 Welcome back. It's still the breakfast on Tloss TV Africa to our first major conversation for the day. Ahead of the upcoming general elections, renowned legal luminary Dr. Olisa Adbakova has raised some poses over a proviso within the constitution regarding the election of a president. This was contained in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Mamoji Akubu, dated January 17. In his review, as contained in the letter, Dr. Adbakova raised some questions about sections 134, subsection 1b and 2b. He wondered if two-thirds of all the state in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, does not mean either, or does that mean either of the following that the presidential candidate must call, not less than one-quarter of the vote cast of the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the state in the Federation, which means 24 states that the 24 states will include the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as a state? Or, he's asking the second part, that the presidential candidate must call not less than one-quarter of the vote cast of the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the state in the Federation, which means 24 states and in addition to meeting the one-quarter requirement in 24 states, a candidate must also win one-quarter of the vote cast in the Federal Capital Territory. We have legal practitioners joining us now to make some sense to all of this. Let's make a welcome and make up well. Many thanks for joining us, Barista. Good morning. Thank you. Yes, it is indeed a pleasure. Let's try to make some sense because when you talk so much legally, it gets a bit confusing for, you know, not just, you know, even the Leonard as it were, even to the average Nigerian. What exactly is the competition, say, in that particular section and subsection? Is Abuja now a state of the Federation or the two-third actual elements, just the third or sixth state of the Federation? And we also have to win two-thirds because there's a bit of back and forth and most people are not clear. It is even wonderful that Essay and Bakubar raised that question or pose yesterday. How do you raise in all of that? Yeah, thank you. First of all, I want to address the issue as to whether the federal capital territory is a state. There is no doubt about that, that the constitution never contemplated the federal capital territory as a state in any way. Now, section three defines the states. I mean, it states what the states are. There are a lot of differences you find in the constitution, all over the constitution between the states and the federal capital territory. For example, in every state, there is a capital provided in the constitution, what is called the capital city. Section three of the constitution names 36 states. It didn't say 34, 37. It says 36. For that down on that section, section three, subsection four, it specifically defines the federal capital territory separately. So it does not include, the federal capital territory does not include, is not included among the states of the Federation. Now, you also see that in the constitution, the states are divided into local governments. And you have the local governments with their headquarters. But the federal constitution itself says that the federal capital territory is divided into area councils. Now, the federal capital territory does not have a capital within that federal capital territory, you know, while the states have their capital. So you see, and there are a lot of other, other differences that occur in the constitution that makes one understand that there was never a contemplation in the constitution to make the federal capital territory a state or to regard it as a state. One of, one again, one example again is that the laws of the states are made by state houses of assemblies. The national assembly actually makes laws for the federal capital territory. So you can see there are a lot of differences here. Now, coming down to section 134, we'll have to look at that section specifically on its own. Now, that section does not call the federal capital territory a state, but it includes it in the computation of whether a presidential candidate has reached the threshold required by the constitution. So when it says the states of the federation and the federal capital territory, the federal capital territory will be treated as the 37th number among the numbers to be included, not as a state, not to call it a state. But if for the purpose of that, the interpretation of that section, we decide to call it a state, so be it. But it's not a state that it is a law. I want to try and understand. So if you are trying to compute what actually determines two-third, are you computing two-third or 37, or we will do two-third of the 36th state, then eventually look for two-third again of the RCTR, exactly how are you interpreting it right now? Literally, you know, there are in interpretation of laws, there are rules, and the number one is the literal interpretation when it's very clear that this is the mean of these words, and it will not conflict with the purpose of the legislation, you go with the literal interpretation, you interpret it literally. Now, on the one hand, if we look at the literal interpretation, we will talk of two-thirds of 37, it's very clear there, two-thirds of 37 is meant there. However, however, the court, if it comes before the court, may have to go beyond the literal interpretation, and the reason is that we have to ask ourselves what was the purpose of that, that particular provision. Now, we have what is called the propulsive rule of interpretation, which is the current way of interpreting legislations. We also have what is called the mischief rule. Now, in the mischief rule, we ask ourselves, what was the mischief that was existing that this particular legislation is intended to care? That is the mischief rule, and then we interpret the law in such a way as to do away with the mischief