WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FEDERAL LEGISLATOR DEFECTS

There has been a lot of controversy in the past and quite recently around what happens when a serving federal legislator decides to abandon the party on whose platform he or she is elected. The relevant law on this matter is contained within the provisions of Section 68 (1) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It states in the first part that: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the house of which he is a member if being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected” While this appears to be clear enough, the same section then goes on to state, in its second and final part, the instances where the stated provision of the law may not apply. In my opinion, the exception stated in the second part of Section 68 (1)(g)is simply meant to delimit the application of the law itself and not intended to provide any justifiable excuse for a conscious violation of the law. (That the law will not apply in some instances, and not that the legislator can do any such-and-such thing in any instance). “Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored” Most of the debates on this subject have been based on either the narrow or obtuse interpretation of the word 'division' as meant within the context of this law. There are some who say 'division' simply means 'disagreement' in this context while others see the use of the word as denoting an instance where a party has broken into different factions. I have to disagree with both schools of thought here, and not without a valid reason. A political party by nature exists as a pool of varied interests, factions, caucuses and disagreements. These inherent features are in fact the defining features of a political party and do not necessarily create an exceptional situation. If we therefore assume that those who drafted the law are saying that any serving legislator can abandon ship whenever there is an argument or different caucuses existing within his party then the law renders itself redundant and ought not to ever have been made. There can be no law, for instance, that says 'if water is wet' as a precondition for a remedy knowing fully well that water by nature will always be wet. Similarly, a political party by nature will also always expectedly have caucuses and disagreeing factions within its ranks. I believe that in order to interpret this law correctly, it is necessary for us to take a journey into the minds of those who drafted the law and search for the situation that they were hoping to remedy or prevent by including this provision within our constitution. It appears logical and sound to me that those who drafted this law were hoping to prevent people from taking undue advantage of the party system by getting elected on one platform only to jump onto another platform after they might have won. If this assumption is valid, it follows therefore that the law must be interpreted strictly in accordance with this presupposition. It is my reasoned opinion that any word or phrase has to be literally interpreted within the context in which it was used. By simple contextual analysis, the word ‘division’ appears to have been used within the letters of this law as an exact opposite to the word 'merger' used within the same sentence. The word ‘merger’ as used here unequivocally denotes the fusion of two or more parties to make one new party and therefore the word ‘division’ must also be interpreted within context as denoting the breaking-down of a party into two or more different parties. After considering and applying all known rules of interpretation, it can be seen that no other meaning can be logically ascribed to the word 'division' as used within the context of this law than that it denotes a situation where a political party has split into two or more different parties, not just factions or caucuses. This interpretation is in harmonious consonance with both the purpose of the law and the situation envisaged by those who drafted it. As can be seen from the explanation above, by the express and implied provisions of Section 68 (1) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), a serving legislator cannot leave the party that sponsored his election by his own volition and join another party as an individual for any reason whatsoever and not lose his seat. I will like to point out that no excuse for LEAVING the former party is provided for or mentioned in this statute and therefore no excuse is tenable. The exact wording of the provision that grants exemption is that: "Provided that his membership of the latter political party is ......" and not, (as it could have stated but purposely did not say) "Provided that his reason for leaving his former party is..... ........" We can clearly see that the emphasis is not on the REASON FOR LEAVING the former party (as no reason can be justifiable) but on the REASON FOR BEING IN ANOTHER PARTY (by default). So, if you are a serving federal legislator, no excuse for leaving your current party is tenable. If you leave the party that sponsored your election by your own individual volition, your seat becomes vacant. If however you find yourself in another party by default through no fault of your own, you may in that instance offer any one of the following typical excuses to explain your position and retain your seat. a) I am now a member of APC because my former party CPC has merged with other parties to form APC. b) I am now a member of APC because a faction which I belonged to within my former party APGA has merged with APC. (c) I am now a member of ABC because my former party PPP is no more and has split into two new parties known as ABC and ADD. Dele Okenla Esq. Okenla Chambers, Ijebu-Ode. Email: okenla@okenla.com http://www.okenla.com

