Thread by @Mbanire

Distinguished readers, welcome to our weekly leadership engagement series. Today, I am prematurely discussing the Supreme Court judgement in the Akeredolu’s case. #LeadershipTalks

I so describe it as 'premature’ because the official copy of the judgment is yet to be released for one to digest the content and issue an authoritative opinion thereon.

Consequently, to a large extent, all commentators are issuing speculative opinions. In this regard, pending the release of the official copy, I will only discuss seemingly obvious portion as it relates to the issue submitted before the court.

I have read so many comments on the issue, broadly divided into those in denial of the ultimate consequence for the ruling party, All progressives Congress (APC), ...

...typified by the opinion of the Attorney General of the Federation and those that I call pragmatists and who easily perceived the likely negative consequence of the decision.

The crux of the agitation arising from the decision lies in the appropriateness or otherwise of the Governor of Yobe State serving as the Caretaker Committee Chairman of the Party.

This is pitched against the Nigerian constitutional provision that seemingly forbids such practice and the APC provision that absolutely bars same.

The apex court seems to have ruled against the illegality of the practice of government officials simultaneously occupying party offices.

The majority position is that before ruling on that point, the affected person in the person of the Governor of Yobe State ought to have been heard, and that having not happened, it would be unfair to damnify the party.

Whilst I am not prepared to go into the latter issue for now, I believe the former position truly represents the accurate position of the law.

If there is any doubt about the Section of the Nigerian Constitution as to that import, the provision in the APC constitution is without doubt unambiguous.

It simply states that any person occupying any government position cannot simultaneously occupy a party office. Where such happens, as in this case, it is an act of illegality. To this extent, therefore, any act or omission by such occupier of the party office is a nullity.

This seems to be the line the apex Court woukd follow which, in my view, is consistent with the relevant provisions in this regard. Thus, all acts carried out by the Governor Buni-led executives of the Party may not stand.

With this hint, wise Nigerians thought the party would take the advantage of that and unwind immediately by dissolving and reconstituting the Caretaker Committee.

Alas! this is not to be as the party garrulously progressed with the congresses triggered by the Governor Buni's executives.

This, purportedly, is premised on the advice of the Attorney General of the Federation who, in the first instance, is supposed to be responsible to all Nigerians without being partisan,...

...since he is not the Legal Adviser of the party, and who equally has not seen the official judgment

He, therefore, speculated that the party could take the risk. This is the kind of arrogance and impunity that is sinking the party already. A wise person would have thought that, pending the release of the official copy of the judgment, all activities would stop.

The situation is undoubtedly cloudy. This is not to be as I understand that the money for the Congress had been shared and cannot be returned.

The party went ahead and by purported consensus, it has produced ward executives in most States of the Federation save where there are Court orders halting the elections.

With all these aberrations, it is not unexpected that there will be sufficient litigation which is rolling in already.

My expectation from the courts is to ensure that the rule of law survives accordingly. Nigerian democracy must be developed through the instrumentality of the law. We may borrow a leaf from the Indian courts.