The Power Of Democratic Elections As An Alternative To The Call For A Revolutionary Political System In Nigeria By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Of recent, there have been calls for a revolution of the government in power by some persons in Nigeria and outside Nigeria.

These calls have generated a lot of counter-reactions by the government and a threat of arrest and the likely prosecution on any one who attempts at any revolution against the government in power. This paper aims at considering the legality of revolution in a Nigerian democracy while recommending democratic elections as alternative to revolution.

‘Revolution’ according to the online Webster dictionary, means ‘the usual violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one’. As a full definition ‘a sudden, radical, or complete change b. a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed’. From these definitions, it means, in my humble view, that revolution has the tendency of violently changing the political organization or the political system of a government or nation. Also, this agitation for revolution is characterized with disorderliness or break down of law and order, blood-shed, destruction of the economy of the nation, global embarrassment to the nation, loss of national integrity, etc.

Furthermore, it is my considered view, with due respect to any contrary view, that revolution is not permissible and or legal in a democratic system, considering the provisions of sections 1(1) and (2) and 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution. Section 1(1) and (2) of the Constitution provides thus ‘1.—(1) This Constitution is Supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.’. Also, section 45 of the Constitution provides thus ‘45.—(1) Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society— (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health ; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.’. Therefore, it is my considered view that ‘revolution’ does not form part of rights to which any citizen of Nigeria is entitled or can lay claim to under the Constitution. This provisions under section 45 of the Constitution have now validated the provisions of sections: 37 and 41 of the Criminal Code Act and 410, 411 and 412 of the Penal Code (Northern Region) Federal Provisions Act, 1960 (No. 25 of 1960) which provides thus (the Criminal Code Act as a reference since they have similar provisions) ‘37. (1) Any person who levies war against the State, in order to intimidate or overawe the President or the Governor of a State, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death.

(2) Any person conspiring with any person, either within or without Nigeria, to levy war against the State with intent to cause such levying of war as would be treason if committed by a citizen of Nigeria, is guilty of treason and is liable to the punishment of death.

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any act from being treason which is so by the law of England as in form in Nigeria.

(3) (Inserted by L.N. 112 of 1964 and deleted by L.N. 139 of 1965.)

38. Any person who instigates any foreigner to invade Nigeria with an armed force is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death.
39. (1) Where an offender who in the opinion of the court had not attained the age of seventeen years at the time the offence was committed has been found guilty of an offence against either section 37 or section 38 such offender shall not be sentenced to death but shall be ordered to be detained during the pleasure of the President and upon such an order being made the provisions of Part 44 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply.

(2) Where a woman who has been convicted of an offence against either section 37 or section 38 alleges she is pregnant or where the judge before whom she is convicted considers it advisable to have inquiries made as to whether or not she be pregnant the procedure laid down in section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall first be complied with.

40. Any person who-

(1) becomes an accessory after the fact to treason; or

(2) knowing that any person intends to commit treason, does not give information thereof with all reasonable despatch to  the President or the Governor of the State or a peace officer, or use other reasonable endeavours to prevent the commission of the offence; is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for life.

41. Any person who forms an intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say-

(a) to remove during his term of office otherwise than by constitutional means the President as Head of State of the Federation and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces thereof; or

(b) to likewise remove during his term of office the Governor of a State; or

(c) to levy war against Nigeria in order by force or constraint to compel the President to change his measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe any House of the National Assembly or any other Legislature or legislative authority; or

(d) to instigate any foreigner to make any armed invasion of Nigeria or of any of the territories thereof; and manifests such intention by an overt act, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.

A person charged with any of the felonies defined in this section is not entitled to be acquitted on the ground that any act proved to have been committed by him constitutes the offence of treason; but a person who has been tried, and convicted or acquitted, on a charge of any such offence cannot he afterwards prosecuted for treason in respect of the same facts.’, among other likely breached provisions under the Criminal Acts (laws). In my humble view, from the above provisions of laws on treason, revolution is criminal and illegal throughout Nigeria. Also, revolution in my view is also an act of terrorism under the section1 and 4 of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013 (as amended).

Furthermore, in my humble view, what citizens of Nigeria are allowed to do is to protest which is a form of expression of displeasure of the citizens concerned either about the government’s political system or its functions. This however, does not result in calling or inciting members of the public against the government or to violently change the political system or the government in power.

Furthermore, in my humble view, with due respect to any contrary view, there are two ways in democracy through which a government in power can be changed. These are: (i) by democratic elections; (ii) by constitutional removal under sections: 143 or 144 of the Constitution. These two are in my humble view, alternative to revolution. Most importantly, it is necessary for me to also observe that once the President of the Federation has been elected into power (whether he is capable of leadership or not) in compliance with section 134(2) of the Constitution, he can only be removed from power under the above listed ways. That is, in case of democratic elections, the citizens will have to utilize their electoral or voting rights carefully, consciously, in good faith and with the intention of pulling out the alleged bad government from power. So, in other words, they would have to endure the pains that were self-inflicted by themselves. What do I mean by ‘self-inflicted’?! The reader of this paper would recollect that it has become the political/electoral norm and custom that some materials such as clothing; money; etc. are allegedly distributed to some of the electorates at the expense of their votes during election campaigns by some political parties, thereby selling their votes. So, how could persons who have betrayed their country, conscience and Nigerian leadership be confident to publicly accuse their government of being bad?! With respect, this paper is not referring to the current government as either bad or good because the purpose of this paper is not an assessment of the efficiency of the current government’s system but might possibly be considered in my other articles. More so, democratic elections are about majority having their ways and the minority having their say. So, it is just better to base grievances on peaceful protest which is legal rather than the acclaimed revolution which is illegal and criminal. So, in my view, change of a government can arise at the time of considering who the peoples’ candidates are at both the executive and legislative houses and considering the manifesto of the contesting political party and the candidates.

In conclusion, it is my considered view that while revolution is inappropriate, illegal and treasonable in democracy, democratic elections and removal of the President on the ground of gross misconducts are alternative to revolution, which is legal, constitutional and permissible. Also, the two terms of ‘protest’ and ‘revolution’ have to be considered in their various surrounding circumstances to avoid misconception.

Email: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com