[OPINION] The 25% Debacle: The Final Clarification Of S.134 (2) (B) Of the Constitution – Stan Alieke

It is so unnecessary to make a big deal over whether or not s.132(2)(b) is being read correctly. That clause in the constitution is as clear-cut as an arrow, and it should be construed as such as it is a literal clause. Any other interpretation rule chosen for its interpretation than the literal rule will only result in a fundamental shift from its initial intent, which will only be risky.

The confusion and debacle surrounding what that section actually asserts is just a prank by pranksters, which is understandable coming from the resentful party members who are currently drowning in the pool of defeat and are searching for the smallest branch of a tree to lay hold of in order to grasp for air in order to save their faces.

For the record, all signs point to the possibility that my preferred candidate will not win the presidency, but it would be mischievous and dishonorable on my part to attempt to twist the constitution’s provisions, as some so-called lawyers have been doing on social media, misleading the credulous and upsetting the political system simply because their preferred candidate did not win; this is so low of a lawyer.

S. 134(2) of the Constitution, which has received attention since yesterday, is phrased as follows for emphasis:

Section 134(2): (2) A candidate for the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected if, in the event that there are more than two candidates, (a) he receives the greatest number of votes cast; and (b) he receives at least one-quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

To this end, applying the literal rule of interpretation to (literally) construe what the constitution envisioned here simply means that a candidate must have received at least 2/3 of the votes cast by the majority of voters in the nation in order to be recognized as legitimately elected. Mathematically, he had to have received 25% of at least 25 states, including the FCT, in order to receive 2/3 of the 37 States of Nigeria (37 when the FCT is added); he did not have to receive 25% of each of the 25 States and the FCT. The FCT has no further unique rights beyond being a member of the federation, hence it is absurd to assume that a contender who has scored 25% of the 25 States must also have scored 25% of the FCT.

The S 134(2) paragraph B’s use of the conjunction “and,” which has been the source of confusion, merely means “with the FCT inclusive.”

It’s possible that someone would claim that the FCT is not a state, but in many instances, the court has agreed that it should be treated similarly to other states of the federation and controlled by the FCT minister who also serves as its governor. In truth, S. 299 of the Constitution states that “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall be subject to the provisions of this Constitution (as if it were one of the States of the Federation)”. This means that the FCT has always been recognised by the constitution as the 37th state of the federation.

In conclusion, a candidate who has received 25% of the votes cast in 25 of the federation’s states, which constitutes a 2/3 majority, has met the constitutional requirement to be deemed elected, as provided in paragraph B of S 134(2). He is not required to receive 25% of the votes cast in the FCT after receiving 25% of the votes from the other 25 federation states.

Lawyer Stan Alieke, Esq., practices law.