Feature/OPED

The Constitutionality of S. 396 (7) ACJA in Light of Provisions of Constitution

Published

6 years ago

14/12/2018

Modupe Gbadeyanka

By Benita Ayo

Overview

This is a commentary on the paper presented by a learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo where he examines the issue of the vacuum created when a judge who is conducting a criminal trial is elevated to the Court of Appeal, as well as the conflict between the provisions of the constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when this situation arises.

With the aid of decided cases, he concluded that in this instance, an elevated judicial officer cannot continue to hear the matter because from the point of elevation, he/she lacks the requisite jurisdiction to do so.

According to him, the only resolution to the issue, is for the matter to be commenced ‘de novo’ before another judge having the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The said Section 396 (7) ACJA provides as follows;

“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, A judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal.”

Now, Section 1 (1) and 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that;

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

COMMENTS

The issues arising from the conflicts are;

Jurisdiction of a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to sit over a matter at the State High Court
The doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution (1999 as amended)
Whether indeed, s. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended)
JURISDICTION OF A JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO CONTINUE TO SIT OVER A MATTER AT THE STATE HIGH COURT.

Generally speaking, Jurisdiction means the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. It is also the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.

In FBN LTD v. ABRAHAM (2008) LPELR-1281 (SC), the Court defined jurisdiction thus, ‘What is the meaning of jurisdiction? By judicial authorities, jurisdiction is the authority by which a court has to decide matters that are laid before it for litigation or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Let it be said that the limits of this authority are, by practice, imposed by statute or law under which the court is constituted. It may be extended or restricted by similar means. If no restriction is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited’.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court per OPUTA, JSC (Pp. 39-40, paras. C-A) has defined jurisdiction in the case of ONYEMA & ORS v. OPUTA & ANOR (1987) LPELR-2736 (SC) that; ‘It is thus necessary for the proper appreciation of the issues in this case to understand the concept and content of “jurisdiction”. Briefly stated jurisdiction as it applies to courts can mean one of two things:-

1. The abstract right of a court to exercise its powers in causes of a certain class, or

2. The right of a court or tribunal to exercise its powers with respect to a particular subject matter.

In one sense, the broader sense, jurisdiction refers to the legal authority, the legal capacity, to adjudicate at all; while in the narrower sense it refers to the power of the court over the particular subject matter in dispute, over the res or property in contest. This latter sense may be referred to, as territorial jurisdiction, or venue, or the area of authority – the geographical area beyond which the court’s power (or legal jurisdiction) is not to be extended.’

CLASSES/TYPES OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction may be any of the following;

Territorial (This is the power or authority to preside over a particular location or venue e.g. the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over the entire territory of Nigeria but the State High Court only have jurisdiction over the state in which it is located)
Subject matter (The authority to adjudicate over certain causes of action. An example is the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to preside over Admiralty matters and Issues bordering on the interpretation of the provisions of CAMA)
Exclusive (This is the right to hear a matter to the exclusion of other courts e.g, the Supreme Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters between the Federation and the State)
Concurrent (This is where the right to hear a matter is shared between more than one court)
Original (This is right to hear a matter before any other court. e.g, the Court of Appeal has original jurisdiction to hear matters on whether the President or Vice-President has been validly elected, whether the term of the President has ceased or become vacant See s. 239(1) CFRN 199 (As amended).
Appellate (This is the authority to hear appeals from lower courts e.g. is the Court of Appeal has the appellate jurisdiction over appeal from the Federal High Court, State High Court, National Industrial Court)
Substantive (This pertains to matters which the court may specifically adjudicate upon as stipulated by statute)
Procedural ( This pertains to the compliance of certain rules and principles of the court. this type of jurisdiction can be waived)

It is settled law that jurisdiction is the foundation of any court proceeding. Its importance is so fundamental to the matter that it can be raised at any time even up to the Supreme Court for the first time. A court cannot assume jurisdiction or confer itself with jurisdiction where it lacks same. In the case of CBN v. AUTO IMPORT EXPORT & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7858 (CA) the court held as follows;

“It has been stated, time without number, in a plethora of authorities, that jurisdiction is the threshold and livewire that determines the authority of a Court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. This is absolutely so, because it is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution and law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by parties. Conversely, the absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceedings purportedly conducted by Court an exercise in futility, thus null, void and of no effect whatsoever, no matter how well conducted. ……………….

