Sierra Leoneans turned out in reasonable numbers at polling stations on Wednesday to elect their country's new president, members of parliament and local councils in the fourth cycle of elections since the civil war in 2002.

"A slow start is noticeable, but the key point is that the process is peaceful and orderly," said Prof. Amos Sawyer, Head of ECOWAS' 65-member Observation Mission, after visiting several polling stations in Freetown's Western Urban in company of the ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affair, Peace and Security Gen. Francis Behanzin, leading the ECOWAS Commission's Technical Support Team for the Mission.

Voting is officially from 7am to 5 pm, and by 6.45 am, when the ECOWAS Observation team arrived at the Lumley High School Polling Centre with 11 polling stations scores of voters were already on the queues waiting to cast their ballots.

Persons with disability, women and the elderly were not left out. Fifty-six-year-old Abdulai Koroma, a visually-challenged voter assisted by his friend Kamara, was among the early voters at the Lumley polling centre.

The slow start situation was similar at Cockerill Preparatory School centre in Willington Bye-Pass, which has six stations, with more than 11 voters having cast their ballots at polling station one by 8 am.
Prof. Sawyer particularly praised the enthusiasm of the voters and expressed optimism that the process would pick up to allow all eligible voters exercise their civic duty for the consolidation of stability and democracy in the country and the region.

Commissioner Behanzin, echoed his sentiments, noting that the process had started well and was expected to improve during the day.

{gallery}slpoll3{/gallery}

One challenge reported by international observers, especially in the urban towns such as Freetown, Bo and Kenema, is the difficulty of some voters in accessing their polling stations due to the official restriction on vehicular movement.

Only accredited vehicles are allowed movement on voting day and the restriction was challenged at the High Court, which gave its approval this week.
Meanwhile, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) Sierra Leone’s Director of Administration and Logistics Abubakar Koroma, confirmed the transport challenge, assuring that the authorities were consulting to proffer solutions so as not to disenfranchise eligible voters.

NEC registered some 3.17 million voters to cast their ballots in 11,122 polling stations across Sierra Leone’s 16 Administration Districts. Sixteen candidates, including two women are vying to replace outgoing President Ernest Bai Koroma, who has served two mandates of 10 years.

More than 750 other candidates are contesting for the 144-seat Parliament in the elections, the first time that Sierra Leone authorities are taking full charge of the electoral process following the departure of the UN Mission in 2014.

The trophy for the FIFA World Cup billed for Russia later this year has arrived the Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport (NAIA) in Abuja.

Sports minister, Solomon Dalung, the Nigeria Football Federation president Amaju Pinnick; and other officials were at the airport to receive the trophy.

Daily Trust

The Lagos State All Progressives Congress (APC) has kicked against the “elongation” of the party’s national and state executives tenure, saying it is against the country’s and APC’s constitutions.

Rising from a Consultative Forum held at the State House Marina, Lagos and attended by party elders from across the state, the leaders said the extension of the tenure of the party’s National Chairman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, and his executives by one year was against the spirit of the country’s and APC’s constitutions.

Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for periodical election on a democratic basis for principal officers and members of the executive committee of political parties. According to the constitution, election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party will be deemed to be periodical if done at regular intervals not exceeding four years.

Article 17 of the party’s constitution also provides for a four-year tenure for its national and state executives, which is renewable for another four years.

He said: “We have taken reports of the state APC chairman in respect of the NEC meeting held in Abuja. We have also had the privilege of receiving great reports from our leader from the reconciliation committee.

“We have considered the issue of extension of tenure and we are of the firm belief that the decision is a breach of the constitution of our party and of the country. We are against the elongation of tenure.

“We shall continue to make our decision known to the party and to the president”.

The tenure of Oyegun and the executives is due to expire in June.

Section 223 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, as amended, specifically states that:

(a) provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and

(b) ensure that the members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party reflect the federal character of Nigeria.

(2) For the purposes of this section –

(a) the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years; and…”

In extending the tenure, the APC National Executive Committee had relied on Article 13.3 (ii) of its constitution which states that The NEC can discharge the functions of the convention in a period of emergency.

Article 13.3 (ii) of APC Constitution specifically states that the NEC of the party is empowered to;

“Discharge all functions of the National Conventions as constituted in between Conventions”.

But the provision in Article 13.3 (ii) is not limitless and open-ended. It is a responsibility restricted by the same constitution, which provides exclusively under Article 30 (i) that: ”This Constitution and Schedules hereto can be amended only by the National Convention of the Party.”

The party’s constitution provides the processes for constitution amendment.

Article 30 “(ii) Notice of any proposed amendment by any member or organ of the Party shall be given to the National Secretary at least twenty-one (21) days before the date of the National Convention.  The notice, which shall be in writing, shall contain a clear statement of the proposed amendment and reasons thereof.

(iii) Notice of proposed amendment(s) shall be served on the members of the National Convention at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the meeting at which the proposed amendment is to be considered.  Publication of the notice of the proposed amendments in a National Newspaper shall be deemed to be sufficient Notice.

(iv)The Constitution or any part thereof shall stand amended if a proposed amendment is supported by at least two thirds of the delegates present and voting.

