Roger3D:
Peter Obi's case will be thrown to the dustbin where it belongs and life will go on under a Tinubu presidency

Of course, life will go on under Tinubu's stolen mandate

LocalStandard1:


If we should go by your argument then the SC have already made there intentions about that part of the Law known few years ago.

Has the Constitution changed?

Is their decision in the constitution?
Ambiguous issues like this deserves alteration of the constitution to make clear

Too many uneducated people trying to sound educated with long write ups.

You failed you failed and you failed. I am sure every member of your family is a failure

There are 2 ways to declare winner in the presidential election...to make it simpler...(A) where we av more than two contestants, anyone that has d highest number of vote is declared winner or (B) ...someone that has 25% in 26 states. Kallas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaCLPKAf0NE

Why everyone wants the $15,000 Yamaha Tracer 9 GT

Ofunaofu:


Of course, life will go on under Tinubu's stolen mandate

Yes and you either accept it or perish

Roger3D:
Yes and you either accept it or perish

If the government is good, every one will be fine, if it bad we all will perish, including you

Hmmm

If the case is this simple, why then is tinubu evading being served the the court papers, and why is he wasting his money on those sans, he should just send sheyi his son to defend him

LocalStandard1:


Because it is that 18years old boy's territory that the President is going to preside and lead from, even hand picking and appointing its sole administrator. The boy should have a say in that aspect of his life as the privilege of voting in a governor is snatched from him.

Are you saying Buharri is not president of south east i am sure he himself talked about 5% votes

Ofunaofu:



First and foremost Tinubu did not win 34 state. This settles it because I know where you are coming from as his supporters

The fact remains that Tinubu did not meet the 25% requirement in the FCT Abuja, and shouldn't have been declared the winner

To your question,

If a candidate can be so popular to win 34 States, he will comfortably get 25% in the FCT Abuja because his popularity would have rob off on the people living in the FCT Abuja, aliens are not living in the FCT

I never said Tinubu did.


I am asking you if any candidate wins 34 states and fails to win FCT, you are saying his popularity will rub off blah blah blah, obviously you are evading the question. I have my answer already and I think at the appropriate time the tribunal will answer you.

Godspikin:



I never said Tinubu did.


I am asking you if any candidate wins 34 states and fails to win FCT, you are saying his popularity will rub off blah blah blah, obviously you are evading the question. I have my answer already and I think at the appropriate time the tribunal will answer you.

Ok

Lets leave it at that

Sunmolar:
An unwrinkled face is not good for a resounding slap. So it is somewhat indelicate for a lawyer who ought to be grounded in the ethics of the law profession to publicly criticize the opinions of other senior lawyers, who are revered to be authorities in their fields.

Afe Babalola, Gboyega Awomolo, Wole Olanipekun, J. B. Daudu, Lateef Fagbemi, Kanu Agabi, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, J. K. Gadzama, E. C. Ukala, Yunus Ustaz Usman, Adeniyi Akintola, Emeka Ngige, Chris Uche, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, Mike Ozekhome, Dele Adesina, J. S. Okutepa, Mahmud Magaji, Dayo Akinlaja, Ahmed Raji, Femi Falana, A. Mustapha, Ebun-Adegboruwa, and many hosts legends of the inner bar are jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law and whose opinions carry weight and speak volumes. For some of these oracles of law, their names have refused to leave the pages of our law reports.

And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions. So, to laymen, the opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen!

However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest public office in the land.

We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect.

For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens.

A number of emergency analysts of the law we have never heard of, or are known for being passive about crucial National issues suddenly appeared to become public figure in interpreting the laws in our Constitution as if they are a collection of formal and informal texts in an English textbook compiled for letter writing.

It is quiet even disturbing when some of my professional colleagues across border were analysing those colloquial interpretations here on one occasion of our group interactions. I must confess that I felt uncomfortable with many of their comments.