It is equally a well settled principle, that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to try a matter or case, it fundamentally lacks the vires to hear, and adjudicate upon any issue therein. Thus, due to the complex and fundamental nature thereof, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and point in time of the proceedings, at the trial Court, the Court of Appeal, or even the apex Court itself. This trite principle has been settled in a plethora of authorities, including the locus classicus thereof, MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILM (1952) NSCC 374; (1952) 2 SCNLR 341.”

In the instant situation the question which comes to mind is whether a Judge of the High Court presiding over a criminal trial has the requisite jurisdiction to continue the hearing of the matter after he has been elevated to the Court of Appeal as a Justice.

I will say no because subject to the principles of hierarchy of courts in Nigeria, the Court of Appeal do not share concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court in respect of any matter.

The Court of Appeal only has Appellate Jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court to it whereas the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal actions.

As stated before now, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court nor can parties by agreement confer same on the court where the statute creating such courts like in this case, the constitution has not conferred such jurisdiction.

I will like to bring to our minds the provisions of the constitution conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and Court of Appeal accordingly.

Section 239 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended) conferred original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on the following matters and it expressly provides that;

(1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether-

(a) any person has been validly elected to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor under this Constitution; or

(b) the term of office of the President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy-Governor has ceased; or

(c) the office of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy has become vacant

(2) In the hearing and determination of an election petition under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least three Justices of the Court of Appeal”.

Section 240 provides that;

S. 240 “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Customary Court of Appeal of a State and from decisions of a court martial or other tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is properly constituted where there are at least 3 Justices sitting. It does not have the requisite Jurisdiction to hear Criminal or Civil matters except on appeal from the State High Court.

On the other hand, section 270 of the constitution created the High Court of a State and section 272 (1) specifically confers the State High Court with its general jurisdiction where it provides that;

(1) “Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.”

(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.”

As it may be seen from the foregoing provisions, there is no where within the said sections as well as the ones stated above that a Justice of the Court of Appeal may continue with a matter he was previously hearing as a Judge of the State High Court. He simply lacks the jurisdiction to do so as the constitution never conferred it.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION (1999 AS AMENDED)

This doctrine postulates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other statutory enactment of the National Assembly where it is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall to the extent of its inconsistency be null and void. (See s. 1 (3) 1999 CFRN (As amended))

This doctrine has been affirmed in the case of FBN PLC v. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR-1283 (SC) where the court pronounced on the nature and effect of the supremacy of the constitution and held that;

“By virtue of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution , the doctrine of supremacy of the Constitution demands that if any law is inconsistent with the provision of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. “

Also, in ABACHA & ORS. v. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14 (SC), the court stated that;

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is the grundnorm. Its supremacy has never been called to question in ordinary circumstances. For avoidance of doubt, the 1979 Constitution stated categorically in its Chapter 1, Section 1(1) as follows:

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

The nature of this doctrine is that there is no other law which is above the constitution of Nigerian. It is immaterial that such law was enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President. Such law, in as much as it is not in tune or in line with what has been provided for by the constitution shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. Such law cannot stand and should not be regarded or enforced by the courts.

In the instant situation, the provision of the S. 396 (7) ACJA which provides as follows;

Section 1 (3) of the CFRN 1999 (As Amended) provides that;

“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.”

Thus, in the instant case, it is unconstitutional for a Judge of the High Court elevated to a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue to preside over a criminal matter in the High Court as he is no longer a Judge of the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over matters in such court.

Going further, the constitution has provided for the composition/constitution of a State High Court under S. 273 of the constitution where it provides that;

“For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it under this constitution or any law, a High Court of a State shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that Court”

Going by the above provision, a Justice of the court of Appeal is not a judge of the State High Court and as such does not have the jurisdiction to preside over any matter whether partly heard by him or not in that court. Any decision of a court lacking the prerequisite jurisdiction constitutes a nullity and no one should submit to such jurisdiction and cannot agree to confer such jurisdiction where the statute creating such court has not created such jurisdiction.

WHETHER INDEED S. 396 (7) ACJA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED)

Section 396 (7) of the ACJA provides that;

And Section 1 (1) and (3) of the Constitution says;

“1(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation Republic of Nigeria.”

For purposes of clarity, its Section 1(3) goes further to state:

“1(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

The constitution has conferred different jurisdictions upon the High Court of a State and the Court of Appeal and they are no way similar. While the State High has jurisdiction to hear Civil and Criminal matters, the Court of Appeal has amongst others the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the State High Court, Federal High Court, National industrial Court and so on.

The composition of a State High Court according to the constitution is at least a Judge of the Court and I have stated earlier on that a Justice of the Court of Appeal is not a Judge of the State High Court at least not stated so by the Constitutional provisions creating the Court of Appeal.