and advance the remedy. That is the rule of interpretation here. Now, what was the mischief that this particular section is intended to care? The thing is to make sure that the president that will come out of the election is a president that is accepted with a geographical spray, not just a section or maybe a few sections of the country or the whole federation, not just he could get the numbers from one or two sections, that's the total number, but does not satisfy the geographical spread. The constitution wants to prevent a situation, he will be a localized president, acting for the whole federation. That's the purpose. Now, if you look at the making of the federal capital territory, the federal capital territory is supposed to be a melting pot. It wasn't actually intended to give it a sectional slant, in any way, the federal capital territory. It's supposed to be, it was initially actually conceived as a mayorality. And in fact, despite the politics that got involved along the line, we still have much of the intent of creating the federal capital territory in the constitution. Now, if you look at all these, you may be tempted to say that no, it is not two thoughts of 37, but two thoughts of 36, and maybe two thoughts on the federal capital territory. But if you look at the federal capital territory, the federal capital territory, you cannot say that this is a section of the federal capital territory. We are people from such and such sections of the country. That's where they reside more. This part is for this other part. This part is for Yoruba or Igbo and all that. If you look at it like that, so I think somehow, once the learned luminary about race is actually a very important issue. I think, subsequently, they may have to look at this and remove the federal capital territory from the contemplation there. Now that it's going to- But I'd like us to talk about, you know, because in all of this, you said, we're looking at interpretation of the law at the end of the day. And you have said that in its literal sense, it should be two thought of 37. Right. And so I'm asking you, if that's the literal interpretation, since the inception of our democracy from 1999 up until this moment, have we considered that literal interpretation in terms of computing in the system, computation, two thought of 37? Has that been the interpretation? Well, what we had in our laws, I mean, in our court records, what we have as presidents now existed before we had 36 states and the FCT. There was a case between Awolowo and Shagari. And there was also an interpretation, a problem there in interpreting two thoughts, because the number of states at that time could not be easily, could not be easily divided without a remainder, divided into three without a remainder. And if you put the literal interpretation we are talking about now, if you make the federal capital territory the 37th number as we are advocating, if we have to go by the literal interpretation, we have that problem. But then the court will find a way to solve that problem. So if it means exactly two thoughts of 37 or two thoughts of 36 states and then two thoughts of the federal capital territory, I think that will not be beyond the court. So let's try to get it, you know, it's a real sense and we're trying to understand the concerns that Bakoba has raised and also looking at it as it is, what is in its literal sense is very literal and I'm sure that is not back and forth. You have said it, you didn't have to be in the court to say this, you say that's what it means in this literal sense. So my question is, have we respected this in its literal sense? Has there been an interpretation in the course of our elections, we counted two-thirds of 37 or are we doing two-thirds of 36? Well, we have never been in a situation where from the resource release, mark my words, from the resource release that we were in doubt as to the winner. The winner had always surpassed the need to try to find out whether he went beyond two-thirds of 36 or even two-thirds of 37. The winner had always, from the resource release, had always won convincingly that he surpassed two-thirds, whichever way you want to look at it. But I think the concern of the London senior advocate is that in a situation like we have now, where there may occur a situation that we may not be too certain, we may be at the threshold of somebody not satisfying maybe two-thirds of 36 and maybe satisfying two-thirds of 37 or they are about. If we are at that point, then I think what you and I are saying here may only be as a guide, it will ultimately end up in court. And I think the Supreme Court will be. You know, so I think that you're not losing us because it's something that you say that you're losing us, but we're with you and we follow every bit of what you're saying. But the question, I'm still asking, now that you have said what you have said, do you think that in all of this, in our computation, we have considered all of the process as two-thirds of 37? Whether or not the winner wins with high margin or not, and not wanting to, we don't have to go back to that. So my point is, do you think that we have considered INEC in her computation? I don't know what I'm saying. I've considered two-thirds of 37, always doing two-thirds of 36 or even less. I think the legal department of INEC and their advisors. So I think you're trying to be politically correct this morning. All right, all right, Baistar, okay. Advice INEC appropriately. That it has to be two-thirds of 37. All right, we expect INEC and its legal department to just come with some sort of explanation and interpretation to that particular provision. But I still want to talk, let's move away just slightly, from Agbacuba. I know Olamik Bekru was also in the news yesterday, but he was also talking about some particular section of the Electoral Act. And he feels, let me see if I can quote some of the things he said. He said that section 64 of 65 rather of the Electoral Act also raises our consent. He says it is similarly giving so much powers to the returning officer, our polling units. We just want to get to your quick interpretation to that. Section 64. Yes, please. The Electoral Act. Sorry. And that's on the resolution and the issue of proclamation by the president. Well, I do not think that that particular issue raises any issue. The thing is that any half of the National Assembly will complete its term. And it is the president that has been sworn in at that time that should proclaim. But I'm not sure you actually got the question correctly. I was talking about the consent. Olamik Bekru raised consent in section 65 of the Electoral Act. We're talking about the Elections. 