On Tuesday, 20th February, 2007, the Court of Appeal unanimously decided that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar remains in his office as the Nation’s Vice President despite the fact that he had joined another political party and has become the Presidential Candidate of that party – the Action Congress.

I completely disagree with that decision which I consider to be constitutionally wrong, illegally untenable, technically illogical and politically dangerous for the sustenance of the Nation’s peace, order and good government. It is also capable of taking integrity out of politics, particularly party politics.

The judgment is laden with disturbing consequences. For instance, if the President who is Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) dies today, the Vice President who was Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) but now of Action Congress becomes the President by virtue of Section 146(1) of the Constitution. He will then appoint an Action Congress (AC) Vice-President subject to the confirmation of the National Assembly. He will also appoint Action Congress (AC) Ministers to administer the affairs of the Nation with him. But the electorate did not vote in 2003 for an Action Congress (AC) President. Equally, the electorate did not vote for the programmes of the Action Congress (AC) as there was no Action Congress (AC) in 2003.

Clearly, by section 224 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, every party must have a programme. At the moment, Atiku Abubakar is competent by this decision to attend the Federal Executive Council meeting as Vice President armed with the political, economic and social programme of the Action Congress (AC). What a new constitutional disorder!

The decision of the Court of Appeal has spelt the death knell of the institution and constitutional importance of political parties as the basis of our constitutional democracy. In this respect, the Court of Appeal has by this critically unfortunate decision re-written a new but absolutely confusing constitutional order which has the tendency of causing political and constitutional instability in the country.

I pray and hope that the Supreme Court will set aside this judgment, which in my view is contrary to the letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

I will make a detailed analysis of my criticism of this judgment on my arrival from London where I am at present receiving medical treatment.

CHIEF GANI FAWEHINMI LLD, SAN

London

Thursday, February 22, 2007