Thus, it is not proper for a Justice of the Court of Appeal to continue with a matter which he was handling prior to his elevation as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Jurisdiction, where it is non-existent, cannot be conferred on oneself nor can parties agree to it.

In the instant case, in light of the provisions of S. 1 (1) & (3) of the constitution, the provisions of S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution and is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having found that S. 396 (7) ACJA is inconsistent with the constitution, the said section should be expunged completely form the Act. It is my advise that where a Judge of a State High Court has been elevated to a higher office, any criminal matter that is being handled by him should be transferred to another trial Judge with concurrent jurisdiction as the former Judge prior to elevation and be allowed to commence de novo.

I completely agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate that where a Judge has been elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, any partly heard criminal matter by him should be allowed to commence de novo before another Judge with the requisite jurisdiction to hear same.

Benita Ayois a legal practitioner based in Lagos, Nigeria.

Feature/OPED

Adeleke’s Leadership: A Dance of Transformation in Osun

Published

9 hours ago

26/11/2024

Business Post Contributor

By Bamikole Omishore

“Great dancers are not great because of their technique; they are great because of their passion.” – Martha Graham.

In the world of dance, few have mastered the art of movement with the grace and intensity of Martha Graham, whose choreography was marked by a profound understanding of human expression and transformation.

Graham’s dances were not mere performances; they were powerful reflections of the human condition, a tapestry woven with raw emotion, rhythm, and purpose. In many ways, the leadership of Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, mirrors this very essence of dance—dynamic, passionate, and forward-moving.

Governor Adeleke has taken the helm of Osun State with the kind of zeal and vision that echoes the intensity of a choreographed performance, where each step is deliberate, and every movement contributes to a greater narrative of transformation. His approach to governance is not just about policy execution but about creating an environment where the people of Osun are empowered, uplifted, and given the tools to thrive.

In his leadership, one sees a choreography of progress, dedication, and unwavering commitment to the welfare of his people. Considering the precarious state of Osun when he took office on November 27, 2022, Adeleke could not have done otherwise—every step had to be deliberate and tailored for the development of the people.

Much like Martha Graham’s focus on the expression of the individual within a broader context, Governor Adeleke’s leadership shines in its ability to focus on the unique needs of Osun State’s diverse communities, while also aligning them with the collective goal of the state’s development. He has taken the pulse of Osun and, much like a skilled dancer attuned to the rhythm of the music, has set a course for the state that resonates with both empathy and pragmatism.

Governor Adeleke’s impact is tangible, and his passion for the people is infectious. His administration has not shied away from confronting the most pressing issues facing the state, including infrastructural deficits, educational reform, and economic revitalisation. Just as Martha Graham redefined modern dance by introducing new techniques and forms, Governor Adeleke has redefined governance in Osun by introducing innovative policies, modernising systems, and fostering an environment where growth is inevitable.

One of the cornerstones of Adeleke’s governance has been his focus on improving the education sector. Under his leadership, 631 classrooms and offices have been rehabilitated across 125 basic schools, while 323 new classrooms, halls, and laboratories have been constructed in 96 schools.

Additionally, new toilets, boreholes, motorised water wells, and perimeter fences have been installed in several schools. The Governor has also upgraded the Educational Management Information System (EMIS) units in local education authorities to improve data collection and management. Adeleke’s administration has sponsored 200 secondary school teachers and 20 ICT experts to train on remote learning platforms and has trained 1,004 teachers on cooperative learning strategies.

The governor has also initiated the recruitment of 5,000 new teachers to address vacancies in public schools. For tertiary education, Adeleke has invested in infrastructure, including completing a 52-office complex at Osun State University (UNIOSUN), thus becoming the first Governor since 2011 to execute a project at the institution.

He also funded the construction of the first student hostel at the University of Ilesa (UNILESA). He approved the permanent employment of over 230 temporary staff at UNILESA and supported the training of 137 academic staff at the Osun State College of Technology and 1,120 health educators in collaboration with international organisations.

He also revived the indigenous bursary scheme, providing financial support to over 3,100 students and N105,000 to Osun indigenes in law schools across Nigeria.

Governor Adeleke’s approach to healthcare mirrors the precision and care found in Graham’s choreography. Upon taking office, he inherited a healthcare system in disarray. However, he quickly launched the Imole Surgical and Medical Outreach, which provided free medical treatment to over 50,000 residents across Osun, addressing a wide range of conditions from cataracts and hernias to diabetes, hypertension, and malaria.

On a long-term basis, Adeleke’s administration has focused on improving the state’s healthcare infrastructure. This includes the rehabilitation of 345 primary healthcare centres (PHCs), with 200 already upgraded to include 24/7 power and water facilities, while the remaining 145 centres are undergoing renovations.