(v) Where new positions and Offices are created as a result of the amendment of this Constitution, the relevant Executive Committee shall until the next Convention or Congress fill such positions and office in an interim capacity.”

The Nation

It’s a cliché of our national existence to hear politicians and other categories of public officials describe the youth as ‘leaders of tomorrow’. Those who will be tomorrow’s leaders have a right to possess their today one would imagine.

But the rhetoric of a projected future for the Nigerian child has since replaced the nightmare of their present reality. Nigerians leaders have no more faith in the rhetoric of the youth taking over the leadership of this country than they do in their oath of office that forbids corruption of all kinds among public officials. Otherwise, the two leading political parties in the country wouldn’t have as their leading presidential candidates individuals approaching their eightieth birthdays among many other politicians that are closer to their grave than a convicted murderer.

For a class to whom corruption is second nature it may not mean anything that the future is being stolen from the Nigerian child, exposed as they are to the irresponsible conduct of our political leaders.

The unfolding ordeal of the Dapchi school girls further confirms the uncertain future Nigerian politicians are leaving their so-called leaders of tomorrow. It’s been two agonising weeks since these hapless girls were forcefully taken away from their school premises by murderous operatives of a group our deluded government had serially vowed has been roundly defeated. While laying the ground for the imminent declaration of President Muhammadu Buhari for a second term, the All Progressives Congress, APC,  party had led itself to believe its own lies that Boko Haram has been consigned into history.

But no sooner was this message conveyed to the Nigerian people than the insurgent group staged a spectacular invasion of Dapchi and abducted at least 110 students of the Government Girls Science and Technical College in Busari local Government Area of Yobe State. Four years before it was the benighted town of Chibok in Borno State that received these agents of darkness.

In those four years during which the Nigerian government is still paying ransoms and releasing arrested Boko Haram operatives in exchanges for the girls it would still not acknowledge to the Nigerian people- in the four years since the return of the remaining Chibok girls is still a matter in the hands of providence, one would have imagined that the Nigerian government and its security agencies would have learned the right lessons about how not to lead a people.

But no, that’s asking too much of a confused leadership that is too set in its incompetent ways to imagine a reform possible. It went to sleep after believing its own lies that it has completely decimated a group that was essentially a scorched rather than the dead snake that the government proclaimed it to be. A military that randomly releases its battle strategies in the media has now belatedly learned the trite knowledge that every trainee soldier knows: you do not publicise your strategy against an enemy.

In the weeks immediately preceding the abduction of the Dapchi girls, the APC government made so much song and dance of its supposed defeat of Boko Haram. Both its army and the police among other security agencies announced the establishment of new formations. Most significantly the military announced, perhaps as a celebration of its assumed victory, the establishment of a military base right in the heart of Sambisa forest. It generally assumed that it has completely taken over Sambisa forest, and that outside this zone Boko Haram has no existence. Now the joke is on our security agencies and not Boko Haram.

Just a week before the nation was summoned to welcome home the president’s son, Yusuf, from Germany- just weeks after the young Yusuf fell off a power bike alongside a friend, while racing each other on fuel guzzling machines at a time the rest of the country was experiencing a devastating round of fuel scarcity, the Dapchi school girls were forced into captivity. We saw the joy with which the president received his own son. How one wishes the same joy for the parents of the Dapchi girls.

These girls were exactly where they ought to be as school girls- studying and going about their business in the vicinity of their school. Like their Chibok predecessors in captivity, they were being prepared for a future that could hopefully make some difference to their lives. The dream of that future has effectively been shattered by those entrusted with the responsibility of protecting them- if they are not returned.

We have failed our own children. For no fault of theirs we have destroyed their faith in a country that does not set store by the future even while proclaiming faith in it. What words of consolation would be enough for 12-years old Aisha Adamu Gashuama whose first day in school also marked her first in captivity? What therapy can compensate for the trauma of such experience? What official platitude would reassure Budumi Mustapha, the retired civil servant, who lost three daughters to the abductors?

In a region already made backward by poverty and whose hope lies in increased exposure to modern education, how does anybody persuade parents to release their daughters to go to school? What are the real and potential consequences of more girls staying out of school in a part of Nigeria that is already notorious for poor attendance of boys to say nothing of girls in school?

Now girls have become the target of murderous groups looking for free brides and potential suicide bombers, what are the consequences of the kind of failure by our children that has led to this theft of their future? What amount of counseling and preachment would suffice or amend for the literal rape of a child’s future? What kind of government sits back and leave room for the kind of outrage and national shame that would lead to a reprise of the April 2014 episode in Chibok?

When a country fails her young people in the manner Nigeria continually fails the youth of this country, what right has such a country to the allegiance of the youth?

The issue before us extends beyond the potential loss of electoral votes as the APC might yet suffer for this disgrace. Deserved as such defeat might be, this Buhari-led government has the immediate task of doing everything possible to ensure the return of these young Nigerians. The story of their abduction, the pain of their families and the incompetence that made these all inevitable make the heart bleed and grieve for this nation. While these children suffer our leaders are giving and taking their own children in marriage.

