 Welcome back. You're still watching Plus Politics, so the 20 presidential aspirants will contest the presidential tickets of the ruling of Congress, APC, and we'll slug it out. Other parties, presidential primary slated for May 13. Now, several of them stepped down when Mr. President Muhammad Abu Hari insisted that any public office holder who wanted to run for the office of the president on the platform of the party had to resign. Now, some of the aspirants who are still in the race include Senator Bola Ahmed Tinibu, former governor of Lagos State, Vice President Yemi Oshiba Joe, and former transportation minister, since resigned, Rotimi Ameichi, also former Niger Delta Affairs Minister, Senator Gossel Papi is also resigned, is in the race, former Minister of Science and Technology and Innovation, former state governor, Senator Ibi Kunle, and most of them and others. Joining us to discuss these aspirants is Heway Samuel, he is a lawyer. Samuel, good evening to you and thank you for your time. Good evening. Thank you for having me. All right. I was telling you, you know, of the year that you look like one of those running. Everybody's running. Interesting. Interesting. What are your thoughts on the president's stance? I mean, when the whole talk about the electoral act and the provisions and clauses that should be there or not be there, especially that regarding or requiring public office holders disappointed to resign, some people had said it wasn't really even about the law that before now politicians, governors and presidents had requested their appointees to step down if they were interested in elections. I mean, in River State and some other states of governors, like we can't go, had a habit of the tradition of telling the aspirants who are appointees in his cabinet to resign. We've seen that at the presidential level as well. Looking at what Mr. President has said, do you think that that's that ferrari, you know, the opera and the whole drama regarding the controversial section of electoral act was necessary? Do you think it was necessary? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. So maybe we'll just take a foray into history. Now just like you said, it's not new, all right. And we've seen governors who asked political appointees who have the intention to go for political offices to resign. And the rationale behind that is really the fact that if you are pursuing a political office, you will have that span of attention for the office you have been appointed to preside over. So for example, you are a minister of transportation and you're running for president. Running for president takes a whole lot. You have been given an assignment to run a ministry and now you're running for president. You'll be distracted. So the philosophy behind resigning is very, very, very, very, very good. Now previously, 30 days to the general election, political office holders who intend to contest for elections are required to resign. Section 84, so 12 of the current electoral act has now said if you have an intention at all, not even 30 days before, if you have an intention before you go into the primaries resign. Now I think it's a very good provision because it gives the political space some sort of seriousness. It gives you some sort of seriousness and the president enforcing that particular provision is already shown that he is one who would give in to the dictates of the law. You would recall that an individual had gone to challenge the provisions of Section 84 and maybe as you say, unfortunately, what I mean, the court ruled that Section 84, so 12, is null and void. The court knocked it off and even instructed the attorney general of the federation to get the section of the electoral act. What interestingly, an appeal was made on that judgment and the court of appeal nullified the decision of the court below. So what it means effectively is that as we speak, Section 84, so 12, which mandates political appointees who have an interest or an eye for political offices, elective offices should resign. And going by that, the president has directed or ordered the ministers who want to go for presidents and ministers who are going for any political office at all to resign. And I think that's the best thing to do, basically, and I will commend the president for that. But the president, Mohamed Buhari, and indeed the attorney general of the federation in the midst of Justice Aburah Malami, SDN, had taken the national assembly before the Supreme Court over this Section 84, sub-12, like you talked of, mentioned, electoral act 2022, the section which passed political appointees, like Malami himself, seeking elective public office. So, I mean, what do you say to this? The fact that this is before the Supreme Court and the case that was adjourned till Thursday? Great. So the president, when he was signing the electoral act, you will recall mid-reservations, had reservations, mid-comments on Section 84, sub-12. So his proposition was that the section itself shouldn't have been there in the first place. And it was on that premise that he himself and the attorney general of the federation had challenged that decision, so the one you refer to as the Supreme Court. Now the president having reservations about Section 84 and still going ahead to direct ministers to resign just shows you the fact that the president will abide by the provision of the law as it is, not as he