The firm asserted that a presidential ticket for candidates of the same faith or tribe is unconstitutional and an exercise in futility.
An Abuja-based law firm, BBH Legal Practitioner on Tuesday described the Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as illegal.
The firm asserted that a presidential ticket for candidates of the same faith or tribe is unconstitutional and an exercise in futility.
According to the firm, the Federal Executive Council is largely limited to the President and Vice President and the appointed Ministers of the President, noting that having a presidential aspirant and vice presidential aspirant from the same religious faith rudely conflicts with the spirit and letters of section 14 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), and it strongly inhibits national unity and national loyalty.
This is contained in a letter addressed to the National Chairman of the party, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, and signed by Osigwe Ahmed Momoh Esq. and copied to Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Iyiola Omisore.
The presidential candidate of the party, Tinubu, a Muslim, chose a former Borno governor, Kashim Shettima, a fellow Muslim as his running mate.
Momoh stressed that laws are good enough, but “men would find every loophole to intentionally obfuscate the rather lucid and express provisions of our constitution”.
The letter reads in part, "It is with love for God and country and utmost deference to you that I write to you and your great Party, with the hope that your Party carefully walks away from a lurking legal quagmire. I am of the firm understanding that your Party is sailing on murky waters as regards your proposed decision to fly a same-faith presidential ticket in the 2023 general elections.
"Since it is not in my place to lecture or pontificate, I shall limit myself to unearthing and unveiling our extant laws in light of your party’s push for a Muslim-Muslim ticket. I shall as lucidly as possible, explain why your party’s action is not just insensitive and poorly considered, but also utterly unconstitutional.
"I shall toe the path of brevity and clarity to ensure that even the least legal mind can grasp the gamut of my submissions. The bulk of my discourse shall center around these three terms; ‘Democracy, Social-Justice and And’. Inasmuch as I know these terms are very common and really need no illumination, I shall nevertheless delve into defining these words to ensure we are all on the same page;
"Democracy- gladly, the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division in PDP v. MOHAMMED & ORS (2015) LPELR-40859(CA) has done sufficient justice as far as the definition/exposition of democracy is concerned. The court noted that; ‘All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by Majority Rule. Therefore, in every election, it is the wish and desire of the majority of the voters that must always be the determining factor’.
"Social Justice - simply means justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. The phrase is synonymous with inclusion and social sensitivity.”
Momoh further stated, "Let us surgically dissect the introductory part of the Section 14(3) above i.e., ‘the government of the federation’; elementary government studies would be apt here.
"The Federal Executive Government is largely limited to the President and Vice (and the ‘appointed’ Ministers of the President); having a presidential aspirant and vice from the same religious faith i.e., sectional group rudely conflicts with the spirit and letters of section 14 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), and it strongly inhibits national unity and national loyalty. Our laws are good enough, but men would find every loophole to intentionally obfuscate the rather lucid and express provisions of our constitution.
"When a particular group or section of the society feels that another group or segment are irrelevant to winning elections or building or forming a government, then dialogues would die, and the fabrics that hold us would visibly start disintegrating.
"Section 15 (4) of the constitution echoes these sentiments it reads ‘The State shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement among the various people of the Federation, to the end that loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties.’”
"The ultimate question would be, is there any other section of the constitutions that makes Chapter II justiciable as regards this subject? And my very simple answer would be a resounding YES!
"Section 224 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) boldly states that; ‘The programme, as well as the aims and objects of a political party, shall conform with the provisions of Chapter II of this Constitution’.
"Therefore, Chapter II of the constitution in its entirety is binding and justiciable as far as political parties are concerned and every political party must implement the provisions of Chapter II of the party, and no party can by their constitution oust the express provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution. This is by no means advice or a mere suggestion; it is a clear instruction.
"If we can agree that two gentlemen from Lagos state or Borno state will not meet the requirement of Chapter II of the Constitution, then in the same vein, two people of the same religious faith would certainly not cut it either. It is really that simple,” he said.
However, the law firm established that "Nigeria is a country based on not just democracy but also social justice”.
"Social Justice is as important as Democracy as far as the constitution is concerned.
"Although Chapter 2 of the constitution is ordinarily non-justiciable, section 224 makes it justiciable as far as political parties are concerned.
"A same faith or tribe presidential tickets would conflict with chapter II hence, it is unconstitutional and an exercise in futility.
"We urge you therefore to critically consider this provision of the constitution vis-a-viz your purported decision, failure to rescind your decision within 24hrs from the receipt of this letter would force us to seek action to prevent this breeding anomaly," the statement noted.