As I write this, I find myself grappling with the question: when is politics taken too far? This question has far reaching ramifications, because a honest answer to it will reveal that some senior lawyers give certain legal opinions they do not even believe in just because they have been tainted by politics. It is the common man on the streets that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws.

Lawyers cannot frown at the attitude of people flouting court orders and still be the ones selling the law of the land for a token on the altar of political standing. Deliberately misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer is a mockery of our Constitution and the legal profession and such character has a way of turning to hunt its maker.

It is therefore incumbent upon some of us who understand that the primary role of lawyers as ministers in the temple of justice is first and foremost the attainment of justice. And justice cannot be attained without truth.

Consequently, amidst the brouhaha surrounding the interpretation of section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the multifarious explanations given by public commentators and senior lawyers alike, it is important to set the record straight and state the true position of the law, devoid of emotion and political chicanery.

The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly sub-paragraph (b) thereof have generated so much fuss and controversy in the past few days, especially after the conclusion and announcement of the winner of the recently concluded presidential elections.

Basically, there are two opposing sides in the arguments the above section has spawned: those who argue that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must get 25% of the votes cast in FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional criteria) and those who contend that a candidate need not poll 25% of the votes cast in FCT to be declared winner, so far as he meets other Constitutional requirements.


For the sake of clarity, Section 134(2) provides that:

(2) A candidate for an election to the office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election –

(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Even though the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT) is not a State properly so called, the Constitution has clothed it with the toga of a State. In other words, the FCT is treated like a State, and all the powers of a Governor in a State is vested in the Minister of the FCT. While the Houses of Assembly of the 36 States of the Federation legislate for each State respectively, the National Assembly makes laws for the FCT. Furthermore, while the States have their respective Local Government Areas, the FCT has Area Councils.

Pursuant to the above, Section 299 of the Constitution expressly provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation. Section 299 of the Constitution has received the judicial imprimatur of the full panel of the Supreme Court in FAWEHINMI & ORS v. BABANGIDA & ORS (2003) LPELR-1255 (SC).

Hence, each time the draftsman intends to refer to the 36 States and FCT in the Constitution, it says “all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT)”, bearing in mind that the FCT has also been clothed with the toga of a State.

Having made the above clarification, the “and” as used by the draftsman between “all the States of the Federation” and “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” in sub-paragraph (b) of Section 134(2) of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean that what applies to other States is inapplicable to FCT. Rather, it means that the FCT is on the same pedestal as the States of the Federation, even though it’s not a State properly so called.

So, the intention of the draftsman as regards Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is that, the candidate, in addition to having the highest number of votes cast at the election, must also poll not less than one quarter (25%) of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (36 States) and the FCT (a State kind of), thereby making it 25% of votes cast in at least 2/3 of 37 States. 2/3 of 37 is 24.6.

Drawing from the reasoning of the erudite jurist, Otutu Andrews Obaseki, JSC (of blessed memory), in the landmark decision of the full panel of the Supreme Court in AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI & ORS (1979) LPELR-653(SC), there’s nothing like 24.6 States, for a State is a geographical setting incapable of being divided.

Borrowing a leaf from the revered jurist, the construction that two-thirds of 37 States in the Federation (FCT inclusive) is 24.6 States may be correct in the abstract but in relation to the Constitution, it is impracticable. Where there are two possible meanings conveyed by the words of a statute or the Constitution, it is the most reasonable one that should be adopted. Where the other meaning leads to absurdity or evinces internal contradiction, that meaning should be dropped for the first as the legislature never intends to be absurd or contradictory.

The word 'each' in the sub-section (2)(b) of Section 134 qualifies a whole State and not a fraction of a State and to interpret it otherwise is to overlook the disharmony between the word "each" and the fraction "two thirds". Two-thirds of thirty-seven (37), to avoid any disharmony, gives 25.

