The what-about fuss as to the correct interpretation of s.132(2)(b) is so unnecessary. That provision of the constitution is as straightforward as an arrow and it is a literal provision of the constitution and should be interpreted as such. Any other interpretation rule adopted for its interpretation other than the literal rule will only bring about a fundamental departure from its original contemplation which will only be hazardous.
The misinterpretations and debacle about what that section really postulates is just a mischievous ploy by mischief makers and understandably, from the aggrieved party members who are currently drowning in the pool of defeat, therefore, looking for the slightest branch of a tree to lay hold on to grasp for air so as to save their faces.
For the record, my preferred candidate by every indication may likely not win the presidential election, but it will be mischievous and dishonourable on my part as a lawyer to try to twist the provisions of the constitution as some so-called lawyers have been doing on social media, deceiving the gullibles and hitting up the polity just because their prefered candidate did not win; this is so low of a lawyer.
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.
For the sake of emphasis, this section of the constitution [S. 134(2)] which gained notoriety since yesterday is worded thus;
Section 134(2) :
(2) A candidate for an election to the office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election –
(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and
(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
To this effect, using the literal rule of interpretation to (literally) interpret what the constitution contemplated here; simply means that for a candidate to be deemed duly elected he must have at least won 2/3 of the majority votes cast in the country. Mathematically, 2/3 of 37 States of Nigeria (37 when you add the FCT) means that he must have scored 25% of at least 25 states, including the FCT; not that he must score 25% of 25 States and also get 25% of the FCT. The FCT has no other special privilege outside being another state of the federation, so the thought that a contestant after scoring 25% of 25 States must as well score 25% of the FCT is rather ridiculous.
The conjunction “and” used in paragraph B of the S 134(2) which is what has been causing the confusion simply means what it is; “with the FCT inclusive”.
Someone may want to argue that FCT is not a state, but yes, in a plethora of cases, the court has adopted that the FCT may not be a state as properly so-called but is to be regarded as well as a state of the federation which is to be administered by the FCT ministers who acts as it’s governor. In fact, in S. 299 of the Constitution, the provisions stipulate thus; “The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (as if it were one of the States of the Federation)”. This is to say that the constitution has always held FCT to be regarded as the 37th state of the federation.
In summary, a candidate who has secured 25% of votes in 25 of any states of the federation which has made up the 2/3 majority has fulfilled the constitutional threshold to be deemed elected as provided in paragraph B of the S 134(2), he does not have to secure 25% of the votes cast of the FCT after securing 25% of other 25 states of the federation.
This poster sounded like an authority over an issue that is actually ambiguous. Lawyers should have sought for clarification of that law before the election. 25% of 2/3 of the 36 states including FCT can be interpreted as 24 states with special status for FCT making it 25. it can also be 25 states that will not include Abuja. Why would anyone accept that the first interpretation applies and not the later?
The efforts lawyers in Nigeria will be putting into challenging this interpretation should be spent challenging the massive rigging that occurred and has damaged the reputation of Nigeria as a nation internationally. Or is it that Nigeria lawyers are not concerned with practical fraud. I mean, are Nigerian lawyers (hopefully constitutional lawyers) not interested in helping Nigerians challenge open fraud by Nigeria govt officials?
God bless you. my shared view
Well done Sir! So let me illustrate here as follows. I request that you bring along with you to my house when coming 6 books and the Bible. In all, I have said I want you to come with 7 books which must include the Bible. So if you showed up with 7 books without the Bible have you met my requirements?
Your illustration is not in line with the argument. If you have said “bring 6 books from my apartment and the boys’ quarter”. In this case, can you accord special status to the boys’ quarter? If you do, it means you are no longer requesting for only 6 books.
Apt. There is no need walking round the hole. There seems to be malpractices adjudicators, wherein abnormality seems normal in the eyes of learned fellow that ought to uphold justice.
In my humble opinion, the writer analysis is right on point. Abuja does not and should not be accorded any special status. Are voters in Abuja more special than voters in other states? Let us say hypothetically that a Presidential candidate had the majority of the total votes cast and 25 percent of the votes casted in 30 States excluding Abuja. The question is, would this candidate not have satisfied the constitutional threshold required to be declared the winner. You can start varying the number of states downward to 25. It is only if the candidate had 25 percent of the votes cast in 24 states that you can factor Abuja into the calculus for the consideration. Thus Abuja may be included in the scheme of trying to make any sense of the nonsense of the militarily decreed Constitution that’s causing us more anguish than necessary. My two cents.
Your illustration is not in line with the argument. If you have said “bring 6 books from my apartment and the boys’ quarter”. In this case, can you accord special status to the boys’ quarter? If you do, it means you are no longer requesting for only 6 books.
I think is a very simple English language and people are just trying to translate to suit their need. Let say the requirements to get entry to a university course to do science course in England is to pass 3 science subjects and English language. I will be very surprised if you can get admission passing all the 3 science subject but not English. This is jus a simple requirements that need to be satisfied.
This was already interpreted about 14 years ago for Buhari about 14 years ago.
Is this a personal or legal opinion; since you came of with so much finality premised on the Literal rule of interpretation, I suppose it’s the later.
Are you aware that use, meaning and import of the words “each” and “and” has been given a definite interpretation by the Courts? One would have expected you mention a few cases and probably say why they won’t apply.