Friday, November 30, 2007

The Siemens Affair

Nigeria is again in the news for the wrong reasons. Details have emerged from foreign judicial systems about the extent of the depth and reach of corruption in Nigeria. The revelations from Germany about the over eight million euros purportedly shared by Nigerian government officials, ministers and other telecommunications sector officials again demonstrates why the world regards all Nigerians as corrupt and dishonest thieves, fraudsters and scammers, and why the world finds our response, which is usually righteous indignation so laughable and perplexing.

There are several issues one finds striking about this matter. It re-confirms the complicity (and duplicity) of foreign firms in fostering corruption in Nigeria, after which they tell Transparency International that Nigeria is the most corrupt country in the world! It also probably gives us a glimpse into the part played by private sector businesses (including local companies) in destroying the Nigerian business climate through unethical practices while searching for unsustainable advantages over rival firms. What part do our banks and other financial institutions, construction companies, and other ‘contractors’ play in helping public office holders collect brokerage, inflate contract amounts and generally divert public resources into private pockets?

To the credit of foreign countries however, it appears that all the progress against corruption in Nigeria tends to come from abroad, rather than within. The Dariye affair, Alamieyesegha’s case, Ibori’s problems, the Halliburton matter, the revelations in respect of Wilbros and now Siemens have all come from outside rather than within Nigeria. It is good that sometimes the EFCC has played a key role either in instigating some investigations and/or cooperating with foreign agencies, but it does seem that the EFCC seems to make breakthroughs only after it externalizes the cases. A sensible hypothesis may be that the tentacles of corruption are so deep and extensive within Nigeria that investigations are unlikely to progress to a breakthrough in the absence of an external dimension. Of course there are exceptions to this hypothesis, (such as the Tafa Balogun case), but they do appear to be that-exceptions rather than the rule.

It is also striking that all the payments to Nigerian government officials revealed in the Siemens Case happened during the Obasanjo government, when the government claimed to be fighting a war against corruption. During those years, whenever Transparency International and other global corruption watchdogs released their reports in which they routinely moved Nigeria from maybe second most corrupt nation in the world to perhaps third, Nigerian officials typically responded with righteous indignation. It does now seem clear that all our posturing about anti-corruption was just precisely that-posturing! In the figures reportedly taken from the international media which have now been published in the local newspapers, Nigeria accounted for over eight million euros out of the twelve million that Siemens paid as illegal bribes in three countries-with Russia coming a very distant second.

I wonder what we will find if we could persuade Siemens and the German judicial system to assist us by looking ten to twenty years earlier than 1999. What do you think we would find? Alternatively, could we ask the Germans to assist us take a peep into the accounts of that other notable German company that operates in Nigeria-Julius Berger! What do you think we would find? We already have an idea of what went on in the name of a notorious Aluminium Smelter at Ikot Abasi which on the books of the Nigerian state cost $2.3billion, but in which an equivalent smelter was built in Mozambique for less than half of that cost. It turns out that most of the money was transferred offshore on behalf of the Abachas, their accomplices and other officers of state. Or perhaps we could encourage the British and Dutch governments to open a forensic examination into the Nigerian activities, including the accounts and contracts of that well-known oil company that once accounted for fifty percent of Nigeria’s oil production? I do remember listening a few years ago to an angry Nigerian telling about the goings-on at Siemens which I then dismissed as beer-parlour talk. Now we know better.

I notice also some incongruities relating to the published figures. The amount paid Nigerian officials from my tabulation (see Businessday of Monday, November 19 at page A2) amounts to E8, 195,000 (eight million, one hundred and ninety thousand euros). From this amount the beneficiaries of E2, 435,000 are specified, while the beneficiaries of the larger sub-total of E5,850,000 are nebulously described as “political office holders”, “telecomm and ministry officials” and in some publications, “various decision makers”. Who are these anonymous decision makers or office holders? Do they enjoy immunity from being named even in a German Court, or is there some self-censorship in the foreign courts or media? Some resourceful journalists should be interested in finding out more about the identity of these special categories of people, who collected big chunks of E1million, E2.250million, E500,000, E750,000 and like figures.

