Published 5th May, 2023

By Abimbola Abatta

Ahead of May 29, when Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s president-elect, is expected to take over the reins of governance, there have been dissenting opinions on the legality of the inauguration.

Tinubu was declared the winner of the February 25 presidential election, but Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), who came second and third respectively, refused to concede defeat.

Consequently, Atiku and Obi filed separate petitions in March to challenge the presidential election results. They said the election process was marred by irregularities, and that Tinubu was not qualified to contest.

Despite receiving the petitions in March, the presidential election tribunal did not commence the hearing of the petitions immediately.

But earlier this week, the petitions’ court fixed Monday, May 8, for the hearing.

According to the Nigerian law, an election petition must be heard and judgment must be delivered within 180 days from the filing of the petition.

In the history of presidential election petitions in the country from 1999, the courts have always dismissed the bid to overturn an election outcome.

To ascertain the legality of the inauguration amid the hearing of the presidential petitions, FIJ spoke with three lawyers.

THE PROCESS MIGHT BE FLAWED, BUT WE MUST RESPECT THE TENETS OF DEMOCRACY

Benard Onigah, former secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association’s National Human Rights Committee, said regardless of the shortcomings of the process that saw the emergence of Tinubu as the president-elect, nothing could stop his inauguration.

He said Tinubu should be sworn in to keep to the tenets of democracy.

“Other than what the laws says, there is also what is called democratic conventions and practices. There are unwritten codes and one of them is that you cannot have a lacuna in a democracy,” the lawyer said.

“Our democracy does not give room for a lacuna. If Bola Ahmed is not sworn in on May 29, who then would be the president? It is unconstitutional and democratic to have an interim government.

“The only unfortunate thing our lawmakers have not been able to do is to study our archives and take lessons from our over 20 years of democratic experience to legislate on issues that would bring out the necessary changes that we need.”

Onigah said that if the legislators, who ought to be the watchdog of the society, had stopped taking advantage of the lawmaking process, Nigeria should have reached a point where all election disputes are fully determined before swearing in.

He said, “In the absence of that, we would not bastardise our democracy and create an impossible situation in our democracy by saying that we would not swear in someone that INEC has announced winner regardless of how flawed the elections may be and regardless of how partial INEC might have been. The body language shows that it is in sync with what the APC stands for. It is unfortunate.

“We have a president-elect. We must respect the conventions, we must respect the institutions. If we, because of the misbehavior of the current INEC, fail to respect the conventions, then we won’t have a democracy.”

“We have a democratic process. Even if it’s badly managed, we would see how we can get in the right people in due course.”

‘NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT’

Also speaking, Inibehe Effiong, a public interest lawyer, said there was no controversy on Tinubu’s inauguration or any impediment against it from the perspective of the law.

Like Onigah, he asked, “If he is not sworn in, who will be the president pending when the case is determined? Who will occupy the position of the president?”

“Even if the tribunal’s decision is appealed, he will remain in office until the Supreme Court determines the appeal. And that is not only applicable to the office of the president. It also applies to all elective positions.”

Oluwaseyi Arowosebe, another lawyer, also agreed with the other two legal professionals, as he told FIJ that no section of the law could stop Tinubu from being sworn in on May 29.

“Nothing can stop the swearing in. No section of the law can put a stop to it. The hope is that the tribunal resolves the matter on time, so that everyone can move on.”

Share on Social Media