 The Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Gotswil Ubud-Aquabiu, has declared that the section 84, sub-section 12 of the Electoral Act as amended, does not exist. The section of the Electoral Act mandates appointees of the government who are seeking electoral offices to resign before going into the primaries. But an Abbey estate division of the Federal High Court sitting in Umar here had declared the section unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void and ineffective. Now the court forever ordered the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, to delete the section without further delay. And Aquabiu who joined the presidential race recently stated that he was not bothered about the appeal, insisting that he and other appointees of the president who are running for public offices are covered by the provisions of the constitution which surpasses every other law. Well joining us to discuss this is Deji Awobyeidei, he and Ladic Bort Johnson, both are legal practitioners. Deji, I'm sorry if I murdered your name. Thank you very much for joining us, gentlemen. Thank you. All right. Mr Johnson, it's interesting. A lot of people have made their own deductions from what they think that that part of the Electoral Act as amended says about public office holders. Many of us have questioned, you know, how binding it is and if it really does hold water, especially when we have seen so many ministers who have declared their intentions to run for public offices and yet are still holding on to their offices. So take us through what this section says and if it does in any way hold water. Well, good evening. I think that where we usually are at with some of the laws that are promulgated by the National Assembly, as you said in your introduction, people like Apabio have said that it runs counter to what the term or what they view as what the constitution says about public servants or so leaving office before election. And you'll recall that the minister made in his statement, tried to say that there was a difference between primary elections and an election. But basically it would seem that everything is still there until it is tested again in courts. The Federal High Court, as you said, has stated that the provision around counter or around counter to provisions of the constitution. But basically one has to look at it and wonder why we have that in our laws. Why would they want them to appointees to leave office before contested whilst those who are elected, maybe let's say like the vice president who is also trying to seek office, are not affected by it at all. So, unfortunately, it's become like a grey thing, grey area. And maybe we'll have more lights being shed on it either way. Okay, let me bring Daisy in. The contention, as Mr Johnson has said, it's a grey area and he has made an interesting point. Maybe it needs to be tested in court. But then if a court has already said that this is dull and void, it should be struck off, even though it's still not struck off. And the fact that the National Assembly had brought this even into our laws, Nigeria always has these many laws. But when it comes to us actually enforcing those laws, sometimes it just looks like we enjoy writing down these laws and then also enjoy not adhering to them. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Do you also think that maybe it needs to be tested in court? Do you think that maybe somebody also has to raise a suit against these public office holders to be sure that that particular clause or part of the constitution or the electoral act maybe stays there or being struck off? Well, thank you very much. Let me just start first and foremost by taking into the jurisprudence of why that provision was enacted by National Assembly. And don't forget that by virtue of the constitution, Section 4, precisely, imparts National Assembly to make laws for the good governance of the nation in its entirety. Now, postponed to that power that they have, the National Assembly does it fit to enact this electoral act and to insert this particular provision. But the backdrop is that previously you've had cases where the right of ministers or political appointees to contest elections have been challenged in court. You have those cases of O'Nia Fhaggemi, Ada Amor and Tarkori, PPM, PDP, where the issue was raised, whether or not a minister is a public servant. Now, that question was always a recurring theme for, I mean, the past several elections we had. There's always been an issue that I reasoned when the minister contested an election the issues usually raised. And the courts accepted that particular issue. In those cases, that a minister is a political appointee and not a public servant. Don't forget that the constitution already provides that public servants must resign their appointments at least 30 days before the election. Now, that's what you will find in Section 661F, 1071F, 1371G, 1821G. That's what you will find in the constitution, okay, that you need to resign 30 days before the election. However, because these political appointees have always gotten away with this, okay, so they will remain administrators, they will go and contest 30 days before then, if they imagine victorious, then they will get sworn in, if not, they will remain in their political offices. So, the National Assembly has not decided, don't forget that you have the House of Reps and the Senate. They both decided, you know, all those eds, I mean, like them or hate them, they had, the bill went through both the House of Reps and the Senate and they came to the conclusion that to plug that gap, the lacuna in the constitution that usually allowed political appointees to get away with it, to insert this provision of Section 8412, which says political appointees should not participate in congresses or in elections. Without resigning their offices, right? So if you understand now that what the National Assembly did was to block that particular loophole that was used by these same politicians previously under the constitution. Don't forget also that the National Assembly asked the power to legitimately make laws for the nation. So for Section 8412, they made that particular law. And that law, in my opinion, is valid, is subsisting, even though the court has said it should be struck out, which is on appeal. I