Mortals with feet of clay

I always look out for a glimmer of light in this suffocating gloom, thanks to our politicians. I believe each glimmer of light, even if it flickers unsteadily in the wind of lost hope, represents a crack in the granite of the arrogant misuse of power by those we put or who put themselves in elective offices on our behalf. I know it is not such a good thing that the most populous black nation on earth demonstrates a crippled capacity to show leadership. But despair is a wrong peg on which to hang a people’s hope.

I admit I may be naïve. In a country where glimmers of light tend to shine so very briefly, it is not usually wise to make too much of every glimmer of light that seeps through the crack. But we must have hope in something in this dreary business of watching the dreary business of our politicians in their inebriated dance on the political stage.

So, here is my latest glimmer of light. The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered judgements on two election petitions on June 23. The cases involved Alhaji Sani Danladi and Herman Hembe. Danladi was the PDP senator representing Taraba North senatorial district and Hembe was the APC member of the House of Representatives representing Vandeikya/Konshisha federal constituency, Benue State. 

The two honourable men lost their respective seats in the National Assembly to their rivals. Their lordships found that their parties breached the Electoral Act and the constitutions of their parties to put them in office and deny their rivals who have the right to be there. Justice Aminu Augie delivered the judgement on the Danladi case and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mr Justice Walter Onnoghen, that of Hembe.

Arguably, there is nothing special about this. Lots of honourable usurpers have been disrobed and sent packing by the courts from the legislative chambers at federal and state levels. So, yes, the loss of their seats should not excite anyone, let alone yours sincerely. But when the highest court in the land speaks, it speaks to power and it speaks of justice.

I am less interested in the political misfortune of the two men but more in what their sack from the National Assembly probably represents in the weighty view of their lordships and its implication for constitutional government and the rule of law. Listen to their lordships, in order of protocol:

Mr. Justice Onnoghene: “The truth must be told and that, that the first and second defendants (Hembe and APC) did not respect the provisions of the Electoral Act and the constitution of the second defendant (APC) in the conduct of the primaries.”

Justice Augie: “This is a hard case and bitter lesson for political parties to learn. They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules. The chosen candidates must comply with the requirements of the law; they must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act which create a level playing field for all aspirants who seek to contest elections.”

The court ordered the two disgraced honourable men to refund the salaries and allowances they received while usurping the positions of their political opponents in the national assembly.  That, I think, is the bitter lesson. There is an important point about this order. It serves notice that henceforth the courts would not tolerate usurpers in our executive and legislative houses. Those who muscle their way into elective offices mostly through foul means must learn the lesson here and give some thoughts to something called Nemesis. It has a legendary capacity for catching up with those who take from others what does not belong to them.

Why do I see a glimmer of light here? 

I suspect their lordships are getting tired and fed up with the arrogant misuse of power by the political parties and leaders. If my reading is correct, it means that politicians who are cheated and cry to the temple of justice would get justice. Do you not think that the judgements have put the pin in the balloon of the importance of the big men in our political parties? I do. There is just no way the air would not escape from it and make them look petty and arrogant with scant respect for their moral and legal responsibilities as leaders. They tend to forget that by their actions our democracy would wax or wane.

Our democracy and constitutional government have been held prisoners in the hands of these men who believe that their right to breach their party constitutions in pursuit of their narrow personal interests is a given. They have painfully and systematically bastardized party democracy and the rule of law. And they have done so all these years with unbelievable impunity. Aggrieved party members who cried to the courts usually found justice denied them. The records of the courts in freeing our constitutional government and the rule of law from the clutches of these men of power and influence, have been rather scrappy.

 I thought the courts were deaf to the cries of the cheated and oppressed by the party leaders and were willing to condone the injustice that has become the hall mark of political leadership. These two judgements tell me that the patience of their lordships with the shenanigans of the party moguls is wearing thin. I welcome it.

Long ago when he was still vice-president in an administration that thought poorly of the rule of law or doing right by the demands of party rules and politics, Atiku Abubakar repeatedly drew public attention to the lack of internal democracy in the political parties. His own party, at its height, the biggest party in Africa, was the worst offender. Men and women with the desire to serve in the executive or the legislative branches of government had the door arrogantly shut in their faces by the party big men in total disregard for the provisions of their own party constitutions or the legitimate rights of their fellow citizens to seek political power without their permission.

I have argued in this column and elsewhere that unless we make the party leaders respect the provisions of their party constitutions and learn to play by the rules, we cannot get democracy right. For me, this is even more critical than restructuring. If we don’t get this right, restructuring would, in the end be a new source of frustration. We, the people, are denied the right to participate in the leadership recruitment process. The leaders of the various political parties have assumed the right to be the only voters in the party primaries. And as I argued in this column last week, this is strange to best practices in democracy and the rule of law.

I am not saying anything new in pointing out that our leadership recruitment process is so badly flawed that men who at best qualify to be local government chairmen become governors and those who at best qualify to be local government councillors are our law makers in the national and the state houses of assembly. 

This, of course, is the logical consequence of selling our elective offices to the highest bidders in the worst form of political corruption known to mankind. I don’t think you would bother to write your mother about the generally poor quality of leadership at the state level and local government levels. So long as the people are prevented from participating in the leadership recruitment process so long would our young men and women hope in vain for the emergence of an Obama or a Macron in our country. Money politics has demonstrated time and again its lack of capacity to throw up men and women of quality, honour and integrity.

Do I think the Supreme Court judgements would now force the dictatorial political leaders to respect their party constitutions, the Electoral Act and the right of individuals to offer themselves for leadership on the consent of the people? Not really. But I believe that if the courts continue this way to chip away at their arrogance, they would be forced to remember that if they think they are gods, they are but mortals with feet of wet clay. And those feet would be broken like clay sooner than later.