His administration has also ensured a regular supply of medications to these centres and has partnered with development organisations to provide essential medical equipment. Governor Adeleke’s healthcare policies have expanded health insurance coverage to include informal sector workers and Osun’s senior citizens, ensuring comprehensive healthcare access for all, including persons with disabilities.

Infrastructure development has been another focal point of Adeleke’s leadership. Osun State’s infrastructure, particularly in the road sector, was in dire need of attention when he assumed office. In the past two years, his administration has constructed many roads and has embarked on additional projects to extend the state’s road network.

Notable projects include the Oke-Fia overhead bridge in Osogbo, the first-ever overhead bridge in Ile-Ife, and the Akoda-Baptist-Oke Gada dual carriageway in Ede. These projects are expected to improve traffic flow, ease transportation, and spur economic growth by connecting key areas of the state. Adeleke’s commitment to infrastructure extends beyond urban centres.

Under his leadership, Osun State has rejoined the Rural Access and Mobility Project (RAAMP-3), focusing on improving rural road networks. These improvements are vital for enhancing rural connectivity, facilitating trade, and providing essential access to health and education services in remote areas.

The Governor’s unwavering passion for the people of Osun is also evident in his economic policies, which are focused on stimulating local industries, attracting investment, and reducing unemployment. Like Martha Graham’s ability to tap into the emotional core of her dancers, Adeleke’s governance taps into the heart of Osun’s potential, nurturing the state’s resources, businesses, and talents.

Governor Adeleke is driving sustainable development in Osun State with initiatives that align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). At the heart of his work is the Senator Isiaka Adetunji Adeleke Estate, a development that balances modern infrastructure with the need for planned, resilient communities. Governor Adeleke’s vision is not just about physical structures—it extends into the human realm. In SDG 4 (Quality Education), he has created the Alternative School for Girls, offering education to those who would otherwise be left behind.

Perhaps most importantly, Governor Adeleke’s leadership is marked by a deep sense of inclusivity and unity. Just as a dance troupe requires each member to work in harmony for the performance to succeed, Adeleke has fostered a sense of collective purpose in Osun.

Governor Ademola Adeleke has brought a new rhythm to Osun State, one driven by passion, innovation, and an unwavering commitment to the welfare of the people. Much like Martha Graham’s transformative choreography, which changed the landscape of modern dance forever, Adeleke’s governance has redefined the landscape of leadership in Osun —one that promises progress, unity, and a brighter future for all its citizens.

Omishore, a proud son of Osun state, writes from Ile-Ife

Feature/OPED

Prepaid Debit Cards Can Enable Companies to Take Advantage of Increased Intra-African Trade

Published

12 hours ago

26/11/2024

Business Post Contributor

By Amber Thetford

As businesses seek to expand across African borders, cashless payment solutions offer a safer method of transferring money. One offering, prepaid debit cards, provides security while mitigating many infrastructure and regulatory challenges, writes Amber Thetford, the Chief Product Officer for Card Issuing and Processing at Onafriq.

As the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement (AfCTA) increasingly moves into the operational phase, it is becoming clearer that part of its success lies in ensuring that entrepreneurs and small businesses can effectively trade and receive payments across borders.

As the African Union has noted, the trade area will be the biggest since the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995. Africa’s population is currently 1.2 billion people, a figure that is expected to reach 2.5 billion by 2050.

South Africa took its first step in making AfCTA a reality, when the now-former Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, then Ebrahim Patel, launched the implementation of the start of preferential trade this year. The South African Revenue Service also certified two consignments to Ghana and Kenya.

Yet, with trade expected to grow among members from the current between 15% and 18%, a safe way of moving money is required given the risk that cash presents. Some nine-tenths of transactions in sub-Saharan Africa are, based on World Bank information, in cash.

The large amounts of cash involved in trade are also cumbersome and difficult to physically transport between markets. Card payments, part of the digital ecosystem, can enable efficient, secure, and transparent transactions that are essential for facilitating trade.

Card payments can eliminate the need for manual intervention and reconciliation when it comes to banking and bookkeeping. This, the World Bank states, makes them, on average, three times more cost-effective than conventional purchase order costs.

While mobile money payments have greatly improved Africa’s ability to make cross-border payments, they do not meet the full scope of needs of individuals or businesses. As the United Nations points out, there are regulatory bottlenecks, while a lack of interconnectivity among mobile transactions in some countries means that people cannot transfer money across borders. Moreover, limitations of infrastructure, accessibility, and interoperability make it difficult for their users to access the global digital economy. As a result, this type of cross-border payment can be limited.

