 Welcome back. You're still watching the breakfast and plus TV Africa now to a first major conversation Barely three weeks after president Muhammad Buhari signed the electoral act amendment bill 2022 into law a federal High Court sitting in Umayyad the obvious state capital Hasn't although had nullified the section controversial section 84 subsection 12 of the act And other the attorney general of the Federation Bupakara Malami as a and to delete it I recall that president Muhammad Buhari had while signing the amended electoral act on February 25 this year Said that he would approach the national assembly to amend that provision that is section 84 subsection 12 on the ground that it violated the Constitution Delivering a judgment on Friday in a suit filed by one in the car a day day of the action alliance Which sought the idolification of the said section of the act the court presided over by Justice Evelyn I a decade declared that the said section of the electoral act A many electoral act which was passed was inconsistent with sections 66 sub 1f sections 107 sub 1f 137 sub 1f and 182 sub 1f of a 1999 constitution and it was consequently Unconstitutional invalid illegal now void and of no Effect now if you we contract back in time on Tuesday, March 1 The Nigerian Senate had disclosed that it had received a letter From the president seeking an amendment of section that particular section 84 sub 2 Subsection 12 of the 2021 electoral act that it has to do with appointed office holders Resigning the appointment so that they can go either contest, you know for elections or they can be delegates in their parties And he says that they cannot contest for an election of delegates in their parties as well as they hold their offices But on Wednesday March 9 the Senate throughout the bill said to them by the president It was seeking to amend that controversial section of the electoral act that the bill titled the bill for an act to amend the electoral act 2022 and for related matters 2022 was overwhelmingly rejected by senators the development that effectively stopped its second reading and its Ultimately its passage now this led the Attorney General of the Federation and Minnesota Justice a worker Malami SA and to announce a week later that a federal government would explore all available options including taking the bill back Representing it to the National Assembly the second option He talked about was going to court and exploring the law and the third option He talked about was accepting the fate and going to what the National Assembly had done Well, the federal government isn't linked to this particular suit in any way But this development according to commentators will come as a relief to it Now they have in various reactions from various legal eggheads with opinions going both ways But we're glad to say we have joining us this morning a lawyer Leonard. I know go. He joins his life from a bouja I miss I don't go. Good morning to you. Thank you very much for your time Thank you for having me this morning fantastic him. What are your thoughts on this this move by This ruling by court which which what's your interpretation of this of course the court and the trial judge has given the reasons Why this cannot go on saying that variance with the Constitution. What's your take on this? well for me and based on the The constitution practice in Nigeria that was about the three arms of government the legislative arm The executive arm and the judiciary You also recall that the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the statute or our laws Conventions that is brought before the court Let us get down on very clear. Of course There have been misreactions on the judgment of the federal court in umuahia deleting session 84 softwares Talks about Resigning political appointees resigning before Contest for elation now That is just the court of offense instance That's the federal court and that decision can be appealed to the court of appeal and up to the supreme court And personally I want I'm of the opinion And I start very friendly to say that I would like to have the supreme court pronouncement on that particular judgment You know when laws are made you ask yourself questions. What is the intent? What is the intention of the lawmakers? What does it say to guard against now? For you to remain in office on the political appointee as a running election without conflict with your duties Holding that office. Is that the reason why that particular law was passed? Remember that law was just passed recently And I expected that mr. President of the presidency If they had a misgiving there was only for them to have signed that Electro they were taking back to the national assembly and Presented the opinion but shortly when the The law the bill was signed to law by mr. President the presidency was elitized immediately to the national assembly for that amendment of that section as someone someone would say Why they haste what is it? What's the reason some government appointees in this present position going to be affected by such decision that wants to run off a run for political office, of course the obvious answer is yes, and I know that I'm go crazy that the way the judgment came it was so fast to also precise I'm a legal practitioner on my way to court this morning. I know the procedure it takes So these are the agitations, but we do not need to ridicule the judgment if you have Any grievance against any judgment you go upstairs this anything stands is to go to the court of appeal first to test whether the judgment delivered by His worship Justice Evelyn is in tandem with the law Of course, my I had my my little friend um fall on our ass and and so the opinion that The the the judge must have had in in fact an error in in law when he stated that um They they they they the the sections of the constitution referred to by by slurship The knock over political appointees and I think um, I want to go with that But just like I said, I want this judgment uh to be tested at the court of appeal and eventually at the Supreme Court Okay, um Salina You also have the attorney general of the federation and minister of justice abu kamal and me saying that The government will carry out a ruling I mean Ordering the repeal of that section 84 subsection 12 as it is. So what what does this mean? well, um If I understand clearly The federal government through the office of the attorney general of the federation is an interested party in this matter From the onset from the father. I just say that The amendment was sent