•Justice Peter Umeadi
Peter Umeadi is a retired chief judge of Anambra State and the 2023 presidential candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). In this interview, the public affairs analyst said in a democracy, the activities of governors in Nigeria may be infringing on the popular will of the people, reports Daily Trust.
There are allegations that in Nigeria, governors have overbearing powers, which most often do not serve the interest of the public. What do you say to that?
Yes. State governors wield and use incompatible powers in deciding the outcome of political exercises. They sponsor their cronies as delegates to elect candidates. You may be nominated or elected by your ward as a delegate, but on the d-day, you approach the accreditation table only to find a different passport photograph against your name. And you are told that you have entered the hall to vote for the candidate. You protest that it is you standing before them and they signal law enforcement officers and bouncers to manhandle you and push you out of the line. You and those who selected you are disenfranchised. That is coming from a governor who has sworn to uphold the constitution and work for a free and fair election.
Also, the governor holds on to state finances meant for local government councils. All they do is pay salaries to staff and spend the rest without recourse to the councils. They also collect, hold and spend money from entities under the constitutional control of local government councils from slaughter houses, markets, motor parks to public conveniences.
Governors are so headstrong that the unreported judgement of the Supreme Court in suit No. SC/CV/343/2024, delivered on July 11, 2024 on local government autonomy did not cage them. They bandied together and obtained a delay of the execution of the judgement. Thereafter, they took a group photograph with the president to show their strength. Even you would have noticed the rash of local government elections hurriedly put together to continue with receiving the revenue allocations which the local governments won. The sitting governors are winning all the local government seats, including councillorships wherever these questionable elections have been held.
Remember that the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) won their case filed on section 121 (3) of the constitution and financial autonomy for the judiciary but the governors refused to implement it. The union went on strike.
These are not democratic and we need to put a stop to them. The governors should release their grip on the polity and allow the will of the people to be realised. It is time for them to cut their coat according to their size.
Is it a norm in other democracies for sub-national entities to band together?
Assuming you are referring to governors of states in Nigeria bandying together, the answer is no. It is a characteristic found only in Nigeria and for all the wrong reasons.
There is nothing wrong with governors of particular parties meeting in groups. Here, we have meetings of northern governors, southern governors; and the six geographical zones have their governors’ meetings.
Partisan politics is run on the basis of political parties. Section 21 of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides for every political party to submit a list of candidates to sponsor at the elections. Case law states that party primaries and presentation of candidates are internal matters for the party; it does not state that it should be hijacked or given to the highest bidder. There is no need for the dichotomy. Then, against the people, the governors come together to oppose issues that are seen to alleviate their living condition and standard. For example, they opposed the minimum wage and financial autonomy for the judiciary, state houses of assembly and the local government. Even within a political party, they create groups.
In other democracies, one gets elected and remains in power based on merit. It is true that experience ranks high in qualification for political office. It is your performance and delivery of democratic dividends that recommend you for another term, not the company you keep. We have seen Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak come and go as prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Kier Starmer is in now. Those movements are functions of democracy. The ballots are respected. The results are transparent and embraced and the polity moves on. Here, more qualified competition is eliminated, only on the ground that they are not governors. At one time, it became a fad for governors to move on to the Senate. In other democracies, you are rewarded or rejected according to your previous performance.
Does this phenomenon have any positive impact in terms of checks and balances on the executive at the centre?
The president, vice president, president of the Senate and secretary to the government of the federation are all former governors. Some of the appointed ministers are former governors, yet you do not see them in front explaining the policies of their ministries to the public as their counterparts do the world over. Here, all questions are directed to the president.