wants it to be. So as it stands, even though the president's preference of having Section 84 sub-12 struck out, even though that's his preference, but as we speak currently, the position is that Section 84 sub-12 remains. And the president, I believe as a Democrat, is bound to obey the provisions of the law as it's currently stand. So if the Supreme Court hears the president's case and decides that Section 84 sub-12 should not be there in the first place, then the president can say, you know what, this is now the position of the law. To ministers that I have, you can continue without resigning. But as it stands now, the president's preference, going by what he said, when he signed the act, when he signed the bill into law, is that Section 84 sub-12 shouldn't be there. The Court of Appears said Section 84 sub-12 should remain there, and it was on the back of that that the president went ahead and said, you know what, ministers resign. So he obeys the law, not just the way he thinks it should be, but the way it sees as at the particular point you're taking that decision. So you're saying the president has ordered his appointees who want to be president to step down in deference, or rather in obedience to the electoral act 2022. Exactly. All right. Isn't there... So you're saying he doesn't want to do it, but he has to do it because that's the position of the law? Yes. Isn't there a place in law, in jurisprudence, if I can use that term, that would allow the status quo to continue until or would allow a state of execution of any law as far as it's before the courts? Great. Now, you see, the way the issue of state of execution works, you don't just file an appeal and expect that filing or that appeal to act automatically as a state, right? So you need to secure a state of execution. So as we speak, there is no state of execution on the decision of the court of appeal. So you need to file a separate application? You have to file an application for state, to understand. And again, the matter of the Supreme Court is not an offshoot of the matter at the court of appeal. I don't know if you understand that. So it's not as if the president appealed the decision of the court of appeal. So the president filed a separate action. Taking the national... Yes. So the one of the court of appeal now is an offshoot of the one decided by the Federal High Court, where the Federal High Court held that Section 84 should be expunged. So people appealed, some individuals appealed against that decision, and the court of appeal nullified the decision of the court below. So once that is ongoing, the president also has a suit on the same subject matter at the Supreme Court. So the president's action on the Supreme Court is not an offshoot of the one at the court of appeal. And just like I said... But it's the same clause 84, 12 of the Act. Yes, same clause 84, 12. So if we have different judgments, what happens? So as it stands now, if the Supreme Court gives a decision, right, if the Supreme Court gives a decision on the matter currently filed by the president and the attorney general, that will become the position of the law. So if the Supreme Court says Section 84 of 12 remains, that becomes the position of the law. All right? Because the Supreme Court is the final court. So that becomes the position of the law. So what happens to... So of course, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. So all the courts will have to submit to a decision. All right. Interesting. No. So we have the likes of Senator Christen again, means of labour and productivity. We have the likes of Apokamalami Essayen, who we here wanted to be governor of his state. Now deciding how to stay put. They have stayed put. We have the likes of Rotimi Amici, who resigned. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Malami and Buhari, as far as Section... Or clause 84, 12 is concerned, what happens to the likes of Amici? Can they be recalled? No. You see? You should understand. Can they be reappointed? Let me tell you. They resigned too early. I'll tell you how it works. Yeah. You see, the position of a minister, it's an appointive position. So the president, at his pleasure, appoints the minister. And it's a matter of policy for the president. The president can as well say, you know what? Even if there was no Section 84 of 12, he can say, if you have any political intention, I don't want you to be here a hundred days before the election, election primary. So you can tell if you know you are not seeing any political ambition one year before the election, just go. Because he appointed them. He can dismiss them. This is his personal choice. It's at his prerogative. Exactly. He irrespective of the law. So he can, irrespective of the law. If I appoint you, let's say as a special assistant. And I believe the job I have given you, you're carrying, you're beginning to do something that will interrupt your concentration on that job. I can ask you to go. So for example, the president has asked the minister to oversee transportation. And the minister is now busy with other things, pursuing his own personal ambition. The president will definitely feel that this man is not going to be serious with the job I've given him. So you know what? Instead of being distracted, you can go. That's not even an issue of Section 84 sub-12. It's at his prerogative. So if the Supreme Court tomorrow says Section 84 sub-12 