65 of the Electoral Act. Yes, please. Okay. On issue of membership. Returning officers. Olamik Bekru is actually raising concerns and he's saying that the polls are on the thread because of the powers of returning officers. And specifically, he mentioned section 65 of the Electoral Act. Section 65 of the Electoral Act. We're talking about the Electoral Act this morning. Okay. Well, the powers given to the given to the Returning Officer in the Electoral Act are not beyond understanding. And I don't think there is any controversy there. The thing is that the Returning Officer has to, from the results that has come, the Returning Officer will declare the result. That is the point. And when this is done, whichever person or candidate is agreed, party or candidate, well, knows what to do. But then I do not think that the powers are so much that it is beyond the ordinary interpretation or that it raises a controversy. That is my take on that particular. Sometimes, I mean, it may appear that the powers are so much, but then it is somebody, it is the Returning Officer that has to make the declaration as to who won the election. And they have to decide based on the computation before him of the different units of that particular state or the Federation and then be able to say this is the final result from this state, from this local government, from the Federation. This is the final result and this is the winner. Okay, so in this case, Agbacuba has raised a concern and I'd like to ask you, what do you think that INEC should do? I know that you're not a legal practitioner, you're not holding brief for INEC. Okay, yeah, I'm saying you're not a legal practitioner for INEC, but I'm saying, what would you advise? I mean, is there anything that can be done in this particular case, looking at the fact that the election is very close? We're looking at the 25th of February and also the 11th of March 2023. That's on one hand. I'd like you to answer that and then of course we'll get to the second part of it. Well, I think the minds of the operators in INEC, I think their minds have been juggled now on this particular issue. They should prepare for it. They should make sure they do their computations right. I would advise two thoughts of 37. I would. It is very clear there. Notwithstanding whatever we may have in mind, it will be, it will be, remember that the other side, which is two thoughts of 36 and then two thoughts of the federal capital territory is actually the kind of, is more or less similar, but not exactly the same to what was used in the controversial Awolo vs. Shagari case. So we should. If you are saying two thoughts of 37, but it's not that, two thoughts of 37 is 24 and some decimal. How do you begin to calculate all of that? Two thoughts doesn't give you a one number. It's not 24 out, right? So 24 points. They could do it by approximation. So you are going back to 24. Proximation 24.01 to 25. Two thoughts by a mathematics, two thoughts of a figure can be approximated to a whole figure. So if we have 24. something and it gets up to half, definitely we are talking about 25. I do not even think that we'll come to this. I do not think we'll come to it, but then it's good that we prepare for it. And the minds of, have now been added to this particular issue and they should prepare for it. So just quickly, I mean, we're being prompted to leave now, but in a few seconds, hopefully, you're able to answer this. Don't you think that this is not, I mean, there's always something to say politically correct. And so in this sense, is this democratically right? 36 states, including FCT, 37, you say that's the literate interpretation. You do the statistics, we're having 24, and then there should be an approximation 25. Does it even make sense in a democratic dispensation? And what's the implication of all of this computation and the concerns that are back over has raised for the 2023 elections? To me, it does make a lot of sense. Even if we exclude, because of the nature of the federal capital territory, which is what our labs are kept in the next dispensation when they come to constitutional amendments, to remove the federal capital territory completely out of the computation, because of the nature of the FCT, because of the nature. If we put it, then we'll not have this interpretation problem. Somebody who has won 24 out of, if you call it 37, whether you call it states or the taxi states and the federal capital, 24 out of 37, I think the person would have done well. And the person, the thing will not depend on his or her broad-mindedness in understanding that the whole country is his or her constituents. That's the way. Look at it. Okay, well, thank you very much. That's as much as we can take. It is actually a very, very mind-boggling computation as it takes. We have to do the maths as it's well. I'm sure Aimee could be responding to that in a matter of maybe today or in the coming days. We must say a very big thank you to you, Aimee Kwakwara, legal practitioner for the thoughts that you have shared with us this morning. Thank you. My pleasure. All right then. That's the size of it. We will take a break and when we return, we'll be looking at our next conversation. Please come with us.