Recent events in the Nigerian polity have been eliciting multiple reactions from different segments of the society with a preponderance of falsehood, half-truth and convoluted logic being peddled by almost everyone.
The drama at the National Assembly where a sitting speaker of the House of Representatives was almost ousted in a gestapo style by the Nigerian police, apparently acting either on orders ‘from above’ or a carefully orchestrated police coup is a case worth examining.
The insistence of the police boss on arrogating to himself the powers to interpret the Nigerian constitution, in a matter that is before a competent court of law, is as weird as it is disturbing. The IG is not without his apostles who believe, and have been struggling to educate the rest of us, that Tambuwal ceased to be speaker the moment he moved from a majority to a minority party in parliament.
For the avoidance of doubt, the concept of majority rule as a democratic norm is not some fixed precept existing in some lunatic mind but a time-specific and situation-specific phenomenon that is as dynamic as life itself. Even the 1999 constitution talks about the members of the house electing from among themselves a speaker…(not from among the majority party), which means that majority of the members can choose to elect from among themselves even a member who is the only representative of his political party in the house as their speaker. Unfortunately, this is one aspect of the concept of majority rule that most analysts have chosen to gloss over.
The incumbent President is from one of the smallest minority groups in Nigeria and by this weird analysis should not be governing the country. But that is not true as majority of Nigerians accepted someone from the minority to govern them. Tambuwal can only cease to be speaker when majority of the members of the house reject him and the ruling PDP should know how to legally and constitutionally harness its so-called majority to actualize that. The constitution is clear on this and we are not talking about a simple majority. It is a two-third majority.
The other argument on why Tambuwal must leave the house hinges on a provision of the constitution on the position of a member who defects to another political party. Again, this matter is subjudice as cases are already in court and no pronouncement has been made. It is also instructive to note that members have been defecting from other parties to the ruling PDP without this hue and cry about anyone losing their seats.
Then comes the moral ground. Tambuwal should do the needful. He has no moral justification to continue as speaker and bla bla bla! Are people’s feet allergic to the moral ground upon which they expect others to stand? I ask this question because going by the obvious failures of this government, the missing Chibok girls, impunity, corruption, insecurity and collapsing economy, the moral ground should by now be boasting of many feet, including those of the president, whose all resigned to take a firm stand on that blessed ground of morality.
Nigeria is a country on edge, dancing dangerously on the precipice. The only thing that can save us from imminent doom is justice, fairness, rule of law and observance of the golden rule: do unto others what you will have them do to you.
Like I always tell my friends, the Nigerian earthquake has already taken place. What we are experiencing now is the aftershock, but we can still rebuild by first clearing the rubble and reinforcing the house . We cannot continue to live in a visibly shaken structure supported by the ever wobbling pillars of selfishness, greed, impunity and inordinate ambition, else the crash will consume us all.
Hygienus Nwagwu @hymanprof.