Olusegun Ariyo
Contents
The Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress, APC, has described remarks attributed to a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Kenneth Okonkwo, suggesting that President Bola Tinubu can now “rule Nigeria with the military” following a Supreme Court verdict relating to the emergency rule in Rivers State, as “reckless and misleading”.The party said such remarks by Okonkwo were not only false but also “intellectually dishonest”, stressing that Supreme Court verdicts are not military decrees.Mogaji Seye Oladejo, spokesman of the state arm of the party, said the Supreme Court did not suspend democracy in Rivers State but merely interpreted the law as empowered by the Nigerian Constitution.In a statement he signed, Oladejo said that in a constitutional democracy, court decisions may disappoint political actors, but they are binding on all.According to Oladejo, “A Supreme Court judgment is the highest expression of constitutional authority in a democracy. It is neither a military fiat nor an executive directive. To deliberately conflate a judicial verdict with military rule is to either misunderstand the basic workings of democracy or to willfully mislead the public for partisan ends.“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, contrary to the alarmist narrative being peddled, has neither sought nor exercised extra-constitutional powers. His democratic credentials are well established. He was a frontline opponent of military dictatorship, a victim of repression, and a contributor to the restoration of civil rule in Nigeria. The suggestion that such a leader would now govern by military proxy is as absurd as it is insulting.“What is evident from Mr Okonkwo’s commentary is a familiar opposition reflex: when the courts do not validate their political expectations, they attempt to delegitimise the judiciary and sow fear among the populace. This pattern of crying dictatorship at every unfavourable verdict is irresponsible and dangerous.“More troubling, however, is the fact that this brand of anti-democratic rhetoric and the sheer promotion of anarchy now appear to be the default response of the opposition to constitutional setbacks. This constitutes the single greatest danger to our nascent democracy. When political actors deliberately undermine confidence in the courts and demonise lawful authority, they weaken the very foundations of the republic they claim to defend.”Oladejo noted that Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy governed by laws, institutions and the separation of powers.He said: “The military is under civilian control as prescribed by the Constitution, and there has been no action, directive or policy under President Tinubu that suggests otherwise.”The Lagos APC called on all well-meaning Nigerians, democrats and patriots to condemn what it described as a new low from the opposition in its entirety.“Supreme Court verdicts are instruments of justice, not instruments of tyranny. They strengthen democracy; they do not destroy it,” he added.
The Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress, APC, has described remarks attributed to a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Kenneth Okonkwo, suggesting that President Bola Tinubu can now “rule Nigeria with the military” following a Supreme Court verdict relating to the emergency rule in Rivers State, as “reckless and misleading”.
The party said such remarks by Okonkwo were not only false but also “intellectually dishonest”, stressing that Supreme Court verdicts are not military decrees.
Mogaji Seye Oladejo, spokesman of the state arm of the party, said the Supreme Court did not suspend democracy in Rivers State but merely interpreted the law as empowered by the Nigerian Constitution.
In a statement he signed, Oladejo said that in a constitutional democracy, court decisions may disappoint political actors, but they are binding on all.
According to Oladejo, “A Supreme Court judgment is the highest expression of constitutional authority in a democracy. It is neither a military fiat nor an executive directive. To deliberately conflate a judicial verdict with military rule is to either misunderstand the basic workings of democracy or to willfully mislead the public for partisan ends.
“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, contrary to the alarmist narrative being peddled, has neither sought nor exercised extra-constitutional powers. His democratic credentials are well established. He was a frontline opponent of military dictatorship, a victim of repression, and a contributor to the restoration of civil rule in Nigeria. The suggestion that such a leader would now govern by military proxy is as absurd as it is insulting.
“What is evident from Mr Okonkwo’s commentary is a familiar opposition reflex: when the courts do not validate their political expectations, they attempt to delegitimise the judiciary and sow fear among the populace. This pattern of crying dictatorship at every unfavourable verdict is irresponsible and dangerous.
“More troubling, however, is the fact that this brand of anti-democratic rhetoric and the sheer promotion of anarchy now appear to be the default response of the opposition to constitutional setbacks. This constitutes the single greatest danger to our nascent democracy. When political actors deliberately undermine confidence in the courts and demonise lawful authority, they weaken the very foundations of the republic they claim to defend.”
Oladejo noted that Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy governed by laws, institutions and the separation of powers.
He said: “The military is under civilian control as prescribed by the Constitution, and there has been no action, directive or policy under President Tinubu that suggests otherwise.”
The Lagos APC called on all well-meaning Nigerians, democrats and patriots to condemn what it described as a new low from the opposition in its entirety.
“Supreme Court verdicts are instruments of justice, not instruments of tyranny. They strengthen democracy; they do not destroy it,” he added.
