 This still plus policy is now the Court of Appeal has set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umarher which voided the provision of Section 84, Subsection 12 of the Electoral Act of 2022. In a judgement in Abuja, a three-member panel of the Court held that the Federal High Court, Umarher, had no jurisdiction to have entertained the case because of the plaintive. Nduka Edidi lacked the local stand to have filed the suit in the first place. Meanwhile, President Mohammad Buhari has directed that all members of the Federal Executive Council running for elective offices must submit their letters of resignation on or before Monday, the 16th of May 2022. While joining us to break this down is Reachat Wakilcha Professor of Public Law, River State University and Tamino Williams, Illegal Practitioner. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Revene Nigeria. Great. I'll start with you Professor Wakilcha. Let's look at the beginning of all of this. The fact that a man took a suit, lodged the case against that clause of course in the Electoral Act. Many people have said that the likes of the former governor of Aquaberm State, Senator Goswil Aquab, are saying that that particular act does not affect them being that they're not necessarily public office holders as what the Constitution says that they are elected officers. And this is where the argument began. And there are also people who are saying, well, the electoral act is what should guide the elections. Why should that be contested? But you are the lawyer here, so educate us. First, they are political appointees. And the provision of the section affects all political appointees. Until now, there is no provision in the act that allows them to participate in Congress as former elected officials. That is being worked on now. An amendment is going on now to bring that on as part of the section. But as of now, there is none. And they are bound to obey section 84, subsection 12. They are bound to obey it. Otherwise, there will be their consequences as spread out in section 84 subsection 13 against their party if they do not obey it. But then what does it mean when the court say they're voiding it being that the person who lodged this suit in the first place has no local standing? And this is what the appeal court is saying. In plain terms, in layman terms, what does that mean? Local standing is the capacity to institute a suit. With respect to suits of this nature, or anyone who institutes a suit must show that they have an interest which the law ought to protect, which is threatened by the action of the party against whom he is bringing the suit. If you look at section 46, subsection 1 of the Constitution which talks of the right of people to approach court, says anyone who feels that his right is threatened or is affected by any such action in relation to him, that is a qualifying factor there, in relation to him, can approach the court. So if you just feel that an act is not right and you want to go to court over that, there is nothing you are asking the court to protect you from. There is nothing affecting you. There is no interest directly affecting you that you are approaching the court to protect. So local standing is the capacity to institute a suit and cause a court to invoke his jurisdiction in your favor. So what the court said in that judgment is that the judge who went to court did not in any way show that he is affected by this law he is talking about. He is not an aspirant, he is not a good court for, he is not the reason he intends to buy from and is he being heard by that provision. He did not link himself in any way with the inconvenience he alleges that the act is going to cause or the breach of right he alleges that the act is going to cause. So in the opinion of the court, he did not, he was not a qualified person to bring that action before the high court and the high court ought not to have donated his jurisdiction to hear his cause because he did not disclose anything that he wants the high court to protect for him. Okay, Varsal Williams, I think we're having some audio feedback from you. I don't know if that is a fan that is close to you but we're hearing so much noise. I can hear you. Yes we can hear you but there's some feedback we're getting from you. I don't know if your fan is on or something but it's affecting the audio that's coming from you anyway. The People's Democratic Party had sued the President, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly. They also sued the Senate Leader, the House of Representatives Leader and the Independent National Electoral Commission as of the first two-eight defendants respectively. Now they are obviously also on this issue of why should political office holders continue to sit in their offices while they are running for several other offices. I mean the list is endless. We have Chris Ngige, we have the Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amici. I mean the list comes on. We have the AGF also who's interested in running for governorship in his state. Now if Mr President had not come up with this statement to try to douse this embrolio, what do you think would have been done especially with the former Governor Goswylok Babio saying he's not going to resign? Mr Williams, can you hear me? Okay, I can hear you. If I align myself with the submission made by the professor, you know, when a law is passed, you cannot choose and pick which section to be. As it stands today, section 8412 provided that if you are a political appointee, you cannot vote and be voted for in any convention or congress. Now my first think is that the way that section is cowed is very elegant. If you look at the other sections, when I look at it, it's not clear. It doesn't go straight to the point. And I see it as a section that was brought in in a hurry. Now with respect to Senator Babio's argument, it's neither here nor there. A law has been passed. The import of the law is clear. Those who are affected know, arguing that he's not an appointee cannot exclude him from the efficacious power of that section. He will only know see the level of his calamity when he has won the elections. And then the court strikes down that election. Now there is a court of appeal judgment very fresh. Though I've been privileged to look at the judgment