The act of presidents and governors concurrently serving as leaders of political parties raises significant legal and moral questions in democratic systems. AMEH OCHOJILA, reports that though there is no law against such practice, it blurs the lines between executive powers and partisan interests, which are likely to inflict undesirable outcomes on governance in times of conflict.
The dual role of individuals simultaneously holding executive powers and representing partisan interests in Nigeria poses a lot of moral and legal questions. This is because of the potential conflicts of interest and the adverse effect of such on transparency and accountability as well as promoting the common good of the citizens.
Some critics argue that this situation can blur the lines between serving the public interest and advancing political agendas and potentially lead to decisions that prioritise partisan goals over broader societal welfare. These overlapping roles indeed raise questions about the fairness, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, highlighting the need for clear guidelines, ethical standards and robust oversight to uphold democratic values as well as public trust in governance.
On the other hand, supporters said there is no irregularity in the president or governor being a leader of their party as it is just a convention and norms adopted by political parties across the world. In many presidential systems, the leadership of the party varies, sometimes the incumbent president takes a background position or automatically assumes de facto leadership of his or her party, depending on the norms and practices.
In Nigeria, the president typically serves as the leader of his or her party, albeit not always exclusively. For example, during President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, Bola Ahmed Tinubu served as the national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), although the party constitution didn’t create that office, while Buhari held the presidency. Regardless of this, party officials also defer to Buhari in their day-to-day operations. Similar dynamics occur in other states where governors do not automatically assume leadership of their party, such as in Benue.
The APC constitution outlines the party’s organisational structure, with key roles assigned to various party members, including past and present presidents, governors, legislators, and party officials.
Without the explicit mention of the president or governor as the leader in the party constitution, disputes over leadership roles have continued to rise, as seen in the ongoing conflict between the governor of Benue, Hyacinth Alia and the secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume. Amidst the face-off, the party’s deputy national secretary, Festus Faunter, a lawyer, was quoted to have asserted that the governor is the leader of the party even though there is no legal backing to the assertion.
However, there are many other instances where neither the governor nor the president serves as party leaders in the States. For instance, Vice President Kashim Shettima leads APC in Borno State; former governor Ibrahim Gaidam leads in Yobe; Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko, Sokoto; Badaru Abubakar holds sway in Jigawa; Abubakar Atiku Bagudu leads in Kebbi and Rabiu Kwankwaso dictating things in Kano, among others.
However, in states like Nasarawa, Gombe, Kaduna, Abia and Imo, among others, the governor seamlessly assumed the leadership of the party structures. In such circumstances where everyone recognises the leadership of the governor, internal party conflicts regarding power sharing and control of structures are minimised.
Article 12 of the Constitution of the APC, the political party in power at the centre and in most states across the country listed the party’s organs, including the Board of Trustees, the National Executive Committee, past and present presidents, governors, legislators and other party officials. Meanwhile, Article 14 outlines the powers and responsibilities of the national chairman, which include serving as the chief executive, upholding the party’s constitution, providing leadership, and implementing party directives.
Also, under the People Democratic Party (PDP) Constitution, the President does not formally lead any organ of the party. But he is a member of the National Caucus, which is headed by the national chairman, as well as a member of the Board of Trustees. He is also a member of the National Executive Council. However, the PDP Constitution does not expressly name him as the leader of the party.
It’s important to note that neither national nor state-level party leadership is mentioned or defined in the political party Constitutions as leaders. Nevertheless, political pundits suggest that assuming leadership depends on individuals with influence over the political structures of their respective states or countries.
Omale Ajonye, a lawyer, said there is nothing illegal about it. According to him, it is a party thing. He stressed that it is mostly a norm and conventional practice by political parties to foster smooth operations. Agreeing that it could jeopardise citizens’ interests, Ajonye said most leaders, because of the divided interests between serving their parties, building political structures and giving the people dividends of democracy, focus more on personal or political interests than the betterment of the citizens in violation of their oaths of office.
Also, Festus Onifade, a lawyer, believes that the current position of the law does not prohibit a President or Governor from acting as leaders of their respective political parties simultaneously. According to him, the major challenge is the balance of interest and conflict management among members of the political parties and the need for political neutrality in governing institutions.
Onifade said: “While it may not be illegal per se, it could raise ethical questions and concerns about separation of powers, executive powers and fairness in taking vital political decisions that may affect members, which may also enjoy the sympathy of the President or Governor of a state.”
Another lawyer, Marvin Omorogbe, also agreed that no law forbids presidents from assuming leadership of his or her political party, provided it is not a paid employment, as the president or governor cannot hold such office and also hold any other paid employment at the same time. Omorogbe pointed out Section 138 of the 1999 Constitution, which forbids the President from holding executive office or paid employment of any kind. Section 183 of the same Constitution, he said, equally bars the governor from holding executive office or any paid employment of any kind.
The lawyer explained further that section 161 defines office to mean an office in the public service of the federation, while section 205 defines office to mean office in the public service of a state for governors. Executive office in this context, he argued, means such a public office that requires the president or governor to perform day-to-day tasks or receive remuneration, adding that section 183 has been interpreted by the courts to include private businesses.
“In essence, the President or Governor cannot hold any executive office or paid employment whether public or private, while holding the office of president or governor. As a matter of practice, presidents and governors are political leaders of their parties. But most party Constitutions do not expressly make them leaders. It is just a matter of practice,” he explained.
The lawyer noted that in the PDP Constitution, the President does not formally lead any organ of the party, but is a member of the National Caucus, which is headed by the national chairman, as well as the National Executive Council, adding that the party Constitution does not expressly name him as the leader.
“As a result of the enormous powers that Presidents wield in Nigeria, party organs often defer to him, thereby making him the leader of the party. While this practice may not be the best, as it does not provide room for internal democracy, there is, however, no law that expressly forbids it,” Omorogbe declared.