to the national assembly who was rejected remember that for the first time I I find that The apc dominated national assembly will go with mr president, but if for the first time they disagreed openly and that shows that um It was a bipartisan rejection of that amendment So there have been accusations that of course the The office of the ag are of course and the president is interested in amendment. Of course, I'm open the secret but to me I keep saying that Once you don't follow due process or there's a seeming like some analysis Leonardo Iogo are you there, please? Okay, uh, we'll try to get back to Leonardo Iogo and of course, uh Take his expert analysis very interesting times and this is like he says A test case for for judiciary It is there and he is absolutely right when he says it's their responsibility To interpret the constitution and the laws and of course the constitution is there It can be amended through a legislative process It's not out. I got a countries where it is amended or set by the judiciary But in terms of interpretation of the letter in spirit of the constitution and the laws the judiciary plays the role It's interesting. And Leonardo Iogo are you back on the line, please? Now one of the things that I think that he's mentioned in all of this is very important He said that you have the three arms of government. Of course Interpretation is totally the responsibility of the judiciary Well, he also mentioned the fact that sometimes you look at you need to look at the intent What's the intention of whose interest is it at this point of time now? He's also also made reference to the fact that is an open secret It's no longer. I mean, it's an open secret and so when you say something is open and a secret at the same time It's such a contradiction. Well, however, that's what it is that the attorney general and of course the federal government is interested in this particular You know amendment of the constitution and he tells a lot, you know moving forward But let's see how all of this pants out He said that he would actually like the supreme court to make a you know A pronouncement the judgment on this and of course, we know that the supreme court is the highest court of the Delore and the land and whatever I says, you know stands supreme and final But we would see that what would happen with interested parties like you already mentioned You have several persons who are reacting their different Interpretation and reaction to this particular one. But at the end of the day The most important thing the intention would always be question and whose interest are we doing this for Let's also forget that you have the apc on this other hand Still grappling with the convention the 20 on the 26th of March So at this point in time, there's a lot that's going on Yes And in the political space where you have several persons who are public office holders who are contesting for You know of a political office You also don't want to take out the issue of having the chairmanship at this point in time where some persons have said Especially for the apc between the Niger state governor and his counterpart The fact that they are still members of of I mean they are still governors And the constitution has actually stated that you know very expressly even though you also have different interpretation But it's very interesting. It's I think I think also we can also look at the um the suspected intention of of a The national assembly members you you're seeing what he called a bipartisanship You know in in in this whole amendment of the 1990 of the electoral act, sorry, and uh In this 2022 amendment and we've seen bipartisanship. Whereas, you know, we have Two major parties in the national assembly. You have the apc You have the pdp and both of them are meant to vote on their long party lights You know, this is what we believe in but we've seen bipartisanship On one side the national assembly members of apc and pdp are together on the demands that they had made or the changes They were trying to bring to the constitution to electoral act. You look at the first The first paper the first document that was sent to the president the first amendment Which he refused to sign and you look at the clause controversial clauses on direct primaries for instance And you saw also bipartisanship coming from the governess You know of both political parties across the country They were all in one voice saying we reject this um direct primary clause And they've also not looked favorably on this uh on some other things that have come uh to play So you can see that you have the national assembly members wanting to you know, not to ensure that they don't have certain persons Um, uh, you know ex ex wielding power against them and love. I want to return You know, love they want to come but I'm told we have a guest back on the line Okay, we lost you at a point, but there was you were making a uh a point before we lost you So can you quickly conclude so we ask your next question, please? No, no, I'm just summarizing that this judgment is a bit contentious On the depending on the angle you look at it And I'm of the opinion that this judgment should be tested at the court of appeal and ultimately at the supreme court To see whether political appointees are actually covered by sessions this is another relevant session of the 19th constitution in terms of um Those to resign before elections And of course there's been agitation Look at the political significance of this judgment Because the national assembly in their wisdom Um fed that if you are contesting for election and you are holding an appointee of an issue resign And concentrate on your campaigns So there is a behind that um amended Electoral art is key to sustain to the sustenance of our democracy. So I believe that Um, the judgment should be tested up to the supreme court All right, and let me go if if we track back to march 7 A federal high court in abuja That day barred the president mohammed abu harry and the attorney general federation and the senate president Frontampering with a newly amended electoral act 2022. I'm talking about a milord the honorable justice Yango called the federal high court in abuja who ruled on an expatriate application by The opposition people's democratic party. He said the electoral act having become valid A valid law could not be altered without following the new process of law. So how does this relate to what we're seeing coming from? Um waha in the same from the same court court of coordinate jurisdiction Exactly. Thank you so