in itself, but from the commenters who read, the court said that the young man I went to court, of course, as the Leonard Professor said, like look who's standing. However, it went on to void that section 8412. So my worry is that, I don't know what you just put it into that. You have said the man doesn't have look who's standing. But you've gone ahead to make to not spend on the validity of that section. It seemed to be a little bit difficult for me to wrap around my head. But for Fabio, I will advise him very clearly. Again, he has saved the worry, the inconvenience of resign and no resign. I hear in this 6 o'clock bulletin that Mr. President has said that those who want to contest election have up to 16th of this month to resign. Yes. So Fabio's argument is in mute now. I think that is my take on that matter. Great. Back to you, Professor. I wonder, because everybody is not necessarily clear on what that judgment is saying, but thank goodness the president has come to save us from wondering if this means anything for all his appointees. But going forward now, because this is not the only elections we're going to have, and if these loopholes are not plugged within our constitution or the electoral act, of course, it might arise again, maybe in our next election cycle. What should be done now to deal with these loopholes or this confusion as to whether there is jurisdiction or no jurisdiction so that cut cases like this might no longer emerge or suits like this might not be filed against public office holders who intend to run for office, but also want to sit tight in those offices that they already hold? I think the law is already clear. The law as it exists now is already clear. I was never in doubt that law is not in conflict with the constitution because the relevant sections at the high court consider we are sections relating to civil servants or public servants contesting in general elections. The restrictions there, we are for any civil servants and in section 308, which is the definition section, interpretation section, the constitution makes it clear what it means by civil servants or public servants, persons who are employees of the civil service or public service of the federation or of the state. So it is very clear that it is talking of civil servants wanting to run for general election or for elections and it is talking of public servants, employees. Political appointees are not employees of the civil service. They leave office when the person who appointed them leaves office. They are not subject to civil service rules. They are not. So for them to say they will work with the constitution, the constitution does not cover them. It does not provide for their category of persons. It provides for employees of the civil service or public service of the federation or of the state. This law is different. If you cast your mind to section 228 of the constitution, it gives power to the national assembly to provide for regulation of internal party affairs and to ensure internal democracy in political party affairs. And it gives national assembly powers to provide for regulation of congresses, conventions and primaries. It is that power that the national assembly has put into action. It is that power that they have used to make this act. It provides for political appointees in internal party affairs, not general election. It does not inconvenience anybody. It does not conflict with the constitution. The constitution says resign at least one month before election. Resigning one year before election is not in conflict. What will be in conflict is resigning two weeks before election or three weeks before election. But anything before that one month is in consonance with the constitution and not in conflict. Now concerning the judgment of today, I think it's a question of the reportage by the journalists who reported. I think we can only speculate now because we have not seen the text of the judgment. I think that he reported later what they called said obita before giving yes. What they called said obita. In every judgment there are two sides. There is a racial decedent which is the reason for the decision in resolving the question that was posed before the court. And then there is the obita dictum. An obita dictum is a statement or an analysis the court makes by the way that does not address the issue that the court is deciding on. So that would have been a statement they called made obita before arriving at the judgment. Notwithstanding that in this case the party who brought the suit lacked jurisdiction because there is no way the court can say the judgment is set aside and follow it up with the suit is struck out and then go back again to giving a judgment on the merit. It's impossible. So I think the gentleman reported what happened earlier later after stating what the judgment was. We can only speculate but I believe that's what happened because you cannot have it the way the reporter reported it. He must have reported the earlier comments made by the court after reporting the racial decedent died of the case. I think that's what happened in that case and we get to know as the judgment becomes available to the public. Now let's take a look at what Mr. President said today at the federal executive council meeting which has now given an ultimatum. Well this was transmitted by the information minister about these office holders and the days that they had to resign or submit their resignations before they go into their campaigns. Well let's take a listen to Mr. Lai Muhammad and then when we come back we'll talk. Any other member of the federal council aspiring either to be president or senator or governor or any elective office must submit a set of resignation latest by the 16th of May 2022. Mr. President has the right to ask to appoint members of his cabinet, reshuffle them, replace them and to that extent I think he has right to say those of them that you want who are serving him who he has appointed and they want to run for office irrespective of circumstances that he as Mr. President who has a power nomination I think he has the right to ask them to resign and this I don't this is an issue that falls within what I don't want to commit myself but I'm just listening to myself to say that I believe that Mr. President has the right to