FAIRNESS

• PREJUDICE IS EVIL, WHETHER IT BE AGAINST THE MINORITY OR AGAINST THE MAJORITY.
• PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT AND NOBODY SHOULD BE PERSECUTED FOR THEIR DIFFERENCE.
• LIBERTY ALSO MEANS THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE PERSECUTED FOR HOLDING AN OPINION.
• LIFE IS ALL ABOUT MAKING CHOICES, INDIVIDUAL CHOICES AND COLLECTIVE CHOICES; NOBODY SHOULD BE PERSECUTED FOR THE CHOICES THEY HAVE MADE.
• SOME PEOPLE MAY NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM BEING PERSECUTED BY OTHER PEOPLE BUT SUCH PROTECTION MUST NOT BE DONE IN A WAY TO AMOUNT TO THE PERSECUTION OF OTHER PEOPLE.
• BEFORE WE CRITICISE OTHERS FOR BEING PREJUDICED, WE SHOULD CHECK OURSELVES ALSO TO SEE THAT WE ARE NOT PREJUDICED, FOR IT IS EASY TO SEE THE SPECK IN OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES AND YET MISS THE LOG IN OUR OWN EYES.
• LET US BE FAIR TO ALL, WHETHER THEY ARE STRONG OR WEAK, WHETHER THEY ARE MANY OR FEW, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG.
• JUST BE FAIR.

Law, Justice, Bread & Butter

Law is as far removed from Justice as Bread is from Butter. Two separate things but tasty when blended or taken together. A legal purpose or situation is not necessarily a just situation or purpose. Law is arbitrary and primarily defined by Man, Justice on the other hand is a natural conception and knows no man-made boundaries. Almost anything can be legitimised or legalised, all we have to do is pass a law that allows it or decriminalise it. Justice on the other hand cannot be re-invented or redefined by human actions. The basis of Justice is morality and fairness, the basis of Law is order and orderliness.

The fact that something is legal does not always make it just, and conversely, what is seen as just may not necessarily be legal. For instance, it is perfectly legal for the government to levy excessive taxes on the people, but is it just? Justice is done when a villain is arrested and convicted by the courts of law but it is illegal to try the villain again for the same offence in countries where the double-jeopardy-rule is in operation if he somehow beats the rap in the first instance!

The question then is this, which is more desirable, Justice or Law? I would say both in equal measure. Bread without butter is crusty and dry, plain and tasteless, serving only to defy hunger. Butter too on its own could be rancid and acidic. However, when you take bread together with butter, you could make for yourself a tasty toast! Justice therefore ought to be the purpose of Law.

Ethos of Jurisprudence - The Morality of Justice [Part One]

Temitope, my well-tutored brother from Ijebu-Ode, has been a constant pain in my legal backside of late but I love him so. His simple comment that 'there is no just society' sent me on a rather long academic research trip through philosophy, religion, and jurisprudence. I am still wondering and pondering upon the statement even as I write now. I have heard it several times in the past but have always dismissed it as a cliche. This time, it seemed stuck in my medulla oblonganta and only a shared analysis with others may dislodge it.

My first thought was that if one says that 'there is no just society' then that is tantamount to saying there is no justice. Or is this a personification of society, thus reasoning that since society is largely characterised by injustice much more than scanty justice, then society as an entity is unjust? Somehow, I think the statement runs deeper and calls for a deeper examination.

Everyday, we hear different negative assertions; people are bad, the world is bad, politics is evil, money is evil, society is unjust, etc. Now my question is this, if we say the world is bad, does that mean we have to continue to contribute to making it worse or try our own best to make it good even if not better? If we say money is generally evil, do we now resort to trading by barter alone? If we say the society is unjust, must we then compulsorily let it remain so? Must we deliberately add to the injustice? Must we continue to wallow in sin that grace may abound?

An objective test of validity shows the statement 'there is no just society' to be both true and untrue in equal measure! It depends on how one looks at it and it depends on how one would normally look at other things. In short, it depends on one and one's perspectives!. The word 'just' is a derivative of justice. Justice itself is a subjective term. What is justice to one person may well be injustice to another. Take for instance, a man who catches his wife kissing another man passionately and slaps her. Some will see justice done only if the man were convicted of assault(battery), while to others, any such conviction would be the height of injustice.

Justice is not an absolute term and it has a measurable standard. That standard is dually rooted in moralism and realism.
Those who support the conviction of the irate husband in the example above are likely to be realists while those against are most likely to be moralists. Realists believe that law does not need a moral basis. If the law says 'Do not sneeze' and you sneeze, you ought to be punished. To them it does not matter whether the law is justifiable or not. In fact, legal realists see law as superior to the society and would therefore treat the society as a sort of vassal unto 'sovereign' law. To them law is unquestionable.