As a way of covering the base, the second school of thought contend that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must score 25% in the FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional requirements). If one agrees with this view, then it logically follows that if a candidate wins the entire 36 states of the Federation and polls the majority number of votes cast, if he fails to get 25% in FCT, then he cannot be declared winner. This cannot be the intendment of the draftsman, as the FCT cannot hold the entire nation to ransom.

So, once a candidate severally polls at least 25% of votes cast in at least 25 states, whether inclusive of FCT or not, he’s won the election so long he also has the majority of the votes cast all over the Federation.

The issue under reference has been before the Supreme Court, in 2003 in the case of Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2003) All NLR 168, the apex court in the land prophesied and held that if there’s any issue on the provision of Section 134(2), they’ll toe the part that accords with common sense. They further undertook that the court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible.

For the sake of emphasis, the operative words are "just, reasonable and sensible."

This then begets the question: is it just, reasonable and sensible to argue that a candidate who, for instance, won 36 States of the Federation and also polled the highest number of votes cast at an election but failed to score 25% of the votes cast in FCT, Abuja cannot be deemed the winner of the election? I think not. That would not be just, reasonable and sensible.

In Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt.1768) 1, the supreme Court held that by virtue of section 299(a) (b) of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation.

If that is the case, why then would the FCT, Abuja be placed on so high a pedestal, like some lawyers have done, that it now supersedes other States of the Federation?

Buttressing further, If the provisions of the Constitution are to apply to FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation, then surely it cannot be ranked above other States of the Federation.

To steelman our arguments above, in Baba-Panya v. President, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 423, the Court held that the FCT, Abuja is to be treated like a State and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the Federation.

As a corollary, it would then be unjust, unreasonable and insensible to argue that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is a mandatory Constitutional requirement, when no other State or even the entire States of the Federation enjoy this preferential treatment.

A reasonable, just and sensible interpretation of section 134(2) would then be that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is like scoring 25% in any other State of the Federation.

That is just, reasonable and sensible.


Source: Shahara reporters

lol

dat9jaguy:



Come and paste the full article and not this. You did not put where he drew his conclusion which is it is not mandatory to get 25% in FCT to be declared president.
Also give credit to the source.

Don't mind the guy

Ofunaofu:
"This then begets the question: is it just, reasonable and sensible to argue that a candidate who, for instance, won 36 States of the Federation and also polled the highest number of votes cast at an election but failed to score 25% of the votes cast in FCT, Abuja cannot be deemed the winner of the election? I think not. That would not be just, reasonable and sensible."

This argument doesn't hold water, infact it is a very silly argument and can only come from the camp of the APC who are at the moment caught up with the law.

If someone can be so popular to the extent of winning the entire 36 state, getting 25% in the FCT Abuja shouldn't be difficult because those who live in FCT Abuja are Nigerians who should be in tune with the popularity of the said candidate

You are a liar, I don't know your level of education or your knowledge of international politics, but you should know that the world over it is always difficult for a ruling party to win the state capital of their county because of the cosmopolitan nature and number of elites there, most state capitals are always leaning towards the left, so no constitution will demand a political party or a presidential candidate must win it's capital before being declared a winner of a presidential election, I doubt much

samunaka:


You are a liar, I don't know your level of education or your knowledge of international politics, but you should know that the world over it is always difficult for a ruling party to win the state capital of their county because of the cosmopolitan nature and number of elites there, most state capitals are always leaning towards the left, so no constitution will demand a political party or a presidential candidate must win it's capital before being declared a winner of a presidential election, I doubt much

Mr level of knowledge in international politics

You just jump into a discussion and call someone liar

I never said that a candidate must win the FCT Abuja, I am only reiterating the position of the constitution which is 25% of the votes cast in FCT Abuja

samunaka:


You are a liar, I don't know your level of education or your knowledge of international politics, but you should know that the world over it is always difficult for a ruling party to win the state capital of their county because of the cosmopolitan nature and number of elites there, most state capitals are always leaning towards the left, so no constitution will demand a political party or a presidential candidate must win it's capital before being declared a winner of a presidential election, I doubt much

Nobody Is talking about wining here
What the law said is getting 25% of vote cast

Elliotwaveforec:

The FCT has no special status so says the SC! Do know that any ruling by the SC is a law on its own, meaning the SC can make and amend laws as it wishes.