I can understand why the EFCC prefers to assist foreign law enforcement agencies with information about the foreign ‘transactions’ of Nigerian office holders. The chances that the matter would be objectively handled without technical, political or ethnic imputations and impediments in the way of justice are far less outside than within. It is more difficult to compromise the relevant international institutions-the political authorities, prosecutors, press, witnesses or potential witnesses, financial institutions etc. The evidence trail abroad is also clearer-transactions would not have been done in cash, properties will be registered, property taxes and charges will be paid, and bank records cannot be altered, mutilated or destroyed. All of these point the way to what we have to do to succeed in the fight against corruption.

Of course, we are just seeing the beginning of the Siemens Affair. The issue will not go away. We will get more details about all the participants-from within and outside Nigeria and at the end of the day, people will pay the price, before the law courts and/or in the court of public opinion. The government and EFCC have already indicated that they are investigating the issue. That is good. We await their findings in this case, and others such as the Wilbros and Halliburton cases. Meanwhile, will the new set of public office holders all over the federation learn the right lessons from this matter? Will they use the resources entrusted to them to build roads and public infrastructure or will they simply look for new countries with less rigorous financial and judicial systems?
The Continuing Transition

I had some difficulty selecting a title for this week’s article. The article dwells on multiple matters and I needed to find a common thread through all (or at least most) of that mixed bag. I toyed with several options but in the end settled on ‘The Continuing Transition’ as I became convinced that many of the thoughts I contend with may be symptoms of the yet uncompleted transition Nigeria is going through.

The 2008 Budget
The President presented his first full year budget to the National Assembly last week. He proclaimed it a “Budget for the Ordinary Nigerian”. The budget assumes a $53.83 oil price (up from $40 in 2007) on crude oil production of 2.45 million barrels per day; and targets GDP growth rate of 11%, exchange rate of N117 to $ and inflation rate of 8.5%. Federal government spending net of debt service and statutory transfers is N1.89trillion and the budget accommodates a deficit of N0.56trillion or 2.5% of GDP. The spending priorities are Security/Niger-Delta (N444.6bn or 20%)-what is the exact split between core military/defense spending and developmental expenditure on the Niger-Delta?; education-N210bn or 13%; Energy (N139.78bn)-again what is the split between power versus oil and gas?; and agriculture and water resources (N121.1bn or 7%).

Beyond the figures however, a clear philosophical and policy framework underlying economic planning is not yet available. We have NEEDS, NEEDS 2, 7-Point Agenda and Vision 2020 all flying around the air, but there is yet no clarity and focus in the direction of governance. That lack of clarity manifests in some confusion, such as one Minister wanting government to build a petrochemical plant; the emergence of a new state-owned telecommunications company named NIGCOMSAT; and an emphasis so far on reversing the previous government’s actions such that no privatization or concessioning completed by the last regime can be presumed immune. It is not yet clear whether for instance the reversal of the privatization of the refineries was done because they flouted due process and transparency (in which case I would support the reversal and expect a fresh process of privatization to have commenced) or because the government does not believe in privatization whether of the refineries or anything for that matter. We would hope someone will produce a clear, coherent and sustainable economic policy framework before year end?

The President and the Judiciary
Just as we were beginning to understand and applaud the President’s posture of non-interference in the affairs of the National Assembly during the ‘Etteh Affair’, the President contradicted his own posture by publicly interfering with the affairs of the Judiciary. He warned the judges against “playing to the gallery” and pandering to public sentiments. Specifically he criticized harsh bail conditions imposed by several courts in recent times. In my view, the President’s comments were inappropriate. The President’s party, the PDP has several cases before various election tribunals all over the country. Two of the party’s ‘selected’ governors-Andy Uba in Anambra and Celestine Omehia in Rivers have been removed by the Supreme Court; two others (Governors Idris and Dakingari in Kogi and Kebbi respectively-the latter being in addition the President’s son-in-law) have had their elections nullified by election tribunals and are battling before appeal courts to stay in office; The President himself is defending his election before the Presidential Election Tribunal; and the major victims of the ‘harsh’ bail conditions have been the President’s former gubernatorial colleagues. Is it proper in this context for the President to be seen to publicly seek to influence, admonish, cajole or some may even say threaten their Lordships?