Moralists hold a different view. They perenially question the purpose of law. Why is law necessary at all in the first place? Some philosophers say it is to protect man from man. Others go on to say that law is necessary to ensure harmony in the society and thereby aid our right and ability to pursue individual happiness without any unnecessary hindrance and without posing any risk to each other. All agree that law is there to regulate human conduct in relation to one another, deter crime, and penalise misconduct. The state acts as the Law-giver on behalf of the people.

Dele Okenla
22nd May 2011

Morality of Justice [Preamble]

It is not appropriate that law should be enacted without an underlying ethical basis or moral justification. There is a serious risk that any such law, even when valid, would almost invariably amount to tyranny and oppression by the state. An offence should amount to a crime only if and when the property and/or well-being of another is either compromised or put in jeopardy.

Dele Okenla
20th May 2011

Living in Harmony

God created all human beings equal.
The life of the child of a groundnut-seller in Lokoja is not less in value than the life of the oil-magnate in Lagos.
Every life is precious and must be respected far above all other considerations.
Life is a gift from God and no life, including yours, is unimportant or expendable.
Muslims, Christians, and even non-believers are all created by the One and Only God by whatever name called.
We are all brothers and sisters, descendants of Abraham also known as Ibrahim.
Live your life and allow others too to live their own lives peacefully as they deem fit within the law of God and Man.
Judge not another on the grounds of morality or convictions for we all see things differently from one another.
We may advise, we may criticise, and we may even admonish each other but we may not pass judgement on another.
Judgement is the prerogative of God.
Obey the law of the land.
This will bring peace and prosperity to you and to others.
When in a position of power and/or authority, be mindful of the fact that it is not by thy might but by grace.
Be graceful in conduct and be gracious in action. Be kind to people even if they are not your kind.
Treat those above you with due respect and respect also those who are beneath you.
Remember very well that every follower today is a leader tomorrow.
Create peace, progress and understanding wherever and whenever you can.
These will bring increment to your life and pour joy into your heart.
Fear God for He is real. In return, your wisdom will increase and you will be honoured among your peers.
Eschew bitterness, arrogance, and anger; for they bring forth nothing but self-destruction.
Trust not in your own wisdom alone but listen to the views of others and learn from both knaves and sages alike.
Always be of good cheer for God is with you.
You are blessed.

Dele Okenla
31st December 2010

Anthology of Forgotten Verses

These are the opening verses of some of the numerous poems I wrote as a teenager.
I hope to publish a full recollection in a book in the near future. Please pardon my prose!
DELE OKENLA

PASSION
For a while I feel I should sing
Of my affections, Love and Hate
While in my mind memory bells still ring
Woeful tales of my affections of late.
That I loved her no crime was
Nor a sin any man should forgive
I risked all and bore the loss
I gave her all a lover could ever give.
Gone forever is love's noble desire
For Cupid had dealt a fatal shot
(circa 1982)

TUTU
Think not my love was vain
Wherefore it died down with such ease
For pure it was and as plain
As any true love could ever be
Remember how in sunshine and in rain
I had besought your affectionate bliss
While the ground my mouth in homage kiss
(circa 1982)

RETROSPECT
I should have died long ago and thus be saved a lot of grief
I am debased even in ego, living a man with no belief
To me even death would be a gift
From earthly sorrows to give a lift
(circa 1983)

REFLECTION
I will give you no more reins my heart
Lest in remembrance of wasted years
You shed a thousand tears of blood
(circa 1984)

CONSTANCE
Your eyes, dearest Constance
Are like stars on a dark night
And by their light
I hope to find true love
(circa 1983)

DEATH OF DAD
Once upon a short time ago
There lived a man not proud in ego
A humble man who lived respected
At whose door none begging was rejected.
Dear father, that you should die so saddens me
Alas that wicked Death is so mean!
(circa 1981)

BISI {Jemishe}
In your beauty I saw delight
Whenever you came like the Night
With Stars, you being the Moon
Or like the Sun at mid-noon
Radiant, brilliant, and elegant
(circa 1984)

STORY
Songs of others I had sung all my life
And now who will sing my own song?
Others stars had shone abright
But my star, will it ever shine alight?
Can I those immortal heights attain,
Whereon Shakespeare once dined with the Muses?
Or can I that purest vision ever behold
And like Milton a peerless Seer become?
(Circa 1984)

(.........to be continued!)