appoint, remove, reshuffle or change any minister. Mr. Tamino Williams the minister of information there Mr. Lai Muhammad relating Mr. President's message to all his appointees and we have a long list of these appointees we have including the ministers of transportation, Rotimiya, Mesh, United Delta, Gotswila, we have labor and employment, science and technology and information, minister of state for education, the justice and attorney general, all of these people have either joined the presidential race or are running for a different office as we all know. So it makes things a lot more interesting how do we see this playing out of cost they will have to resign because this is what their principal has said but then we also know that the Oppressive Congress has so many presidential aspirants and there might just have to be a consensus candidate at the end of the day. What happens to the rest of them? Well I don't know of a consensus candidate that will be within the bosom of the political juggernauts than the stakeholders but I think that what the minister has communicated, first I have a problem with the communication dynamics you know, I think that what you have been doing will have been a memory from the president to all the affected persons that will post want to the extent laws of the land. I hereby direct that all those who in this category kindly resign X, Y time and it's not really in breaking news but you know the minister of information came and made it as if it was a landmark issue. Principally he has saved the party and then those affected from taking on warranted of saying I'm a public servant and the code of conduct bureau and this not the end of the day it will have been a big legal battle. But there's one phrase that I quarrel with with you respect that those who are serving the president the ministers are not serving a president they are serving in our country Nigeria. Yes he has the right to fire and higher to fire but you see we should try to involve a culture where appointees see themselves principally as people who are serving the nation. I just want to emphasize that. But then there's also that phrase where people say they serve at the pleasure of the president being there he's given them that opportunity so I'm guessing and I'm not in any way speaking for the minister I'm just saying maybe this is what he meant. No no no he is a lawyer assistant administrator you see the earlier we begin to inculcate in all of us and our children that any position you hold is service to nation is fundamental like my man know he knows better so but the point is that this particular directive from from from mr president it resolves the issue and I would tell you another point they've been putting their letters on the 16th of of May and after the congresses those who are not successful will just come back and resume because there is no requirement that because you are putting your letter of resignation that you must come back with the return from your appointee that that letter has been accepted you know in my thinking what you require to show at that screen size is to look I have resigned x day before the the ultimatum given or before the day of the primaries you don't need to come back with an accept transmitter from the minister that's my thinking and of course if there are some people there for me from from the president after the convention president can say well I read I do not accept I reject your application for resignation that means such a minister will automatically assume office he doesn't need to go back to seeing it or be represented so I think that technically all those aspirants who are picked up from you now have a leeway you know illegal safety net which they can resign contest if they lose and come back okay well I want to say thank you professor Richard Walker child is a professor of public law river stage university and Tamino Williams is a lawyer in river state thank you so much gentlemen unfortunately time is not on our side thank you for being part of the conversation we appreciate your thoughts and on that note before we say our thank yous and our goodbyes Nigerians are speaking their minds on president good luck Jonathan's rule mod presidential ambitions will take a listen to that and on that note I say good night thank you for being part of the show we'll be back tomorrow on your screens talking for development I am Mary Anna Cohn have a good evening somebody of his Calibur should not come so low to accept that okay moreover the PDP that that that was a that was a platform for him to earn that respect is is is by so doing brought on that ridicule for him to dump the PDP that took him to search heights and then cross-capped to apc in this kind of embarrassing situation it's our call for if I was going to be politically suicidal for him and I will rubbish the respect he has earned over the years locally and internationally I see it as something that they are playing now on intelligent on the internet how can you present Jonathan said he rejected is he going to tell us that he doesn't know that those people are going to obtain from for him I've never met up with those group before so can you just it's not possible for your group to just wake up one day and say we are purchasing a form for somebody and the person I said is rejecting it I'll immerge these people who are they do you have association of alimetry in Nigeria these are the people some governors are chasing the way I'll immerge is now gang themselves up and saying they are obtained a hundred million error of form pushing it for an ex-governor ex-president these are the people that they are telling on our intelligence why we are having us they are on strike can them gather this money and they pay the salary of us look at our children's they are outside he should reject it there is an as he he rejected it is very very good to my own opinion because as a stakeholder it's not it's not supposed to come back for the president there are some they just want to the way I'm seeing it they just want to kill his spirit concerning the political what is going on in this society I hope you understand what I'm saying if if if he must come out for the for election not may I tell her that we bought a form for him so we need to reject that and if it's coming for for aspirants there is a not a pc