remains, it's not a ground for the president to say, you know what, don't resign anymore. Because even without Section 84 sub-12, the president could have still asked those who have political ambitions to resign because he appointed them. And he can tell them to go at any time. So if the president says, oh, after his room, God gives him and ma'am me what they want. Oh, I ask you to go because of the law as they stood at that time. Now the Supreme Court has come to a rescue, looking at all the constitutional provisions that said it's clause 84 sub-12 was flouted, including the African charters that were cited. And the president says, oh, come back. Of course. What will you say? No, but you see, as president, you can appoint, dismiss, appoint for five times and above. It's at your pleasure. So he can call them back? He can call them back. What will you say? So for me, what I would advise is, and like I said before, it's a good policy to ask those who have political intentions to resign. And it's just because even in the private sector, if you are a director in a company and you want to contest for the House of Assembly, what it definitely means is that you will not put so much attention on your desk, your job. So what the company will do is either grant you a leave of absence or tell you to resign. You can be pursuing House of Assembly election and be a director in a very serious-minded company. So the same thing, government or governance is serious business. You can't head an agency and you're running for governor, governorship. You'll be distracted because to contest for governorship, you have to meet with the delegates. That means you won't be at your duty post. All right. All right. I mean, some of the ministers or the political appointees in the Buhari administration who have taken a step back and rested their ambitions for now, of course, the big one, we have Avoka Balamiesi and the AGF. Apart from him, you have the likes of the Minnesota State Petroleum Resources, Chief Timmy Price-Silver. Yes. The Ministers of Women Affairs, Mrs. Pauline Tallinn, who all pulled out of the race. Some people have said that these individuals, of course, I can't forget the likes of Senator Chris Ngege, Ministers of Labour and Productivity. Now, some people have said that these ministers who initially were nursing presidential ambitions or governorship ambitions or whatever ambitions in the 2023 elections are imposter and they should not be allowed to continue in their position. So what do you say to this? So well, people have their personal opinions. So whether or not people feel they are imposter, I really can't tell. All right. So people can, people have different reasons for declaring intentions to contest for anything. So we made a joke of me, you are asking whether or not I have collected my form or declared for presidency. I can wake up tomorrow and say, you know what? I want to be president. And I can give posters, e-flyers, post it everywhere just to gain that clout and popularity. Whereas within me, I know I really do not have the intention to do that. But that intention is really within me. So I can't tell. So if the Minister of Labour, Senator Chris Ngege, was if he didn't have it in mind or he didn't have it seriously in his mind to contest in the first place, I mean, that's within his own prerogative to know. I can't say really for a fact that Mr. Ngige was just trying to prove that. Very quickly, let's look at what Fermi Falano Human Rights Activist and Lawyer is saying. He is saying that the likes of Malami and Ngige have exposed the country to what they call the radical with their U-turn. And he is saying that after participating in a farewell meeting, they had a farewell meeting for them, that the two ministers should not be allowed to return to the Cabinet to function as ministers. Okay, so you see what Leonard Silk was saying basically is that, you know, if you are appointing a minister, it has to go through the approval of the nationals of the Senate, right? So if a minister resigns effectively, so we don't know what played out around that resignation, right? So whether or not they actually tender their resignation letter, we did not see any letter, all right? So if in effect they tender their resignation letter, and I think a professor wrote a counter to what Leonard Silk, Mr. Falano, said. So for me, if the ministers wrote a letter of resignation and effectively resigned, before they can get back their position, they need Senate confirmation. And that's the point Mr. Falano was trying to make. Okay. But if they did not effectively resign, they only had the intention to resign because all we see are the things we see on the screen. So it's possible before the farewell meeting, there was actually, the Senate vote, there was actually, maybe that was just for the screen, maybe there was no effective resignation just yet. So but if there was an effective resignation before those guys can come back, they need Senate confirmation. I wish you had more time. Very interesting submissions by you, you're a good lawyer. Thank you very much for your time. Ehieue Sanwell is a legal practitioner, he's been a guest on the second discussion right here on Plus Politics, and we would surely be looking at these issues as we inch closer to the 2023 election. Thanks for staying with us. We've come to the end of today's show, Plus Politics Returns Tomorrow. I'm Kofi Bortales.