much. These costs are cost of coordinate jurisdictions And that's why some analysts or some Nigerians will believe that the court have become very controversial with the greatest respect I disagree with that because it's matters that are brought before the court that the court will adjudicate But how to say that I believe that the court of appeal will set the record right because if you look at both the federal high court Um, I am not of abuja You see a situation where these costs are cost of coordinate judicial I just want to interpret it to suit your own whims and caprices. You say that you you believe that um The federal high court judgment in um waha I actually try going to deletion at the cost of 12 will not stand given the earlier By just simple of the federal high court abuja. So that's why I said the court of appeal will be of Will be of help in this scenario. Okay, but but but can we can we can we some people are saying some people are saying that Because uh, justice in your core, uh, said that The the the the electoral activity to cannot be um be amended without These people name the senate president Mr. President himself and the attorney general following the the due process of the law Some are arguing that you know that what has happened now with this individual going to court Is part of that due process of the law. Do you agree with that that school of thought? Well, um If you look at the parties to the federal court judgment in um waha, that was brought by a 15 of an action alliance. Yes Uh, uh, we'll look at when you look at the local standing before Someone will not say what is this interest in the case, but the court has decided to see whether it has competence to institute that actions Have been a a chieftain of a political party But what I would like to know let us even leave law a bit this morning and look at the political significance of this judgment It shows that if the judge if sorry if this uh, it's a lot to stand That means so many persons in government both at the state at the federal level even at the local government level We should resign and concentrate in their campaigns But you will see a solution where somebody wants to run office. You want to stay there They run for an office. Uh, maybe as a minister or as a commissioner. I want to stay in the office for 30 days And um, the the question is that when somebody's running for an office and it stays in office Does it concentrate in his job? Um, uh, does it deliver governance because I believe that After politics should come governance, but when the when the greatest respect we tend to play politics all through So let us look at the reason what is the rationale behind that decision to amend that electoral Um, uh, I think that is very key. If you don't look at it, uh, critically will be will be more legalistic Okay, to me Yeah, to me as a lawyer, I think the the the cost of appeal We could kind of look at that session what are political appointees can be classified as those will Um, that is contemplated by a session by the relevant sessions of the nineteen and five positions as amended All right, but let's also look at this as well. I mean, uh, we understand the judicial proceedings And we're at you. It's a good thing that you're saying that you're looking forward to the court of appeal And the supreme court, you know having to uh, this I mean judgment need to be challenged by the appeal and the supreme court, of course It gets to the supreme court and then it becomes finer. But don't you think that the purpose of Uh, this would actually been You know being forfeited at the end of the day Understanding that where the times where political parties about to have their primaries and elections And so if you look at the process of the judiciary, I mean it follows a lot of process So at the end of the day, we probably might still have this case in court and then the elections would have happened 2023 would have been here and it would have been of no use at the end of the day Well, um, if you look at the speed at which that Julian was obtained or was delivered He showed us, um, it's more of a political expediency because other really, um, um Court cases take a while, but that decision it was filed. The police were exchanged It was delivered with the speed of light that, um Some analysts will believe that is unusual Now because the primaries are here That decision can equally that speed it was taking or it was that was used at the federal high court Can see we use at the court of appeal and up to the supreme court who can do that because election matters are given very special attention by the courts So I believe that this decision can still be taken in the next one or two months because At the start so the federal court is not the highest court of the land I it will be very, um, suspicious if we leave that decision at the federal high court because now we're trying to build um We're going to build consensus. We're trying to build faith in our In our democracy. So let us go upstairs and let the supreme court have a bite on that decision Because otherwise it will be seen as if it was an ambush and I don't want the judiciary to be seen as such So I believe the solution to this, uh Um Contention situation is that it's to go to court of appeal at the court of As a court of superior record or something But but you also would agree with me that uh, like you have also mentioned that there would be no adjudication of any case I mean the court will not adjudicate over any case until it's been brought to it So do you see I mean this particular, um issue being Contended do you see do you see, um, you know for the steps being taken? Uh, you know approaching the appeal court and the supreme court Yes, the the national assembly can do that because given their body language given the actions they have taken Given the fact that they rejected the plea by the presidency to amend that art They should go upstairs. They should go they can even assume they are not gentlemen I was actually seen the parties to that uh prior court judgment They can join as an interested party and challenge the court at the court of appeal for me The way forward is to go to court of appeal Because you cannot derive any decision without taking due process you go upstairs That is the legal means of challenging any decision now Um, it looks like the federal government is in a haste to implement that judgment Of course the the the office of the agency they are going to do that So if you're not comfortable with that As a body as an institution the national