They are fiddling while their roofs are on fire. Are we on the road to another 1000 days of the Chibok girls in captivity? Shall we allow this? 

Last week the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released what looked like the periodic table which we used in the O-level Chemistry class to determine the valency of metallic elements, announcing the dates of elections in Nigeria up to 2043 or so. Some people saw this as a strategic and audacious move of projecting the future.

Indeed INEC said they did this to bring some certainty to election dates in Nigeria. Many other commentators have mocked INEC for ‘forming work’, that is pretending to be working when actually there is no work being done. They think that INEC is leaving the substance and pursuing the shadow.

Some think all this was INEC’s response to the “effrontery” of the National Assembly in trying to change the sequence of elections in Nigeria. The executive is decidedly unhappy about this and it looks as if INEC has gone on overdrive to project the President’s desire. But there is little INEC can do, as it is their lot to implement the laws made by the National Assembly and not to make laws themselves.

Some believe that INEC should spend its time and budget in tackling existing problems like a dispassionate and truthful investigation of the widely reported underage voting in parts of the North especially Kano during the 2015 elections and continued registration of the underaged currently going on in some parts of Nigeria.

This is because,this would have marred the 2015 elections and may have caused post election crisis were it not for the single minded determination of Goodluck Jonathan to avoid any bloodshed. In 2019, the combatants may not be as peace seeking or in the language of Charley boy as “mumu” like Jonathan. It is further felt that if 2015 elections were expected to test Nigeria’s unity following several prophesies and theories, we do not need any other prophet to tell us that 2019 may be the 2015 that was prophesied.

This is because at no time in recent history did we approach an election season with so much anomie in the land.

Nigeria is currently so disunited and dysfunctional that anything worse than this will require a new definition of disunity. In 2015, we had some internally displaced persons (IDPs) camps in the North East only but as we approach 2019 we have IDP camps in the North East (courtesy Boko Haram), North West (courtesy Zamfara Bandits), North Central (courtesy Militant Fulani Herdsmen), South East (courtesy militant Fulani Herdsmen and Kidnappers), South West (courtesy militant Fulani herdsmen and Badoo cultists), South South (courtesy militant Fulani herdsmen, kidnappers and militant oil thieves). How INEC will handle this logistics nightmare should occupy INEC instead of acting as Nostradamus- the man who saw the future. There is so much uncertainty regarding 2019 elections that it may not be worth my time thinking of what will happen in 2023, not to talk of 2043.

First, many nationalities in Nigeria have taken positions regarding the future of Nigeria. Many still believe that there is some benefit in Nigeria remaining one big country with many nationalities. But such believe that for that to continue to be, the country has to be restructured in order to cure the country of the chronic instability, corruption, profligacy and dysfunction that has brought the country almost to its knees since the Military usurped power in 1966 and dislocated the arrangement made by the founders of modern Nigeria for a viable, thriving and mutually beneficial federation with strong federating units.

Some other nationalities especially in the core North feel that there is nothing wrong with Nigeria or its structure and will like to see Nigeria wobble from one crisis to another and continue to shed innocent blood daily perhaps to satisfy thirsty deities foistered on this country by the workers of iniquity. And then there are some other nationalities that feel that Nigeria is a lost cause. They look at the contradictions – ethnic bigotry, religious intolerance, manifest injustice, entrenched greed, sustained retrogression and the ‘we must rule or baboons and monkey be soaked in their blood’ mentality and they conclude that the only lasting solution is to let the nationalities go their separate ways in peace.

To this last group belongs Nnamdi Kanu of IPOB and many from his nationality. To day, I hear that many other nationalities especially in south-south and the middle belt share this view point,having tasted a little of what the South East has suffered in the Nigerian federation for years.

So it is clear that we are going into 2019 a very fractured Country with different nationalities holding different views about the future. While some are willing to have discussions on what to do, first to avoid any cataclysm that may be imminent and second on how to rearrange the relationships to assure future prosperity of all stakeholders in the Federation, some have already become impatient that they are already taking it out on the rest of us by different acts of violence and malfeasance.

This is evident in the current state of affairs in Nigeria where it is as if we are in a state of war, one new killing field every day and yet some people think all is well.

I think INEC should begin to create scenarios as to what will happen if the election does not hold in 2019. That is a possibility, even if remote. Some nationalities have insisted that there will be no elections in 2019 if the restructuring of Nigeria does not happen, resulting in a new constitution before elections.

They opine that the cosmetic piecemeal amendments of the 1999 Constitution being undertaken by the legislature is only begging the issue and only a brand new constitution written by the true representatives of the federating nationalities will satisfy their demand.

The government of Nigeria certainly does not take that kind of threat lightly and would rather prepare the military to undertake an operation ‘Elephant gyration’ to subdue any such nationalities. But my point is that there is so much real work INEC should be doing, instead of just ‘forming’work.

Over the weekend, I heard that a particular political party was doing ‘empowerment’ programs in my town and they were cajoling young men and women to come and collect money to start businesses or help themselves on the condition that they will drop their Permanent Voter’s cards.