was going to the politics of that as well because the politics of it is also that they found an action against that particular law. They did not join the National Assembly to raise the case. That court now ordered, if you look at the very... I mean, any Paxelwyan knows that that's a very funny belief. The court now ordered, in general, to delete that section. Elementary political one, even if you want students to know that the power to delete provisions of the section to alter or to amend is vested in the National Assembly. Exactly. So when the court now goes, I hear by order the general to delete. And after the court was done, the general was delivered, the general said he was going to comply with it. I'm lost for words because to get government to comply with judgments in this country is a very acrylianth task. Whether it's monetary judgment or any judgment, to get them to comply is a very acrylianth task. So when you now have the general's office saying they will comply with the judgment, it tells you that something has gone on that. I don't want to know what it is. But it tells me clearly that that judgment is a contrary judgment. And rightly so, there's an appeal that has been lodged in the National Assembly against that particular judgment. It should not stand because the case law is set to that a minister or a political appointee is not a public servant. So when you now say that provided provision should be struck out, that you also go back to the constitution, which is public servant, it now also goes further in 31 it to list out the categories of cases that are affected by that provision. It is clear in black and white. And everyone who is what is solved knows that the provision of the constitution are interpreted liberally. The way it is there and literature will be applied to interpret it. It is there in black and white. Let's apply it like that. So I don't agree with any, with a plan B or whoever that says that that provision is legal. It is not. Let me come back to you, Mr Johnson. I want us to look at the reason why this particular part of that electoral act was inserted. Many have complained about certain ministers using the apparatus or public office funds and cars as part of their campaign, which is also according to them, against the rules. You cannot be using a government property as part of your campaigning. And these are the reasons why many people have questioned why that court judgment is saying that this particular part of the electoral act be deleted. So let's say a minister trying to run for office and trying to campaign at the same time, how do you separate the office and the man at that point when they're campaigning while they're in office? How do you separate the two because this is where the confusion is? Well, it's difficult or almost impossible to separate the two. If you're a minister or a federal republic and you have certain trappings of office and you're contesting an election, you cannot put those things aside and then continue to contest. There's no way you can separate it. So they'll do that. They'll have the advantage. Yes, that's why people have complained about it. But as I said earlier, we look at the advantages of sitting presidents as well. Those moving up and down or govnaw, they won't leave their offices. Could that also be that these people were elected so they have to serve their tenure? Yes, I know that. But then nothing stops them from campaigning while they're still sitting there? Exactly. They're elected. That's the difference. But I am saying that yes, they elected. If they campaign up and down the country, if they spend time campaigning, maybe not doing the work they should be doing, spending time campaigning. It's the same case for the ministers as well. Or be it that, okay, yes, they were appointed and what have you. So it's yes, you're right. We cannot separate the person from his position when he is running up and down. But at the same time, one wonders why. I know the reasons why they say it, but one really wonders why if it doesn't affect those who are elected govnaws, deputy govnaws and what have you, trying to contest using, or in case of a president or vice president, using the presidential jet to go up and down, then... As much as he's a candidate, he's still the president of the country, so he does have rights to use the presidential... Exactly. But in the case of a minister... He's a president of the country. He has a right. He has to move with security, with everything. That person is a minister at that point in time. He's doing his work as a minister and exercising his rights to go to the people and say, please elect me for this and that position as well. So what I'm saying is, okay, where lies the difference? We know the difference from what you said, but really going back, where lies the difference? Why should it be that they should resign? Isn't it something we brought in from the military era? We thought, okay, step down three months to go, step down six months to go if you want to contest, step down and then come and contest. That's just what I am questioning. We know the position, but why the difference between two? I know my brother is itching to jump in, but why the difference between the two? Daisy. Yes. I beg to disagree with Mr Johnson for a very obvious reason. Firstly, is that the governor and the deputy, the president and his vice, have the people's mandates to remain in office. They have our mandates to spend their money the best way that they can. So when they go around with their entourage, I mean, we also need them alive to perform their duties. That's why they go around with the security entourage that they have. It's quite different from a political officer who has an appointee of the president, who has been appointed at his pleasure, who tomorrow the governor can say, I'm firing him, I'm saying for the president, he can also decide to say, well, I'm relieving you of your post. So why should that person remain in office as a minister or as commissioner? Who's assigned to do a very sensitive, very specific job for the tax person, for the people who will remain there, leave that job. For instance, you're a minister for works and there are a lot of contracts that need to be executed. There are a lot of things that need to be approval, but you are there on the one hand that