ATIKU’S STATEMENT: THE UPROAR, THE IMPLICATION AND THE LAW.

The general election is fast approaching, I mean, we are literally looking at the year 2023, thus political parties have stepped up their games. We expect a lot of promises from campaigners and luring to vote for them. The issue is that political statements and comments would be made, either by the candidates or their supporters, and thanks to social media, you can hear these statements almost as immediately as they are made.

Let’s be honest here, we have been hearing certain comments from the various presidential candidates in this upcoming general election, comments that have not always sat down well with some people. In fact, fans are not even left out of these bashing comments.

However, one recently seems to be causing a very serious issue amongst the politicians, and it is the statement made by the People’s Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on the 15^th day of October, 2022.

The statement was made during an interactive session between Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and the Arewa Joint Committee in Kaduna.

In his words, the former vice-president of Nigeria said:

“What the average Northerner needs is somebody who’s from the North and also understands that part of the country and has been able to build bridges across the country. This is what the Northerner needs. It doesn’t need a Yoruba or Igbo candidate. I stand before you as a pan-Nigerian of northern origin”

Nigerians, as always have criticized the above comment and claimed that it is filled with tribal sentiments and is bigotry. There is however a bigger problem, and that is the interpretation by some legal scholars that the said is an offence against the Law. They believe that the statement is in clear violation of section 97 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Allow me to quote the section:

“A candidate, a person or association that engages in campaigning or broadcasting based on religious, tribal or sectional reason to promote or oppose a particular political party or the election of a particular candidate, commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to

(a) a maximum fine of N1,000,000 or imprisonment for a term    of 12 months or both and;

(b) in the case of a political party, to a maximum of N10,000,000”

The question is, does the former vice-president’s statement to the Arewa Joint Committee fall within the definition or scope of section 97 of the Electoral Act? If it does, what would actually be done by the appropriate authorities?

Let’s start with the first one. Does the statement fall within section 97? Can the statement be considered to be “campaigning based on religious, tribal or sectional reason”? The clear definition of the word “Campaign” is “a planned group of especially political, business, or military activities that are intended to achieve a particular aim” and we know “tribal” means “relating to a tribe”.

Obviously, the sole purpose of the former vice-president visit was to campaign, to push forward his agenda of becoming the next president of Nigeria. Let’s take a closer look at the statement in parts. First “What the average Northerner needs is somebody who’s from the North”, making a reference to the “North” a particular section of Nigeria.  Second. “It doesn’t need a Yoruba or Igbo candidate”, making reference to certain tribes in Nigeria. Personally, I believe, and this is my opinion, which is not to be imposed on anyone, that the former vice-president could have done better.

Section 97 is clear, “no campaign based on religion, tribe or sectional ground is allowed in Nigeria”. You can call out your opponents, make derogatory statement if you want to, just get ready for a defamation suit, but not make reference to their tribe, or their religion. Going further to lure a people to not vote for another candidate because of his tribe is the very definition of “being tribal”.  He indirectly informed his kinsmen of the need to not vote “two tribes in particular”. If he had said this “It doesn’t need Tinubu, it doesn’t need Peter” then it would have been an attack on their personalities which would not have fallen under section 97.

The second question is, now that we have established that the statement might have offended section 97 of the Electoral Act, what should be the appropriate thing to be done? One thing I know for sure it that criticizing and bashing him on all social media platforms is not it. The actual thing that should happen is what always happens when an offence is allegedly committed, an invitation by the Nigeria Police Force or officers of the Department of State Service. Then a thorough investigation is carried out. If an offence is then established, the offender ought to be prosecuted by the appropriate authorities and charged to court. The rest is left for the Court to decide if he is guilty of the offence or not. All these would happen in a sane society.

The next question is, what is the appropriate authority? My understanding of section 146 of the Electoral Act, 2022, is that the prosecuting authority for any offence under this Act is the legal department of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). In other words, the Commission is prosecuting authority, of course, subject to overriding powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Personally, I won’t be surprised if the men of the Nigeria Police or Department of State Security do not invite the former vice president for questioning, and neither should you. The only problem that would exist is that, it would not be ideal for our society and our democracy.

NOTE: You had better be careful with your campaigning comments and statements. Never under any circumstance make reference to “a religion, a particular tribe or particular section” when making such comments. You just might not be this lucky.