As it is, the ruling hasn't changed and the status quo remains. The last ruling says the FCT should be treated like a state. Case closed!

like in America fct is our electoral college, it has a special status when it comes to elections

Ofunaofu:


Of course, life will go on under Tinubu's stolen mandate

No o, you are free to take a sniper or move to nearest country

To steelman our arguments above, in Baba-Panya v. President, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 423, the Court held that the FCT, Abuja is to be treated like a State and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the Federation.

As a corollary, it would then be unjust, unreasonable and insensible to argue that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is a mandatory Constitutional requirement, when no other State or even the entire States of the Federation enjoy this preferential treatment.

Ofunaofu:



First and foremost Tinubu did not win 34 state. This settles it because I know where you are coming from as his supporters

The fact remains that Tinubu did not meet the 25% requirement in the FCT Abuja, and shouldn't have been declared the winner

To your question,

If a candidate can be so popular to win 34 States, he will comfortably get 25% in the FCT Abuja because his popularity would have rob off on the people living in the FCT Abuja, aliens are not living in the FCT

You are arguing like an slowpoke, even if Peter Obi hire 200 SANs there is nothing they can do about special status they want to accord the FCT, by doing that you are in essence telling us that in the next presidential election the candidates should just stay in abuja and be campaigning there, since the other 36 States are less important, which is a very bad precedent, so it is only just, fair and sensible to swear in the president elect Messr Tinubu on may 29

A reasonable, just and sensible interpretation of section 134(2) would then be that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is like scoring 25% in any other State of the Federation.

Depending on who is doing the interpretation abi?

Una go interprete taya ke!

muykem:
Every sound lawyer understand the provision clearly but black man must act mischievously especially when their interest and settlement is involved. How will constitution indirectly say president Buhari vote in Katsina and that of his vice in Ogun state are inferior to 18years old school boy vote in Abuja.

Because by this singular vote an Abuja resident is not just choosing his president but also deciding who becomes his "Governor". For other states ,the average voter has a seperate opportunity to pick his Governor . So let me flip it , is the Abuja resident so inferior that he is not allowed to pick his Governor like other states ?

I wasted my time reading this, waiting to see where it is stipulated that you don't have to get 25% in FCT... The word AND is clear, all other interpretation is child's play.

seunmsg:
Only extremely stupid people think FCT residents have a special status and can veto the vote of the rest of the country. It’s the silliest legal argument I’ve heard since I was born. Emotions and not common sense is what is driving the argument.

Na WA to you o.
Just as u can't win a logical argument with a woman. It's next to useless arguing logically with Igbos.
Igbos see and hold on to what suits their purpose. The same ppl that are doing yearly memorials for d 'victims' of 'lekki masaka' but still can't show proof of any casualty neither could they push forward any relatives of the masaka-ed.
Despite having 'clear eyes' to see d invisible in lekki, they blatantly refuse to see d visible in their backyard in akwuzu river where their new found Savior was in charge as d then guv of anambala state.

Sunmolar:
An unwrinkled face is not good for a resounding slap. So it is somewhat indelicate for a lawyer who ought to be grounded in the ethics of the law profession to publicly criticize the opinions of other senior lawyers, who are revered to be authorities in their fields.

Afe Babalola, Gboyega Awomolo, Wole Olanipekun, J. B. Daudu, Lateef Fagbemi, Kanu Agabi, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, J. K. Gadzama, E. C. Ukala, Yunus Ustaz Usman, Adeniyi Akintola, Emeka Ngige, Chris Uche, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, Mike Ozekhome, Dele Adesina, J. S. Okutepa, Mahmud Magaji, Dayo Akinlaja, Ahmed Raji, Femi Falana, A. Mustapha, Ebun-Adegboruwa, and many hosts legends of the inner bar are jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law and whose opinions carry weight and speak volumes. For some of these oracles of law, their names have refused to leave the pages of our law reports.