Obasanjo’s Shadow
It seems everything going on both in the PDP and the government is currently defined in relation to former President Obasanjo-whether you are for or against him. The whole tenor of the forthcoming PDP Convention is based on pro or anti-Obasanjo dynamics; there was a strong anti-Obasanjo element running through the Etteh Affair; and some in government operate in reversal-mode the frame of mind of which increasingly appears to be reversing all that Obasanjo did. I suspect that the reluctance to adopt (or even just amend and re-name) NEEDS 2 to reflect the priorities in the 7-Point Agenda may have something to do with an unwillingness to carry on an Obasanjo legacy. Which, in relation to many of his actions in economics (rather than politics), may be a mistake.

Commonwealth Games 2014
The Commonwealth Games in 2014 will be staged in Glasgow, Scotland and not Nigeria. Thank God! I have not heard shouts of pain and anguish from any Nigerians (except perhaps the bureaucrats who would have had a lot of contracts to award) since the hosting rights of the 2014 Commonwealth Games went to Glasgow, Scotland. I think we have bigger priorities-power, Niger-Delta, transportation (rail, road and water), rural development, crime and security, education, health, internet connectivity and access, and many more-and I suspect so does the bid committee. I imagine they are telling us to invest on all these and then come back after ten years! No twenty.

Meanwhile can anyone imagine how many jobs will be created if the Abia State Government converted Enyimba FC into a limited liability company, contributed the Enyimba Stadium as its own equity in the business, persuaded all millionaires from Abia to take up N1million equity or more in the company, (and all Aba residents and traders and Enyimba supporters to take up N1,000-N100,000), and then allowed the company to be run as a business enterprise with a professional management team? Can you imagine if the same thing were to happen to Stores, Rangers, 3SC Shooting Stars, Bendel Insurance, Kano Pillars, Sharks, Mighty Jets, Lobi Stars etc? Can you project the increase in gate-takings, merchandise revenue, advertising and co-branding income, facility rentals and broadcast revenue? Unfortunately our sports administrators are too busy fighting over crumbs to see the big picture.

Let’s end the Transition
In May when the new regime was sworn in, my projections to some clients for whom I carried out some scenario planning included a six-month period in which President Yar’adua is still trying to settle into power and wrest full power from the ancien regime. That has come to pass, except that the ‘transition’ period now threatens to be longer. Unfortunately until the intra-regime transition is over, no real policy direction may emerge, square pegs will remain in round holes, foreign and domestic investors may hesitate and adopt a ‘watch-and-see’ attitude and a period of policy drift may unfold. We don’t want that, do we?
What is the Supreme Court saying?

Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.

The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.

Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.

It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.

If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.

The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!

Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.

So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?

I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!

Friday, November 9, 2007

Lessons from the Etteh Affair

Nigeria can finally heave a sigh of relief. The sequence of events that may have started in the Federal House of Representatives as a quarrel between estranged politicians; became a shocking public expenditure scandal; degenerated rapidly into legislative shame-fighting, fisticuffs, riotous and rowdy scenes of confusion and bewilderment, endless adjournments, shouts of “ole ole” (thief thief), opposing groups alternatively either waving miniature national flags or white handkerchiefs; then the death of a member Aminu Safana from the President’s home state of Katsina virtually in the chambers of the House, before its denouement-the resignation under threat of impeachment of ex-Speaker Patricia Olubunmi Etteh and her former deputy, Babangida Nguroje and the election of Hon Dimeji Bankole and Bayero Nafada in their place. At a point some discerning people detected a spiritual battle over Nigeria with spiritual fumigation, “Holy Ghost fire” and spiritual cleansing called into the equation!

The crisis was marked by studied intransigence on the part of the accused Madam, the usual “obey the last order”/garrison approach to politics from an increasingly clueless Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership, a firm posture of non-interference from President Yar’adua and passionate engagement with “Ettehgate” by the Nigerian press and civil society. At the end of it all, I believe our democracy and institution-building is the better off for the unfortunate events of the last three months. What lessons can be learnt from this experience? Does the victory of the will of the Nigerian people in this matter amount to a tactical victory or can this event provide the momentum for a strategic change in the nature of Nigerian democracy? My short answer will be-it depends! It depends on what lessons we internalize and institutionalize from this experience.

