The electoral act was signed into law some weeks back after much back and forth between the legislators and the presidency but it seems the act was marred with a lot of inconsistencies with the constitution and in this regard, whenever a law is inconsistent with the constitution which is the ground norm; the fons et origo where other laws drive its validity and origin from, the law will be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the constitution.
Section 1(3) of the constitution specifically provides for clause; If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
This means that if a section of the law does not align with the constitution or a chapter or even a paragraph of law conflicts with a constitutional provision, that section, chapter or paragraph will be declared null and void for the reason of being in a clash with the constitution.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
Is any section or clause in the electoral act inconsistent with the constitution?
Analyzing the provisions of the constitution side by side with that of the electoral act of 2022 in this regard will be a herculean task since it is sub-judice.
The Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, Abia State in a judgment delivered on Friday has stated that the provision of S.84(12) of the electoral act is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions of Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f), to this effect, the court in its wisdom held that this section can not stand and asked the Attorney General of the Federation to delete this section by the reason of its inconsistency with the constitution.
Her Lordship, Justice Evelyn Anyadike based her ratio decidendi on section 66(1)(f) which states that if a person is employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State, the person must resign or withdraw or retire from such employment 30 days before the date of the election. In other words, public service appointees seeking to contest elections are to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election.
By this constitutional provision, my Lordship deemed it to conflict with the electoral act but my Lordship did not cast her learned mind to the cases of DADA v. ADEYEYE (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 1 at 19 ASOGWA v. CHUKWU (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 811) 540 OJONYE V. ONU & ORS (2018) LPELR-44223) which may serve as a locus classicus in this regard where the appellate Courts have held that political appointees or political office holders are not public servants as provided for under the Constitution and therefore there are not the ones S.66(1)(f) is referring to. The people this section of the constitution is referring are public servants duly employed into the governmental civil services and can be called civil servants in every sense of it and they are not political appointees like Commissioners, Ministers, Special Assistants, Advisers and every other category of political appointees that falls into this caliber.
To this extent, my Lordship May have been persuasively deceived by the initiators of this suit, having made my Lord believe that political appointees come under those s.66(1)(f) was referring to.
Therefore, s.84(12) cannot be declared null and void as it is not in any way inconsistent with any constitutional provision and it can only be said to be the handiwork of political gladiators who just want to bend the law in broad daylight for it to suit their political ambitions.