And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions. So, to laymen, the opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen!

However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest public office in the land.

We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect.

For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens.

A number of emergency analysts of the law we have never heard of, or are known for being passive about crucial National issues suddenly appeared to become public figure in interpreting the laws in our Constitution as if they are a collection of formal and informal texts in an English textbook compiled for letter writing.

It is quiet even disturbing when some of my professional colleagues across border were analysing those colloquial interpretations here on one occasion of our group interactions. I must confess that I felt uncomfortable with many of their comments.

As I write this, I find myself grappling with the question: when is politics taken too far? This question has far reaching ramifications, because a honest answer to it will reveal that some senior lawyers give certain legal opinions they do not even believe in just because they have been tainted by politics. It is the common man on the streets that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws.

Lawyers cannot frown at the attitude of people flouting court orders and still be the ones selling the law of the land for a token on the altar of political standing. Deliberately misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer is a mockery of our Constitution and the legal profession and such character has a way of turning to hunt its maker.

It is therefore incumbent upon some of us who understand that the primary role of lawyers as ministers in the temple of justice is first and foremost the attainment of justice. And justice cannot be attained without truth.

Consequently, amidst the brouhaha surrounding the interpretation of section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the multifarious explanations given by public commentators and senior lawyers alike, it is important to set the record straight and state the true position of the law, devoid of emotion and political chicanery.

The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly sub-paragraph (b) thereof have generated so much fuss and controversy in the past few days, especially after the conclusion and announcement of the winner of the recently concluded presidential elections.

Basically, there are two opposing sides in the arguments the above section has spawned: those who argue that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must get 25% of the votes cast in FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional criteria) and those who contend that a candidate need not poll 25% of the votes cast in FCT to be declared winner, so far as he meets other Constitutional requirements.


For the sake of clarity, Section 134(2) provides that:

(2) A candidate for an election to the office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election –

(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Even though the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT) is not a State properly so called, the Constitution has clothed it with the toga of a State. In other words, the FCT is treated like a State, and all the powers of a Governor in a State is vested in the Minister of the FCT. While the Houses of Assembly of the 36 States of the Federation legislate for each State respectively, the National Assembly makes laws for the FCT. Furthermore, while the States have their respective Local Government Areas, the FCT has Area Councils.

Pursuant to the above, Section 299 of the Constitution expressly provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation. Section 299 of the Constitution has received the judicial imprimatur of the full panel of the Supreme Court in FAWEHINMI & ORS v. BABANGIDA & ORS (2003) LPELR-1255 (SC).

Hence, each time the draftsman intends to refer to the 36 States and FCT in the Constitution, it says “all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT)”, bearing in mind that the FCT has also been clothed with the toga of a State.

Having made the above clarification, the “and” as used by the draftsman between “all the States of the Federation” and “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” in sub-paragraph (b) of Section 134(2) of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean that what applies to other States is inapplicable to FCT. Rather, it means that the FCT is on the same pedestal as the States of the Federation, even though it’s not a State properly so called.

So, the intention of the draftsman as regards Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is that, the candidate, in addition to having the highest number of votes cast at the election, must also poll not less than one quarter (25%) of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (36 States) and the FCT (a State kind of), thereby making it 25% of votes cast in at least 2/3 of 37 States. 2/3 of 37 is 24.6.

Drawing from the reasoning of the erudite jurist, Otutu Andrews Obaseki, JSC (of blessed memory), in the landmark decision of the full panel of the Supreme Court in AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI & ORS (1979) LPELR-653(SC), there’s nothing like 24.6 States, for a State is a geographical setting incapable of being divided.