First it is clear that the fall of the ex-Speaker happened not just because a group within the House wanted her out. Of course in politics, groups are always entitled to canvass their interests and positions and persuade the rest of society along their preferred platform. In this case the “Integrity Group” prevailed because it convinced Nigerians that an infraction of public accountability and morality (and perhaps law) had occurred. The vast majority of Nigerians upon becoming seised of the facts and the findings of the Idoko Panel which investigated the matter, were convinced that indeed the Speaker had erred and virtually unanimously-Labour, the Media, and civil society all clamoured for her exit. The only entity that unambiguously supported Etteh’s continued stay in office (apart from Adedibu and Dr Frederick Fasheun’s OPC) was the PDP, further affirming its alienation from public opinion and confirming that the soldiers who have seized control of the party are unlikely to ever learn how democracy is practiced.

Nigerians must now seize the momentum. We must closely scrutinize the activities of all elected office holders, not just in the House, but in the Senate, the Presidency, Ministers and Federal Agencies and Corporations, the State Governors, Legislators and Commissioners, and Local Government Councils all over the country. It may indeed be that in the minds of certain stakeholders, the fight was over other interests different from the desire to enthrone probity and public accountability. That is quite possible. But that does not matter. We must now insist that the standards that have been laid down in the Etteh Affair must apply across the board-now and the future. The first step in this direction will be to insist that the bureaucrats in the National Assembly who facilitated, initially defended and perhaps lubricated the wheels of the acts complained of against Patricia Etteh are brought to book. It cannot just end by removing Etteh from office. Disciplinary proceedings must also be pursued against all public servants who may be found liable in this matter. If crimes are deemed to have been committed, the appropriate agencies may also be invited to review the facts accordingly.

Unlike many Nigerians who insisted while the crisis lasted that the President should step in to “remove” Etteh from office, I believe that in this case President Yar’adua did well to leave the House to sort out its problem. We should remember that we complained about ex-President’s Obasanjo’s persistent attempts to impose a leadership on the National Assembly during his two terms in office. The process of building credible and resilient national institutions will not be achieved through short cuts. It is better that the President allowed the House, the Media, and civil society to decide whether the Speaker stays or leaves. Moreover I do not believe the President was that disinterested in the issue. It was probably prudent for the President to exert his influence on the situation through informal rather than through explicit means in the spirit of separation of powers and independence of the legislature.

Many Nigerians initially believed the whole conflict was over “juicy” committees particularly the Appropriation, Niger-Delta, Oil and Gas, Environment and other committees that leaders of the Integrity Group were accustomed to heading in the last eight years. Of course many will be watching to see whether the new leadership in the House will validate this hypothesis. And then there are certain interests who suspect a geo-political agenda, behind Etteh’s problems. Well that remains to be seen. An anti-Obasanjo agenda may of course be discernible, but that is not the same as an anti-Yoruba one. In any event, I know that Yorubas are well able to protect and defend their group interests if such an agenda became emergent. What is clear is that Etteh alienated herself from her initial backers who formed the core of the Integrity Group, but their ability to displace her from office was facilitated because she committed serious errors of judgment if not breaches of due process and perhaps procurement laws.

It has become clear that the PDP cannot play its role of a democratic, people-based ruling party and vehicle for the institutionalization of democratic norms and practices as long as it remains led by its present military-oriented leadership cabal. Quite seriously it was unbelievable that throughout the crisis, the PDP remained totally alienated from the reality of public anger over Ettehgate. It is more absurd that even after Etteh’s forced resignation, the party is said to have asked Etteh to nominate her successor as if the office of Speaker had been personally zoned to her-the same way the party has zoned states, ministries and public corporations to party chieftains and generally behaved as if politics is a process of allocation rather than negotiation, persuasion and consensus. The Integrity Group must count itself lucky to have had such politically inept, insensitive and indeed incompetent opponents to contend with.

We congratulate the House for ignoring such directives and voting for a Speaker of their choice, and sincerely hope that Hon Bankole will live up to the expectations of Nigerians. On a final note, if one combines the posture of the Supreme Court in the Amaechi/Omehia case, with the resolution of the Etteh Affair, and President Yar’adua’s impassioned, frank and powerful speech at the Governor’s Forum, can one detect a breath of fresh air blowing over Nigeria?

Friday, November 2, 2007

What is the Supreme Court saying?

Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.

The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.

Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.

It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.

If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.

The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!

Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.

So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?

I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!