Fears of the imminent risk of Nigeria being expelled from the Egmont Group, a global network of 152 Financial Intelligence Units (FUIs), set Federal Government officials scurrying to prevent what could spell disaster for our financial system.

The Presidency and the National Assembly abdicated their duty of ensuring the independence of the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, NFIU, which was put under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

In July 2017, the Egmont Group lost patience with Nigeria and suspended our NFIU because of the EFCC’s habit of leaking sensitive financial intelligence to the media even before charging suspects to court. The EFCC also refused to cooperate in efforts to grant the NFIU independence.

Nigeria was required to amend the laws to either make the NFIU a separate corporate body or transfer it to the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, the global practice.

The Presidency had set up an ad-hoc committee headed by Senator Chukwuka Utazi, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption, to reposition the NFIU and ensure it is not expelled from the Egmont Group. It was to turn in its report in August 2017, but nothing came of it.

Unfortunately, the Egmont Group has been meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina since Friday March 2 Reports have it that our possible expulsion is on the cards.

Nigeria’s expulsion will spell doom for our international financial transactions, especially as credit card holders will experience problems transacting business because such transactions can no longer be verified and confirmed through the global FIU. The situation will be worsened by the recent drop in our Corruption Perception Index, CPI, conducted by Transparency International, TI, our subsisting image as a country widely associated with advance fee fraud and the activities of Islamist insurgents in the North who receive illicit funds through suspicious networks.

The scale of an expulsion backlash could throw our banking system into chaos and the economy might even drop back to recession. Nigeria will once again become an international financial pariah as we experienced during the General Sani Abacha years.

If the Egmont Group hammer falls on Nigeria, the anti-corruption crusade of the President Muhammadu Buhari regime would be dealt another blow, the second within three weeks following the TI downgrade of our standing in the CPI.

We had called for an end to the circus shows which the anti-graft agencies stage in the media which most of the time end up a waste of time and money in the courts. But no one listened.

As we wait for the Egmont Group’s verdict we can only hope for the best.

Vanguard

One of Nigeria’s foremost legal practitioners, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN has recently published an opinion on the needless controversy over one (1) out of the forty five (45) clauses in the proposed amendment to the extant Electoral Act (see Vanguard Newspaper of Friday 23rd February, 2018).

The main thrust of the clause is to amend the existing section 25 (1) of the Electoral Act by setting out the order or sequence of general elections in the country.

If passed into law before the next general elections, the amendment shall become effective in the conduct of those elections, being a law made by the National Assembly in exercise of its constitutional power to make law on elections into the offices of “President and Vice President or Governor and Deputy Governor and any other office to which a person may be elected under the (sic) Constitution, excluding election to a local government council or any office in such council” provided in the Exclusive Legislative List (see item 22 of the list).

However, in the view of the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the said proposed clause is misconceived and an infringement on the general powers conferred on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by the Constitution to “organize, undertake and supervise” the general elections within its purview. Mr. Falana, SAN concluded his paper by declaring quite magisterially, in my view, thus:

“In other words, since the INEC has been empowered to organize, undertake and supervise all elections the National Assembly cannot rely on the provision of the Electoral Act to usurp the power of INEC to fix the dates for the elections.

In view of the settled position of the law the INEC should not waste public funds by rushing to the Supreme Court to contest its own constitutional duty to organize, undertake and supervise the 2019 general election”! (Emphasis mine).

Given the public personality of Mr. Falana, SAN especially in the legal discipline, it is quite logical to believe that his legal opinion is weighty enough to sway not only the minds of most Nigerians untrained in the law, but also that of INEC itself which seems to be caught in the middle of the unnecessary controversy.

This rejoinder is an attempt to highlight the untenable premise of Mr. Falana, SAN’s commentary which led to the alarming conclusions he reached; conclusions which, as we shall demonstrate, are not only legally unsupportable, but also appear calculated to encourage INEC to engage in acts of lawlessness and defiance against an arm of the Government of Nigeria charged with the legitimate power to make law.

The rejoinder shall focus on those two issues.

Power of the National Assembly to set sequence of Elections

A careful perusal of the proposed clause shows that what the National Assembly has done is to set the sequence or order of elections into the offices to be contested in a general election, not the date for conduct of those elections. Sequence or order of performing a task is clearly not the same as date(s) of doing the task.

Sequence refers to “a particular order in which related things follow each other”. The synonyms of the word “sequence” include succession, order, course, series, chain, concatenation, train, string, cycle, progression etc.

On its part, “date” refers to “a numbered day in a month, often given with a combination of the name of the day, the month, and the year”. Mr. Falana had argued in his paper that the National Assembly lacks power to fix election dates.

From the foregoing, by proposing to amend the Electoral Act to set the sequence of general elections, the National Assembly has not set the dates for the elections, even as it may well have been able to do so pursuant to powers conferred on it in the First Alteration Act since the power to set date of elections could, by necessary implication, include the power to set sequence of the election which the National Assembly has sought to do with the proposed amendment.

