By MUIZ BANIRE
Th e biggest and most constant headache that confronts the legal adviser of any political party in Nigeria is the non-observance of internal democracy by the party hierarchy. In the Nigerian political landscape, until recently, internal democracy was a mere tag that only existed in the imagination of politicians. As such, any electoral position within the structure of a political party was a subject of conferment without any consideration of the electability of the benefi ciaries of the conferment. In other words, only those who the political kingmakers consider worthy were conferred with the “honour” of being the party’s candidates; and the process of engaging a method that included the members of the party in the decision making, generally, and nomination of the fl ag bearers of the party was considered alien by both the party oligarchy and their suitors.
Without mincing words, the minority had both their way and say. Th e few occasions where the majority got to have their say (when purported primary elections were held), the minority still retained the ultimate power of having their way by superimposing their decisions on the outcomes of such internal elections. Internal democracy was slaughtered on the altar of imposition. By my calling as a legal practitioner, I have the hallowed responsibility of ensuring the observance of the rule of law and the tenets of democracy.
My duty extends to political institutions, particularly with regard to compliance with the applicable laws and the rules of the game. Internal democracy transcends the internal aff airs of a political party. Th is is because the Nigerian legal framework duly recognises it and commands compliance with it. In this regard, Section 228(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) confers on the National Assembly the power to make laws providing for: “…guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy, within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party convention….” It was in the exercise of this power that the National Assembly enacted Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It clearly set out the guidelines, rules and steps that a political party must follow in the nomination of its candidates for elections. Here, section 87(1) of the Act is instructive, clear and unambiguous. It provides thus: “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for election under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions.” [Emphasis mine] Section 87 of the Act is so elaborate that it states the types of primaries that a political party may adopt (direct or indirect) and the procedural steps a party must follow where it adopts either of the two types of primary election in case of each election mentioned therein. Emphasising the purpose of section 87 of the Act, in PDP v. Sylvia [2012] 13 NWLR (part 1316) 85 at 148, paras.
A-B, Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC opined thus: “Th e clear object the provisions of section 87 is intended to achieve besides the inculcation of internal democracy in the aff airs of political parties in this country moreso in the conduct of their party primaries includes thus making them transparent and providing level playing ground for their contestants in party primaries….” Equally important is the fact that the constitutions of political parties contain the procedure for the nomination of candidates and voting at congresses and party conventions. In this respect, the constitution of a party sets out how the political party’s primary elections are to be conducted in a manner that institutionalises internal democracy. An example that easily comes to mind is Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (as amended), the political party in which I am the legal adviser.
Th e provisions of the said Article 20 make it clear that candidates of the party can only emerge through a democratic path. In case of indirect primaries, the delegates that will vote at the primary election must have been democratically elected by members of the party from the various wards contained in particular constituencies at a congress. Even where an aspirant is unopposed, democratic principles still have to be followed to ensure that the unopposed aspirant is not a product of imposition. Without doubt, the party constitution has entrenched internal democracy and eschewed the imposition of candidates by the “powerful” minority. Based on the foregoing, it would be reasonable to assume that when it comes to nomination of candidates for elections, the legal adviser of a political party could go to sleep knowing that the legal framework would hold sway. However, it is common knowledge that this is rarely the case.
Th e fact is that any legal adviser that urges compliance with the legal framework and adherence to internal democracy easily fi nds himself to be a lone voice. He is considered a rebel that is deserving of being ostracised from the decisionmaking and deliberation within the party structure. Despite the foregoing, it gladdens my heart to say that the Supreme Court, under the leadership of the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Chief Justice Onnoghen, has taken the courageous step of ensuring that the political oligarchy do not succeed in casting internal democracy into the refuse bin. Now, political parties are faced with the fact that the erosion of internal democracy will not go unpunished. A case worthy of consideration is the very recent, and yet to be reported, decision of the Supreme Court in Mato v. Hembe & 2 Ors. SC.733/2016 (delivered on 23rd day of June, 2017), amongst others.
It is now trite to give due consideration to the impactful decision of the Supreme Court in Mato v. Hembe (supra). In that case, Onnoghen, CJN held that holding a primary election in a manner contrary to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the constitution of the political party will render such primary election null and void. I need not say more. Ordinarily, this ought to sound a death knell on the untoward practice of imposition of candidates contrary to the provisions of the applicable laws and the party’s constitution. However, it appears that party oligarchy appear to enjoy turning a deaf ear. Good governance is the desire of every sane society. In order for any society to have good governance, there must be good leadership. For there to be good leadership in a democratic setting, internal democracy must be eff ectively and eff ectually practised.
One can only hope that political parties see the writing on the wall and behave accordingly. In conclusion, I believe the role of courts in contemporary times in the strengthening of internal democracy is not only commendable but proactive. It is only hoped that more of our courts will see the wisdom in this approach and political parties learn the art of respect for the rule of law. Banire (SAN) is legal adviser to APC.
