, several political parties do contest each
election with the electorate allegedly choosing by way of exercise
of franchise of which political party they prefer. Where such
choice is made by the electorate based on whatever parameter they
relied upon, leadership of the party, purported manifesto or some
other parochial reasons they believe, it becomes an article of
faith with the party and the elected official. In other words, the
presumption is that the trust in the political party informed the
electorate’s choice and as such the mandate donated must be
respected. It is in my view a sacred trust that must be cherished.
The implication of this, therefore, is that the votes cast for the
political party are premised on the conviction of the electorate.
This is a trust that is morally binding, to say the least.
Consequently, where such elected official decides to leave the
political party, which grounded his election, it behooves him
morally to leave behind the mandate of the political party he is
defecting from.

This is the least that is expected of an honourable person. He
certainly must vacate the seat to enable the electorate make their
choice again. In other words, he needs to revalidate his mandate
through another election in which he will test his popularity and
acceptability among the electorate. Doing otherwise amounts to
breach of trust and act of immorality. Regrettably, the trend has
been to elope with the mandate of the victim political party. This
is not surprising in the country, as values and virtues have
completely vanished. So many aberrations are committed daily by our
political leaders with impunity, as there is moral collapse in the
nation. There is no minimum content of national ethics again as
everything, in our sense of right and wrong, has suddenly become
relative. Just last week, the Secretary of Health in Great Britain,
Matt Hancock, resigned his position simply because he violated
social distancing rule.

There was also the case of the Home Secretary that resigned
simply because he spoke to an official of his department on an
application before the Home Office. Several other instances abound
in the UK and other civilized and progressive nations. I can
replicate them to no end. Regrettably, however, it is not in the
character of Nigerian public officials to exhibit such integrity in
office. The refusal of these defecting officials to vacate their
seats or offices is, in my view, not only immoral but despicable.
Nigerians need to rise up against such elected officials,
particularly those in their constituencies who are victims of the
electoral daylight robbery Failure to right this wrong will lend
credence to the allegation that the electorate’s votes do not count
and are valueless in the determination of the elected leaders of
the people in Nigeria. The electorate that refuses to act on such
profanity will also be equally guilty. No doubt, it will continue
to enlarge or widen the electoral apathy in the nation. Now, beyond
the immorality of political defection, the legal position is
equally not favorable to the defecting elected officials.

As indicated earlier, while the illegality in the defection of
the executive may not be clear, that involving legislators is
obvious where there is no crisis in the political party from which
the elected official is moving. It is important in this regard to
note such crisis recognizable must in law be at the national level
of the political party. Most importantly, however, if the decisions
of the apex court are something to go by, it is purely illegal for
the elected officials to cross-carpet without losing their seats.
This arises from the fact that, by the law, as variously
interpreted by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, it is the political
parties that contest elections in Nigeria and, by implication, it
is only the political parties that own the votes cast for them. In
other words, the standard-bearers are mere beneficiaries of the
grace of the political parties. The import of this is simply that
where the candidate that is the ultimate beneficiary of the mandate
given to the political party defects, he must leave behind such
mandate.

He cannot elope with it to the new political party. This is the
net effect of the apex court’s decisions in several cases.
Ordinarily, by that logic, such victim political party is the one
that can replace the elected official defecting. If this is,
however, not to be embraced and seen as extreme, the least that is
capable of happening is the conduct of a new election by the
electoral umpire to either revalidate the choice of the erstwhile
official or the confirmation of the mandate of a new winner. This
is the only justice for the electorate in the circumstances. The
electorate’s will must be allowed to prevail at all times. The
courts and the people must not allow the people’s mandate to be
fraudulently stolen in such circumstances. This is also the only
way to grow our political parties and strengthen our democracy.
This act of brigandage is stultifying the growth of the political
parties and, by extension, the democratic process.

This issue has not been sufficiently interrogated by the victim
political parties for two main reasons. Firstly, because they all
engage and benefit from the illegality from time to time, they
remain silent in the face of this immorality and illegality.
Secondly, as said earlier, the time it takes to ventilate this
cause and the expense associated with it, discourage embarking on
it. Thus, as all the politicians and by extension, the political
parties benefit from this wrong, they remain silent in the face of
the wrong. It is simply pathetic as this is the selfishness of the
political class who has refused to see the bigger picture. All they
see and are interested in, is the increase in their ranks than the
growth of the political system.

Most of those elected officials  decamping are equally
doing so for selfish reasons in terms of self-preservation
(prosecutorial immunity) or personal aggrandizement. The duty is
now incumbent on the electorate and the people at large to compel
adherence to this simple principle of morality and conscience. The
obduracy in the system must be deprecated by all Nigerians. For the
victim political parties also, the time is ripe to start
challenging the immoral and illegal acts.  The political class
must see beyond its nose and join hands in building an enduring
political institution. Enough of this scavenging and mercantile
politics. On the part of the Courts, we plead that matters of this
nature that border on the mandate of the people must be given
priority going forward. The court needs to assist in strengthening
our democracy and building an enduring legacy as it has been doing
in recent times. Decamping whittles down the Country’s
democracy.