The next issue is whether by setting the sequence of general elections as proposed in the following order, namely:

A) National Assembly Elections,

B) Governorship and State Assembly Elections, and

C) Presidential Election, the National Assembly has acted ultra vires its constitutional powers to make law or the particular proposed amendment to justify the conclusion that the particular clause is unconstitutional, null and void for contravening the provisions of paragraph 15, Part 1 to the Third Schedule of the Constitution set out pursuant to section 153 of the Constitution.

For the avoidance of doubt, the said paragraph deals with the general powers of INEC over elections and related matters.

In exercising its power to set sequence of elections through an Act, the National Assembly is obviously complying with the provisions of the First Alteration Act to the Constitution in sections 5 (a), 10 (a), 11 (a) and 17 (a), which specifically removed the powers of INEC to set dates of elections into the offices of President (and Vice President), National Assembly membership, Governor (and Deputy Governor) and House of Assembly membership hitherto granted in the original text of the Constitution in sections 76 (1), 116 (1), 132 (1) and 178 (1) and placed the power to set date(s) of elections to be determined by the Electoral Act!

Although Mr. Falana acknowledged that the proposed clause apparently derives its origins from this constitutional change, yet he tried to diminish the effectiveness of the constitutional change by suggesting that the general powers of INEC in paragraph 15, Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution to “organize, undertake and supervise” are sufficient to trump the specific powers conferred by the First Alteration Act to the Constitution which removed the specific power to set date from INEC and placed it within the Electoral Act.

The position taken by the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria is clearly wrong and unsupportable. The First Alteration Act is an intrinsic part of Nigeria’s Constitution making it as supreme as every other portion of the Constitution.

If anything, its provisions altering specific portions of the original text of the Constitution unquestionably supplants those portions.

Sections 76 (1), 116 (1), 132 (1) and 178 (1) of the original text of the Constitution have since been supplanted by sections 5 (a), 10 (a), 11 (a) and 17 (a) of the First Alteration Act.

Those provisions are the only portions of the Constitution which hitherto (before the First Alteration Act) and still (based on the First Alteration Act) specifically deal with the power to set dates for elections into those offices.

Without doubt Mr. Falana must be familiar with the principle of interpretation generalia specialibus non derogant: “provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one” or which states that if two laws govern the same factual situation, a law governing a specific subject matter (lex specialis) overrides a law which governs only general matters (lex generalis).

In several cases, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld this principle of interpretation. One such notable cases is Attorney General of the Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1, where the court affirmed the application of rules of statutory interpretation in constitutional matters, and (per Tabai JSC) upheld the application of the principle while setting aside the declaration of the office of Vice President occupied by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as vacant.

Therefore, the general power of INEC to “organize, undertake and supervise” elections cannot by any stretch of interpretation or imagination override the specific power to set dates of elections which, by virtue of the provisions of the First Alteration Act, is now to be determined by an Act of parliament and not by INEC as hitherto stipulated in the now inoperative sections 76 (1), 116 (1), 132 (1) and 178 (1) of the original text of the Constitution.

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeal decision in National Assembly v. President (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 104, cited by Mr. Falana to justify his conclusion that INEC alone has the constitutional discretion to fix dates of elections bear no relevance to the issue at stake because it was decided 7 years before the constitutional changes contained in the First Alteration Act were passed in 2010.

Mr. Falana also referred to PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, NDP v. INEC (2013) 20 WRN 1 at 45 and Faleke v. INEC (2016) 50 WRN 1, to justify his contention that INEC’s discretionary powers to fix dates of elections are unquestionable.

In addition to the fact that those decisions refer to INEC’s purported discretionary powers under paragraphs 15, Part 1 to the Third Schedule of the Constitution, the decisions are inapplicable to the current issue as they did not decide the constitutional implication of the constitutional changes introduced by the First Alteration Act which removed the specific power hitherto conferred on INEC to fix dates of elections contained in the original text of the Constitution and placed that responsibility in the Electoral Act.

The last case of Attorney General, Abia State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002) 1 WRN 1 at 45 cited by Mr. Falana to contend that a provision in an Act of the National Assembly in respect of a matter already covered by the Constitution is liable to be “invalid for duplication and/or inconsistency and therefore inoperative”. This contention is once again inapplicable in the current matter.

As we have already submitted, after the First Alteration Act was passed in 2010, INEC no longer has power to fix dates of election.

The constitutional change has placed that responsibility in the Electoral Act. This is a completely different scenario from that stated in the AG Abia decision (supra), which refer to when an Act seeks to make conflicting provision in a matter already contained in the Constitution.

Consequently, the current effort of the National Assembly is perfectly within the powers of the National Assembly to undertake through the Electoral Act as it is based on a constitutional donation of powers hitherto specifically conferred on INEC by the Constitution but subsequently removed.

In any event, as the President has had cause to do previously, any suggestion that the proposed amendment is unwarranted can be checked by the President through exercise of his veto power, whenever the amendment bill is presented for his assent.

Where the President assents the bill into law, INEC is duty bound to comply with the new amended provisions, including the sequence for the general elections.

Where the President refuses to assent and the National Assembly is able to mobilize the required super-majority to override the presidential veto, the Bill automatically becomes an Act which the INEC is bound to comply with.