Borrowing a leaf from the revered jurist, the construction that two-thirds of 37 States in the Federation (FCT inclusive) is 24.6 States may be correct in the abstract but in relation to the Constitution, it is impracticable. Where there are two possible meanings conveyed by the words of a statute or the Constitution, it is the most reasonable one that should be adopted. Where the other meaning leads to absurdity or evinces internal contradiction, that meaning should be dropped for the first as the legislature never intends to be absurd or contradictory.

The word 'each' in the sub-section (2)(b) of Section 134 qualifies a whole State and not a fraction of a State and to interpret it otherwise is to overlook the disharmony between the word "each" and the fraction "two thirds". Two-thirds of thirty-seven (37), to avoid any disharmony, gives 25.

As a way of covering the base, the second school of thought contend that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must score 25% in the FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional requirements). If one agrees with this view, then it logically follows that if a candidate wins the entire 36 states of the Federation and polls the majority number of votes cast, if he fails to get 25% in FCT, then he cannot be declared winner. This cannot be the intendment of the draftsman, as the FCT cannot hold the entire nation to ransom.

So, once a candidate severally polls at least 25% of votes cast in at least 25 states, whether inclusive of FCT or not, he’s won the election so long he also has the majority of the votes cast all over the Federation.

The issue under reference has been before the Supreme Court, in 2003 in the case of Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2003) All NLR 168, the apex court in the land prophesied and held that if there’s any issue on the provision of Section 134(2), they’ll toe the part that accords with common sense. They further undertook that the court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible.

For the sake of emphasis, the operative words are "just, reasonable and sensible."

This then begets the question: is it just, reasonable and sensible to argue that a candidate who, for instance, won 36 States of the Federation and also polled the highest number of votes cast at an election but failed to score 25% of the votes cast in FCT, Abuja cannot be deemed the winner of the election? I think not. That would not be just, reasonable and sensible.

In Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt.1768) 1, the supreme Court held that by virtue of section 299(a) (b) of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation.

If that is the case, why then would the FCT, Abuja be placed on so high a pedestal, like some lawyers have done, that it now supersedes other States of the Federation?

Buttressing further, If the provisions of the Constitution are to apply to FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation, then surely it cannot be ranked above other States of the Federation.

To steelman our arguments above, in Baba-Panya v. President, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 423, the Court held that the FCT, Abuja is to be treated like a State and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the Federation.

As a corollary, it would then be unjust, unreasonable and insensible to argue that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is a mandatory Constitutional requirement, when no other State or even the entire States of the Federation enjoy this preferential treatment.

A reasonable, just and sensible interpretation of section 134(2) would then be that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is like scoring 25% in any other State of the Federation.

That is just, reasonable and sensible.


Source: Shahara reporters

We didn't read at all

muykem:
Every sound lawyer understand the provision clearly but black man must act mischievously especially when their interest and settlement is involved. How will constitution indirectly say president Buhari vote in Katsina and that of his vice in Ogun state are inferior to 18years old school boy vote in Abuja.

Same way people of FCT are so special not to have a governor, commissioners and house of assembly memebers etc. They are deprived of that opportunity just so they can be special.

If the president is the governor of FCT, does it make sense to lack popularity even to the extent of not making 25% yet wants to govern them? That's illegitimacy

Sunmolar:
An unwrinkled face is not good for a resounding slap. So it is somewhat indelicate for a lawyer who ought to be grounded in the ethics of the law profession to publicly criticize the opinions of other senior lawyers, who are revered to be authorities in their fields.

Afe Babalola, Gboyega Awomolo, Wole Olanipekun, J. B. Daudu, Lateef Fagbemi, Kanu Agabi, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, J. K. Gadzama, E. C. Ukala, Yunus Ustaz Usman, Adeniyi Akintola, Emeka Ngige, Chris Uche, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, Mike Ozekhome, Dele Adesina, J. S. Okutepa, Mahmud Magaji, Dayo Akinlaja, Ahmed Raji, Femi Falana, A. Mustapha, Ebun-Adegboruwa, and many hosts legends of the inner bar are jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law and whose opinions carry weight and speak volumes. For some of these oracles of law, their names have refused to leave the pages of our law reports.