There are solutions to these dilemmas. Prepaid cards can enable businesses and individuals to transact with global institutions and marketplaces without the need to own a bank account. This option removes a pain point for a business that would otherwise need to accept local alternative payment methods or cash. Navigating challenges like high fees, currency shocks and a lack of access to traditional banks can be simplified through prepaid cards. This makes them a pivotal instrument that enhances Africa’s connection to the global economy.

For example, one of our customers provides payroll solutions for seafarers and cruise ships, which frequently travel to different countries. Once the card is loaded, it is very convenient for a sailor to use it as one would a normal debit card and swipe to pay for purchases or transmit money across borders. The beauty of this option is that whoever is loading the card with money, can be based anywhere in the world, with the same also being true of the person holding the card.

Prepaid cards can also be used to manage expenses because they can be provided to managers of, for example, a bookstore, who can then make independent decisions about business-related purchases, but only up to a certain amount. This has the added advantage of speeding up operations as there are no lengthy delays across the company when it comes to acquiring stock, while it also goes some way towards eliminating fraud as the card has a set limit.

Larger companies with staff who travel extensively can also provide gratuities for their employees, who can then cover incidental expenses without having to dip into their pockets or bring back paperwork to be reimbursed.

A platform that simplifies a user’s ability to transfer money to cards brings the AfCTA dream closer to reality. The versatile power of prepaid cards can be used to promote free trade between countries and unite Africa’s fragmented payment landscape.

Prepaid solutions can aid businesses seeking to operate in other African countries to thrive – making AfCTA’s aim a reality and boosting economic growth for all.

Amber Thetford is the Chief Product Officer for Card Issuing and Processing at Onafriq

Feature/OPED

Examining Seyi Tinubu’s Potential Lagos Governorship Bid

Published

2 days ago

25/11/2024

Business Post Contributor

By Kenechukwu Aguolu

The possibility of Seyi Tinubu, the son of the President of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu contesting for the Lagos State governorship in 2027 has become a significant topic of public discourse, raising important questions about the dynamics of political dynasties and democratic values in Nigeria. While his constitutional eligibility to vie for the position under Section 177 of the Nigerian Constitution is undisputed, the discussion brings to light broader issues of political inclusivity, leadership by merit, and the role of family legacy in modern democracy.

The Nigerian Constitution outlines clear qualifications for anyone aspiring to the office of governor. A candidate must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth, at least 35 years old, a member of a political party, and educated to at least the secondary school level or its equivalent. Based on these criteria, Seyi Tinubu, as a citizen by birth and meeting the age and educational requirements, is constitutionally qualified to run for the office, provided he secures the sponsorship of a political party.

Political dynasties are not exclusive to Nigeria; they are a global phenomenon that has influenced governance in many parts of the world. In the United States, for example, the Bush family has held significant political positions, including George H.W. Bush as the 41st President, George W. Bush as the 43rd President and former Governor of Texas, and Jeb Bush as the Governor of Florida. Similarly, the Kennedy family produced John F. Kennedy, the 35th President, and prominent figures like Robert Kennedy, a U.S. Senator and Attorney General, and Ted Kennedy, a long-serving U.S. Senator. The Clinton family also left its mark, with Bill Clinton serving as the 42nd President and Hillary Clinton as a Secretary of State and presidential candidate. These families earned their positions through electoral victories, reinforcing the importance of public trust and the democratic process.

If Seyi Tinubu decides to run, his candidacy will face considerable scrutiny. Questions about whether his aspirations are rooted in personal merit or familial advantage will dominate public discourse. In Nigeria, where perceptions of nepotism and concerns about equitable access to leadership persist, the candidacy of a high-profile figure like Seyi Tinubu will polarize opinions. To succeed in such an environment, he would need to present a compelling policy agenda and demonstrate his capability to govern effectively. His father’s legacy as a former Lagos governor and current president could either bolster his credibility or attract criticism, depending on public sentiment.

Ultimately, the decision rests with the electorate. Lagosians possess the constitutional authority to evaluate candidates based on their merits and to choose leaders who align with their aspirations for the state. Democracy thrives on the principle that leadership is determined by the people, not inherited by default. Seyi Tinubu’s constitutional right to contest for the governorship reflects the democratic ideals enshrined in Nigeria’s laws. However, his candidacy, like that of any other aspirant, must be judged on its merit, the policies he proposes, and the competence he demonstrates. In the end, the will of the people should guide leadership selection, ensuring that governance remains a reflection of collective choice rather than familial legacy.