Or is Mr. Falana suggesting that it’s only if the President gives his assent to the amendment that INEC may feel bound to comply with the Act? I am of the humble view that any opinion which urges INEC to defiantly disobey an Act of the National Assembly must be deprecated as a call to anarchy.

This brings me to the second aspect of Mr. Falana’s commentary which motivated this rejoinder.

Whether INEC is permitted to sit back and ignore an Act of the National Assembly

In concluding his paper, Mr. Falana declared “In view of the settled position of the law the INEC should not waste public funds by rushing to the Supreme Court to contest its own constitutional duty to organize, undertake and supervise the 2019 general election”.

This weighty declaration of is shocking and ought to be rejected by all well-meaning Nigerians including INEC because it lacks any legal foundation and is a subtle way of asking INEC to assume the adjudicatory role of the Supreme Court and become a law unto itself.

In fact, it is capable of setting-off a chaining reaction which can only undermine the democratic system Nigerians of all classes have laboured to keep steady since 1999, with great efforts.

The power of the National Assembly to make law must be distinguished from the rightness or otherwise of the law made. No matter how dissatisfied with any law made by the National Assembly, citizens and institution to which they apply are duty bound to comply with the law, until set aside by the courts which alone have the constitutional powers to review the constitutionality of laws made by the National Assembly; or until the National Assembly itself tinker with it by a subsequent law.

Neither INEC nor any other body or person can assume the power to interpret the correctness of a law made by the National Assembly in valid exercise of its constitutional powers to make law, even if it’s a law which may subsequently be declared unconstitutional by the court.

Mr. Falana’s unsolicited advice to INEC is a call to trample on the rule of law upon which our constitutional democracy derives its sustenance.

Remarkably, even as he cited a number of inapplicable cases to contend that INEC has a general discretionary power to fix dates of election within its purview, Mr. Falana did not cite a single case which permits INEC to turn itself into an interpreter of the validity of an Act of the National Assembly, because no such case exists.

In several cases, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has warned against resort to self-help or discretion by government, authority or persons whenever there is a legal dispute.

For instance, in Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal v. Okorafor (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 310 at 327, the Supreme Court said: “Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law.

It means also that government should be conducted within the framework of recognized rules and principle which restrict discretionary power”.

Several years earlier during the years of impunity under military regimes in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 at 647, Per Oputa JSC), the Supreme Court was still able to admonish that: “The rule of law presupposes that the state is subject to the law, that the judiciary is the necessary agent of the rule of law… that by our constitution, the determination of all actions and proceedings relating to matters in dispute between persons, Government or authority”.

In the same case, Obaseki JSC also reaffirmed the sacrosanct position of the rule of law as opposed to discretional powers thus: “Rule of law primarily means that Government should be conducted within the framework of recognized rules and principle which restrict discretionary powers, which Coke colourfully spoke of as a golden and straight method of law as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion”.

To conclude, it’s obvious that INEC cannot allow itself to be derailed from his constitutional obligations by the unsupportable opinion offered by Mr. Falana as such opinion is an invitation to trample on the rule of law and lay foundation for abrogation of the still nascent constitutional government of the country.

Certainly, there is no portion of paragraph 15, Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution which confers powers on INEC to determine which law to obey, or not to approach the courts for judicial review of the constitutionality of any act of the National Assembly against which it disagrees.

On the contrary, there is no question that in several positions of the Constitution, starting with section 4 (2), the National Assembly is empowered to make laws in respect of matters listed in the Exclusive and Concurrent Lists of the Constitution, one of which is the power to legislate on elections into national and states executive and legislative offices!

*Omoregie is Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies, Abuja.*

The proposed plan to sell forfeited assets, which are deemed to be proceeds of crime and seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), by the Federal Government, is dogged by controversy. President Muhammadu Buhari has explained that the affected assets will be sold off and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury Single Account (TSA), to ensure that corrupt persons from whom the assets were seized would not reacquire them through the backdoor at the end of his tenure in office.    

Since President Buhari dropped the hint in Katsina State when he hosted some elders in Daura, reactions across the nation on the issue were sharply divided.  While some Nigerians condemned the plan, others called for full disclosures and transparency in handling the sale of the assets. 

Nigerians have urged the government to publish the list of all assets so far recovered as well as all money recovered, properties seized and where they are located in addition to who owned them. They want the government to disclose the assets that have been sold, the buyers.                    

However, government has provided just one of the answers to the numerous questions being asked, that is, some of the amount of money recovered. The Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, had recently disclosed that the various sums, in different currencies were recovered between May 2015 and May 2016.                                                

These include N78.325bn, $185 million,  £3.508m and €11,250. The government is yet to make public the amount recovered in 2017, even though the acting Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu, at his last appearance before the Senate disclosed that the agency was still compiling the total cash recovered last year. All the same, some questions still linger.   For instance, what is the implication or legal status of the sale of properties the matter of which is yet to be determined by the courts? Besides, some have queried the powers of the courts to make final forfeiture orders on properties of suspects not yet convicted of any crime?    

Sections 20(1), 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30 of the EFCC Act 2004 and Section 44 (2) (k) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), provide that forfeiture of assets is temporary pending investigation or inquiry. Legal experts are of the view that the court should grant interim order of forfeiture. Also, Section 30 of the EFCC Act states that “the suspect must have been convicted by the court before it can make final forfeiture.”                          