And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions. So, to laymen, the opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen!

However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest public office in the land.

We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect.

For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens.

A number of emergency analysts of the law we have never heard of, or are known for being passive about crucial National issues suddenly appeared to become public figure in interpreting the laws in our Constitution as if they are a collection of formal and informal texts in an English textbook compiled for letter writing.

It is quiet even disturbing when some of my professional colleagues across border were analysing those colloquial interpretations here on one occasion of our group interactions. I must confess that I felt uncomfortable with many of their comments.

As I write this, I find myself grappling with the question: when is politics taken too far? This question has far reaching ramifications, because a honest answer to it will reveal that some senior lawyers give certain legal opinions they do not even believe in just because they have been tainted by politics. It is the common man on the streets that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws.

Lawyers cannot frown at the attitude of people flouting court orders and still be the ones selling the law of the land for a token on the altar of political standing. Deliberately misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer is a mockery of our Constitution and the legal profession and such character has a way of turning to hunt its maker.

It is therefore incumbent upon some of us who understand that the primary role of lawyers as ministers in the temple of justice is first and foremost the attainment of justice. And justice cannot be attained without truth.

Consequently, amidst the brouhaha surrounding the interpretation of section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the multifarious explanations given by public commentators and senior lawyers alike, it is important to set the record straight and state the true position of the law, devoid of emotion and political chicanery.

The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly sub-paragraph (b) thereof have generated so much fuss and controversy in the past few days, especially after the conclusion and announcement of the winner of the recently concluded presidential elections.

Basically, there are two opposing sides in the arguments the above section has spawned: those who argue that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must get 25% of the votes cast in FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional criteria) and those who contend that a candidate need not poll 25% of the votes cast in FCT to be declared winner, so far as he meets other Constitutional requirements.


For the sake of clarity, Section 134(2) provides that:

(2) A candidate for an election to the office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election –

(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Even though the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT) is not a State properly so called, the Constitution has clothed it with the toga of a State. In other words, the FCT is treated like a State, and all the powers of a Governor in a State is vested in the Minister of the FCT. While the Houses of Assembly of the 36 States of the Federation legislate for each State respectively, the National Assembly makes laws for the FCT. Furthermore, while the States have their respective Local Government Areas, the FCT has Area Councils.

Pursuant to the above, Section 299 of the Constitution expressly provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation. Section 299 of the Constitution has received the judicial imprimatur of the full panel of the Supreme Court in FAWEHINMI & ORS v. BABANGIDA & ORS (2003) LPELR-1255 (SC).

Hence, each time the draftsman intends to refer to the 36 States and FCT in the Constitution, it says “all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT)”, bearing in mind that the FCT has also been clothed with the toga of a State.

Having made the above clarification, the “and” as used by the draftsman between “all the States of the Federation” and “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” in sub-paragraph (b) of Section 134(2) of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to mean that what applies to other States is inapplicable to FCT. Rather, it means that the FCT is on the same pedestal as the States of the Federation, even though it’s not a State properly so called.

So, the intention of the draftsman as regards Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is that, the candidate, in addition to having the highest number of votes cast at the election, must also poll not less than one quarter (25%) of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (36 States) and the FCT (a State kind of), thereby making it 25% of votes cast in at least 2/3 of 37 States. 2/3 of 37 is 24.6.

Drawing from the reasoning of the erudite jurist, Otutu Andrews Obaseki, JSC (of blessed memory), in the landmark decision of the full panel of the Supreme Court in AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI & ORS (1979) LPELR-653(SC), there’s nothing like 24.6 States, for a State is a geographical setting incapable of being divided.