pursue your own personal and selfish agenda. It's a personal agenda. It's not the government's agenda. If you are campaigning to become governor or to become president, that pursue your own personal agenda. So let me give you the instance of the minister of labour, Dr Chrisy Bigu. ASU is on strike. NASU is on strike. But yet, this minister has on his priorities becoming Nigel's president. He wants to purchase the form. I don't think that's been on the menu. But that's his priority now. His priority is not how to resolve the labour crisis under his ministry. His priority now is how to get the APC delegates to approve him and to select or elect him as the APC's flag bearer. Now, how do you balance those priorities on a scale? The people who suffer for it are the students, the lecturers, and the family members who are of those students, who want their children back in school. So that's why I say you cannot put them on the same scale by saying, well, you should enjoy the same benefit as the governor will enjoy or the president will enjoy. No, he is an appointee of the president. If he so desires that he doesn't want his job anymore and he wants a bigger job, a better job, he should resign his current job and go and pursue his ambition. But to pursue that ambition on the one hand keep the people, keep the ministry. On the one hand, you have several servants, you have the permanent secretary, you have all the directors who are there. You will leave them hanging, depending on you resolve your own personal agenda. I mean, that's not right. And that's why I believe that it has always on the Senate jointly agreed that it's about 12, should remain. If you observe when the person was signing the bill into law, when he was ascending to the bill, he didn't mention his reservation about that particular condition. He went back to the Senate president. The Senate voted on it again that that thing should remain. For obvious reasons, they are politicians. They know why they want that thing to remain. Because they know that what they would do is to put everybody's the taxpayers' interest to the back burner and put their own personal agenda in front. And you can see he's playing out. So he says somebody's buying $1.5 million fund. You know? I mean, we see that there's an inflation going on, there is an economic crisis going on. But people are doing that for the $1.5 million fund per day. I mean, there's a problem. So I do not agree, Mr Johnson, that you say that the same people are just... No. They don't know how to amend it. But those ministers and those commissioners don't know how to amend it. All right. Because we're almost out of time, Mr Johnson, I'll take your last word on this. Again, do we see if this flies under the radar for now and then for some reason the minister becomes a flag bearer of any political party, do we see lawsuits awaiting at the border quickly because we're out of time? Definitely, definitely, definitely you'll see lawsuits everywhere. That's the normal thing. That's Nigeria. It will keep going on that way until it probably gets to the Supreme Court where we'll have the final decision. Mr Johnson, are you still there? Well, apologies. I think we lost our guest, but I want to say thank you. Ladic Pot Johnson is a legal practitioner and of course, Daisy also is a legal practitioner. Thank you gentlemen for being part of the conversation. I think we lost you at some point. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having us. All right. Well, thank you all for staying with us to round up today's show. We take a look at the highlights of this week's conversations on plus politics. Don't forget, we'll be back on Monday at 7pm GMT plus one. I'm Mary Annicle and have a great weekend. This is the greatest robbery of this election, Mary Ann, is the fact that it has been because of the mis-rule of President Mohammed Dugwari, it has become an ethnic issue rather than an economic issue rather than an issue of saving our education sector, rather than the insecure thing in the North East and in all parts of the North. Now everybody is more concerned about where the president comes from than what the president can do because everybody has seen the marginalisation that has been at play under the APC. It's a Northland president that will be completing eight years in 2020. And let me restate that the presidency is not of the party. The presidency is the president of the country. Whether it is APC or whether it is PGP or whether it is any other party is the president of Nigeria, not the president of the party. And for us, and I speak on behalf of many friends. I want to say that and the middle belch for all. Under the hospices of Southern and Middle-Bred leader I am restating the position of that community that any political party in Nigeria, any of the major political parties are political parties that we know that are motion parties. Any of the major political parties, particularly APC and PGP, there are two MPs on the left aws yw gwych yn y pethau pa efo'u gynhyrchu'r pertyd. Gweithio'n rhai ichi'n creu'n lly testamentau. Mae ydych chi'n hyn sylfa'i efo'r cwmhau eraill? Mae yna gweithio'r cwmhau darlo, dwi'n hyn o'n enhygo'i gweithio efo'u gweithio'r llyffaith o bwysig oedd y meddwl gael. Mae'r hyffort i ddechrau a'r hefyd. Mae'r hyffort i arhoffio hynny efo. Mae'r hyffort i ddweud i'r psychologon yn ei cyfrifiadolaeth. Felly, ddim y rhai y lliw ffordd, sy'n dystiall y cyfrifrodd, ac ydy'r lliw ddim, feddill, y cyfrifrodd sy'n ei thond i gwneud o'r hollu'n hollu'n hollu'n hollu. Mae yng nghyfnio gyda'r gofyn, ar cefnio ar gyfer y gofyn, ychydig i ddefnyddiaeth ymliadau o'r ysgrifennu ymlaen. are the Ebubago security network. The Ebubago security network was meant to be a written down security app like a motorcycle. But if we watched the way the different other three governors or four governors of this party has been acting or behaving, it does appear that a Ebubago has only been operating in that point. And that I would talk about ac mae'n ddechrau o bwysig o'r cyfrifio'n rhaglenoedd o'r cyfrifio hwnna o'r cyfrifio'n rhaglenio'r ysgolod yng nghymru. Ond maen nhw'n waith ythafod ychydig. Dysgol ychydig am ym 80 oes, sydd y cyfrifio hwnna o'r cyfrifio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio'n rhaglenio. Dyma yw'r cyfrifio, ac mae'n ddigwyddiad arall.