assembly or any other interested person can challenge that decision to the court of appeal But just like I said, what is the reason for asking political appointees to resign? So some number of days before they can contest election But maybe when I do us. I'm not looking at that aspect. I think that there's there's um, There's there's something for us to look at in that aspect. It helps in governance So what should we be looking at? We should be looking at the reason why And the amendments took place in the first place Why you are asking political appointees to resign so some number of days before or to before they can participate in their Convention of the congresses or to be elected. There is it to me. I think it's not perfect It's for also a lot of governance if you because if you as a minister for instance You want to be a governor because that way most of them go or you want to be a senator And you are still in office. You will not concentrate the campaigns is very stressful They're going for a vote and all that so That is why they said if you're interested in If you want to contest political office resign so I can't concentrate in your campaigns I think that is the reason that I think it has some value. It has some take for us to look at as Nigerians Little yoga. What does this say? Um, have have you seen a situation like this before? Um, where the national assembly wishes the the parliament of Nigeria Representing the people Passes a law or an act, you know a bill and it's signed into law and that a court now says no deletes a bc Um, is is that healthy for democracy? Well, um, if you look at session one sub one and sub three of the 19th interconsistence amended It talks about any law because that is the supreme law of the land That's a good one of the law the constitution so any law that is inconsistent With the provision of the constitution so that is such laws is is not avoid. You know that the electoral art is The electoral art is is an inferior law to the constitution so the judgment Well, it's to that extent that the session is the first of seven of the many electoral art It's inconsistent with stations this station wanted several At the other level session of the show one was seven of the 19th constitution So it's to the level of the inconsistent as found by the judge As found by the court that that judgment or that Amended sections of the electoral art was set aside. So it's to the level of inconsistency. Okay, so so yeah Yeah, so what what you're saying basically is that? um, um, you know What what what the the federal high court in the more has done is is is it's known to to democracy It's part of democracy that it's also is healthy for democracy To also not just take what the national assembly is saying who client and sinker But it test it in the light of the constitution and I believe the word that was used by Boko Mala made the first time federal high court of uh, just this year and co-past It's it's it's ruling was um Ultra virus so so therefore should we be looking at how we feel? about About this, you know, you talked about looking at the motive behind it and then the import of not resigning as the the new act You know requires on our democracy But should it be about what we think is right or should it be about what the constitution says? And if it's about what the constitution says and are we not just blowing hot air Are you there leonard? Are you there, please? I think we we've lost connection We've lost that we'll try and get back to leonard But um in interesting points is made that the constitution is clear And that anything that is adherence to that constitution Ultimately is no voting of no effect. And that's what the trial judge at the federal high court in umayah Did say the judge in that suit rather and what abu akamala media also just said that the clause introduced You know by the nationals in that new act uh on qualification disqualification criteria where ultra virus In the constitution by importing a blanket restriction And disqualification on serving political office holders of which they are constitutionally accorded protection You know, so, you know, I was hoping you would tell us some more about that But you know, maybe people should be looking at at amending the constitution Not the electoral act because electoral acts cannot overcome the constitution Yeah, for a very valid point, but we also need to understand that I mean It's actually part of the process Maybe that wouldn't have been accepted because you understand the interest involved at the end of the day You've talked about cases where you have, you know, uh, you have two dominant parties The national assembly and center in some cases you have both parties coming together on some issues That means you're lining and because it's your interest That's what politics about and in some cases you find out that when interest is not reflected or protected Then they begin to go apart at the end of the day Everyone would begin to lobby and protect their interests and that's what it's about But the laws were actually not thrown from the sky The laws were made, this constitution is a written constitution And you know, it was not thrown from the sky or we didn't pick it somewhere It has to follow So I feel, I feel like whatever has been put out there is challenging the entire law You know, initiating the process to amending the constitution and ensuring that we have good governance This is a practice that's been going on for a very long time Where you have political office holders and in most cases you still find the fact that You know, the, uh, incumbency, the power of being dominant in the space would always play You know, always, you know, play at every elections and you can't take that out But the constitution is clear, you know, this might give them 30 days 30 days So, so, I mean, what are we talking about? You know, sentiments don't win arguments The law in black and white on paper is what we should do And so, if we talk about that Even the lawyers who are coming out like, uh, Ade Borua, uh, Ebola, Ade Borua and Fermi Fala I do not know, uh, what they would say to the fact that the constitution is clear on these issues But we'll continue this conversation And the big question would be how much have we upheld that part of the constitution? Well, that's the much that we can think. Thank you so much Liana Danyago, uh, for being part of, you know, the conversation is a legal practitioner We take a break right now. When we return, we're heading straight to our second conversation Please stay with us