Undoubtedly, the issues surrounding the sale of forfeited assets remain unclear to most Nigerians. Legal opinion on this very sensitive matter is even more divided. In all, there is a consensus that full disclosure and transparency is the ultimate way out, starting with publishing the properties, their owners and the money recovered, and from whom. Government owes Nigerians a duty to provide answers to these questions. It is in the national interest and indeed, the best interest of the present administration to do so.                        

The government should be reminded that anything short of full disclosures and transparency in the planned sale of the forfeited assets will cast a huge blanket of suspicion on its war against corruption. We know that there are rules and guidelines in place to ensure transparency in such a matter.            

Therefore, the government should comply with the Public Procurement Act that has specific guidelines and processes on this matter. The approach entails listing the assets that should be evaluated by qualified quantity and estate surveyors/valuers. The assets should be sold to highest bidders.

The government should not skew the process to favour cronies of the ruling party. Due diligence and transparency should be followed.

Sun

Voters in Sierra Leone will go to the polls today to elect a successor to President Ernest Bai Koroma, who is constitutionally barred from contesting after serving maximum two terms.

Today’s elections will be the fourth since the end of the civil war in 2002. Voters will also elect members of the parliament to fill 112 seats in the 124-seater legislature. 

The other dozen seats are reserved for Paramount Chief Members of Parliament across the country.

Sixteen candidates, including two women, are standing for the top job but four of them are considered as the front-runners.

Sierra Leone’s politics has been dominated by two ruling parties since independence from Britain in 1961. They are the ruling All People’s Congress (APC) and Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP).

Ex-foreign minister Samura Kamara, who was anointed by President Koroma among other 28 plus challengers within the APC, will face a tough challenge from SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio.

Bio, who briefly ruled as head of a military junta in 1996, is contesting his second election. He lost the 2012 elections to President Koroma.

But two new political parties upset the political dynamics and support bases of the SLPP and APC when they joined the 2018 presidential race.
Former head of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Kandeh Kolleh Yumkella of National Grand Coalition (NGC), broke away after the SLPP refused to part ways with Bio.

The Coalition for Change’s (C4C) presidential aspirant, former vice president Samuel Sam-Sumana, took a large chunk of the APC’s northeastern voters after he was sacked by Koroma in 2015.

Although Kamara and Bio stand a realistic chance of winning the election than other contenders, analysts believe that disenchanted young voters, who crave a sharp departure from Koroma’s 10-year stint, may look elsewhere.

This raises the possibility that the polls may go to a second round. To win in the first round, a candidate must garner over 55% of valid votes cast.

Key issues

Election rallies have been loud with reported cases of violence. Major campaign issues include poor state of the economy, chronic youth unemployment, corruption scandals and allegations of dual citizenship. These topics were discussed during a presidential debate on February 15.

A civil war in the 1990s, which killed tens of thousands of people, wrecked the country’s economy. An iron ore boom this millennium enabled years of double digit growth after the war, but this was cut short by a 2014 Ebola outbreak and a sharp drop in the price of its vast iron reserves.

The epidemic and the global commodities downturn shrank the country’s economy by a fifth in 2015. Since then growth has been slow. 

Another campaign issue haunting the ruling APC is extremely high levels of corruption. Audit of the funds set up to fight Ebola, which killed almost 4,000 people between 2014 and 2016, revealed that 5.7 million dollars had not been accounted for.

Some other mega projects of the government, such as the new airport and a toll road linking Freetown to the provinces, were heavily criticized for being too costly.

President Koroma evoked a hidden clause in the constitution that bars Sierra Leoneans holding citizenship of another country from taking public offices.

Critics said this was a bid to get Yumkella off the ballot. The UN diplomat held US citizenship when he registered as a presidential candidate. He had since renounced his American citizenship but still faces a court challenge lodged by the APC.

ECOWAS, AU, UN, EU make joint peace call 

Four international election observer missions in Sierra Leone have tasked stakeholders to work towards a peaceful process in today’s general elections. 

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN), and the European Union (EU) in a joint statement said they were following closely and with much interest the upcoming vote.

The statement issued by the four organizations also welcomed the efforts made by the National Electoral Commission for the preparation of the polls and also welcomed the deployment of short- and long-term national and international observer missions.

“We also welcome the commitment expressed by Sierra Leonean stakeholders for the holding of democratic, transparent and credible polls, in line with national and international frameworks”, the statement said.

They, however, expressed concerns over the recent incidents of election-related violence and called on all political parties and their leaders to exercise restraint, desist from inflammatory statements, and urge their supporters to refrain from violence.

Daily Trust

To all intents and purposes, the indefatigable US President Donald Trump has acquired the not-so-flattering distinction of being one man against the whole wide world. And he seems to revel in it. His “America first” agenda which is a signal tune for his economic nationalism has put him in direct confrontation against global interest and the civilised world’s economic survival.

For a clearer picture of how the world of Trump came to this pass, let’s wind back to 2016, the year, when Donald Trump, against all odds, beat the book makers – even against all his own expectations – to emerge as the forty-fifth president of America, causing global consternation.