Borrowing a leaf from the revered jurist, the construction that two-thirds of 37 States in the Federation (FCT inclusive) is 24.6 States may be correct in the abstract but in relation to the Constitution, it is impracticable. Where there are two possible meanings conveyed by the words of a statute or the Constitution, it is the most reasonable one that should be adopted. Where the other meaning leads to absurdity or evinces internal contradiction, that meaning should be dropped for the first as the legislature never intends to be absurd or contradictory.

The word 'each' in the sub-section (2)(b) of Section 134 qualifies a whole State and not a fraction of a State and to interpret it otherwise is to overlook the disharmony between the word "each" and the fraction "two thirds". Two-thirds of thirty-seven (37), to avoid any disharmony, gives 25.

As a way of covering the base, the second school of thought contend that for a candidate to be declared winner, he must score 25% in the FCT (asides meeting other Constitutional requirements). If one agrees with this view, then it logically follows that if a candidate wins the entire 36 states of the Federation and polls the majority number of votes cast, if he fails to get 25% in FCT, then he cannot be declared winner. This cannot be the intendment of the draftsman, as the FCT cannot hold the entire nation to ransom.

So, once a candidate severally polls at least 25% of votes cast in at least 25 states, whether inclusive of FCT or not, he’s won the election so long he also has the majority of the votes cast all over the Federation.

The issue under reference has been before the Supreme Court, in 2003 in the case of Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2003) All NLR 168, the apex court in the land prophesied and held that if there’s any issue on the provision of Section 134(2), they’ll toe the part that accords with common sense. They further undertook that the court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible.

For the sake of emphasis, the operative words are "just, reasonable and sensible."

This then begets the question: is it just, reasonable and sensible to argue that a candidate who, for instance, won 36 States of the Federation and also polled the highest number of votes cast at an election but failed to score 25% of the votes cast in FCT, Abuja cannot be deemed the winner of the election? I think not. That would not be just, reasonable and sensible.

In Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt.1768) 1, the supreme Court held that by virtue of section 299(a) (b) of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation.

If that is the case, why then would the FCT, Abuja be placed on so high a pedestal, like some lawyers have done, that it now supersedes other States of the Federation?

Buttressing further, If the provisions of the Constitution are to apply to FCT, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation, then surely it cannot be ranked above other States of the Federation.

To steelman our arguments above, in Baba-Panya v. President, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 423, the Court held that the FCT, Abuja is to be treated like a State and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the Federation.

As a corollary, it would then be unjust, unreasonable and insensible to argue that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is a mandatory Constitutional requirement, when no other State or even the entire States of the Federation enjoy this preferential treatment.

A reasonable, just and sensible interpretation of section 134(2) would then be that scoring 25% of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja is like scoring 25% in any other State of the Federation.

That is just, reasonable and sensible.


Source: Shahara reporters

seunmsg:
Only extremely stupid people think FCT residents have a special status and can veto the vote of the rest of the country. It’s the silliest legal argument I’ve heard since I was born. Emotions and not common sense is what is driving the argument.

It's grandstanding when you appeal to emotions and then accuse others of being emotional.

It could be an error wording, however we all know what "and" means. It's for the supreme court to amend the word retrospectively.

Veto or no veto, the wording suggests that 25percent of votes in fct in addition to....

Any politician who cannot get ordinary 25% in Nigeria's "Center of Unity" is not qualified to lead a country in desperate need of unity like Nigeria.

The framers of the constitution know exactly why they added "AND" in reference to Abuja.
Tribalists can argue all they want, the constitution is in simple English language.

The question is: SHOULD A PERSON WHO CANNOT SUPPORT NIGERIA'S UNITY BE PRESIDENT?

You guys should have rigged 25% in FCT as well, you oversight in doing this will be your undoing

seunmsg:
Only extremely stupid people think FCT residents have a special status and can veto the vote of the rest of the country. It’s the silliest legal argument I’ve heard since I was born. Emotions and not common sense is what is driving the argument.