Against the backdrop of his calamitous and divisive campaign during which time he railed against convention and against orthodoxy he sought to isolate America, the biggest democracy on earth, by turning his country upside down, while the rest of the civilised world held its breath.

While Trump was waiting in the wing to take over during the January 20, 2017 inauguration, Barrack Obama, the out-going president, was in the meantime on a farewell tour of Europe and you’d recall how he laboured, almost in vain, to reassure the rest of the world that Trump, the candidate, would be vastly different from Trump the president, the latter being more temperate, presidential and humble but more determined to promote world peace and not provoke a world war. He said campaign sound bites were entirely different from governance.

Obviously worried himself, President Obama stoically sought to allay the fears of American allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO and the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA and at the United Nations  as well as the Americans back home that the incoming president would work for the interest of America and the rest of the world. Obama could not fathom how anyone, who had laboured to win election, would not govern his country with the best of intention for the good of the generality of the people.

The assurance became necessary because Trump had vowed during the campaign that he would have nothing to do with these world bodies; free trade was, for him, a hideous anathema, a restrictive  mechanism to short change the great America of his dream. America, he pronounced   literally from the roof top of the Trump Tower, must be great again. This was the cardinal policy of his entire administration – a credo by which he must live or die.

That was the reason he wanted out of NAFTA. Or if he could, scrap it  entirely and put an end to this ambitious programme that has so far demonstrated how free trade, in no small measure, had benefitted the farmers, the artisans, the  manufacturers and even the ordinary workers through wealth creation and the promotion of  competitiveness to enhance quality and standard. It did not matter to him that majority of his people profited from NAFTA. He might not even be aware of the advantages.

One thing was certain. And that was the fact that Trump did not hide his disdain for trade liberalisation.  He also made it clear that he hated free movement of people and goods across the international borders. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, he was convinced, crossed the borders freely along with the goods and services.

Trump’s anti-free trade policy naturally triggered world-wide alarm.  It did not fail to arrest the attention of Madam Christine Lagard, the managing director of International Monetary Fund, the world financial sheriff who, with her back to the wall, was forced to give an unsolicited lecture on the virtues of trade liberalisation, the need to create more jobs and promote inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.  Lagard, like Obama, was sorely worried about the evil that was about to befall free trade and the promotion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people in global community that would be devoid of rancour and belligerent supremacy of the mighty. She was worried that excessive rancour and resentment would put the global economy in jeopardy and the lives of the poor and the vulnerable in utter misery.

 But her lecture, like other voices of reason, was destined to fall on the unhearing ears of a president that was consumed by egregious native nationalism, one who saw nothing but evil in ethnic minorities, the Hispanics, Mexican immigrants, Blacks, Muslims as well as Jews – the president, as it is now clear, who was elected not on the platform of decency and fairness and the rule of law but on the platform of hubris, resentment and vengeance.

When President Trump is not busy tweeting threats that he would press the lethal button for the ultimate nuclear annihilation against the North Korean supreme leader, Kim Jong-un and his people, he would be scheming how to provoke a trade war against all other nations.

Those,  like  President Obama, who had expressed hope that Trump, as president, would be confronted with the reality of office and settle down for serious business of governance, must be grossly disappointed that nothing apparently can deter this president  - no reality can change his world view.

Nothing, not even the fire and fury that is turning his White House into the house of commotion, can stop him from walking the talk and keeping faith with his electoral promise, the singular mandate to take America back and send the immigrants packing.

 One way, one sure way of doing that is to seek to please the steel manufactures and the aluminium industry and a host others by gratuitously protecting them against foreign competition by slamming a tariff of 25 per cent on steel imports and 10 per cent tariff on aluminium imports. Reactions to this new policy pronouncement have been furious, in fact incandescent.

 China, the largest goods trading partner - $578.2 billion in total goods trade in 2016 – has threatened retaliation. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the European Union, EU, as a bloc would respond by forcefully targeting the US iconic imports like Levi’s jeans and Kentucky bourbon whiskey which are very popular in Europe. Canada and Germany have sent equally febrile signal.

But what can that do to Trump who may turn out to be America’s own Ivan the Terrible? He has vowed to hit back. And hit harder, too. He is angry with the German car manufacturers like the BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen for failing to assemble their cars on the American soil. He now wants to impose 35 per cent tariffs on those cars because according him, the “Germans are bad, bad.”

And, as for the EU – minus Britain -  Trump has a message: “ If the EU wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there we will simply apply tax on their cars which freely pour into US  - Big trade imbalance” he tweeted.

And a parting word for his predecessors in office: “Other countries laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!”

But there is more. Apparently Trump does not appreciate the enormity of the war he is bringing on the international trade and its web of intricacies. The Republicans, members of his own party, are worried to their marrows because they know that retaliatory measures are bound to spiral out of control with unnerving consequences on both the aggressor (US) and its allies with rising unemployment and increased social misery across the world.

But who can stop Trump, the trade war-monger, who says he is enjoying it because it is “a war that is easy to win”  Who indeed can stop him?