The aftermath of the February 25, 2023 presidential election, in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as the winner, clearly elicited joy for him and his supporters, while his opponents and their supporters reeled in frustration, disappointment, and agony, vowing not to congratulate or recognize his emergence.
They persisted on contesting the declaration in court, which they have now done.
Yet, as the May 29 handover date approaches, Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, vice presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), openly announced on a national television broadcast that the Federal Government should not take over to Tinubu.
According to him, Tinubu was incorrectly proclaimed the victor since he did not get 25% of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), as required by Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution.
He also claimed that the election was marred by irregularities and lacked transparency, owing to INEC’s unwillingness to post results as promised throughout the campaign.
As a result, Baba-Ahmed said that swearing in the president-elect was equal to the end of democracy and challenged President Muhammadu Buhari, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, and other significant public officials to avoid such a handover event.
The APC quickly condemned his statement as treasonous and provocative.
The APC presidential campaign committee also urged the DSS to arrest and prosecute the LP presidential candidate, Peter Obi, and his running mate for treason.
Dissatisfied with the statement, the Campaign Council petitioned the National Broadcast Commission (NBC) to levy a N5 million punishment on the television station.
These activities and reactions heightened political tensions and prompted concerns about the boundaries of free expression and behaviour considered treasonous in a democracy.
Chief Malcolm Omirhobo, a human rights lawyer, stated Section 37 of the Criminal Code Act defines treason as “any individual levying war against the state in order to frighten or overawe the President or governor of a state.”
According to him, the statement made by Baba-Ahmed does not constitute treason under the law, and hence the government cannot prosecute him with the crime.
He defined freedom of speech as a value that supports an individual’s or a community’s right to express their beliefs and ideas without fear of reprisal, censorship, or legal penalty.
“Exercising one’s freedom of expression does not constitute treason.” Baba-stance Ahmed’s that Tinubu should not be sworn in is only his view. It is not treason to voice one’s personal views.
“Baba-freedom Ahmed’s of expression would have been constrained by law if his statements contained hate speech or incitement, but that is not the case because there is none of these in his comments.” As a result, he cannot be prosecuted for exercising his basic right,” he claimed.
Similarly, social analyst and law professor Sylvester Udemezue agreed with Baba-Ahmed that Tinubu should not be sworn in until the matters are resolved in court.
He claimed, however, that Baba-statement, Ahmed’s even if regarded harsh, rough, or severe, did not break any Nigerian law or infringe his rights as provided in Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.
“I further believe that the comment does not represent any type of incitement or danger to Nigeria’s peace and order.” I interpret the comment as nothing more than Mr. Baba-viewpoint Ahmed’s expressed in the manner he saw necessary within the confines of his constitutionally granted rights.
“Therefore, whether we agree with him or not, we must support his fundamental right to free speech and expression.” We must learn to appreciate people’s freedom to retain their own beliefs, no matter how excellent, unpredictable, or even unfavorable we think they are.
“We have a duty under our laws and our democracy to provide individuals the freedom to know, speak, and dispute freely according to their conscience.” “It is enslavement to prevent individuals from speaking their ideas and complaints in a manner authorized by law,” he asserted.
He stated that Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that “every individual should be entitled to freedom of speech, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and transmit ideas and information without hindrance.”
“I suppose he feels harmed and is merely expressing his sentiments,” Udemezue said. We must learn to let others to be themselves while also appreciating the distinctions between other people’s methods and ours in order to become wiser and greater. Suppressing free speech frequently amounts to committing a double wrong: it violates both the listener’s and the speaker’s rights.
“With due respect, accusing Baba-Ahmed of inciting or plotting an interim government on the basis of the said declaration is cruel, nasty, delinquent, irrational, and malicious; especially given that his argument could easily be located (even if incorrectly) within Section 135(1)(a) of the Constitution to mean that the current President could be made to remain in office until resolution of the pending presidential election petitions.”
“Assuming, but not admitting, that he called for an interim administration, how is such a call criminal?” In my opinion, everyone has the right to ask for an interim government, as long as they do not take any unlawful measures or make any illegal arrangements to create an interim administration. All the government has to do is disregard the call or recommendation. For example, in 2022, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) pushed for an interim administration in lieu of the 2023 elections.
“Based on the actual remarks stated by Baba-Ahmed during the interview, I believe that any argument/allegation relating that particular outburst to the criminal charge of sedition is baseless, spiteful, impetuous, foolish, and reckless.”
“Such an irresponsible accusation against an innocent Nigerian is condemnable, and ought to be condemned, for being capable of overheating, or calculated to overheat the polity, but as I have pointed out, I think it’s just mere gas lighting, aimed to divert people’s attention away from the real discussions, especially those expressing discontent and disenchantment about the ugly exorbitance of the rule of law and brazen subversion of the electoral process on February 25,
Festus Ogun, a human rights lawyer, further highlighted that freedom of expression is a basic right protected by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.
Democracy, he observed, dies in quiet; so, in a country practicing constitutional democracy, free speech is recognized as a crucial pillar of the system.
Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed (Picture by PIUS UTOMI EKPEI / AFP)
“Having said that, I do not believe that expressing unhappiness with a candidate after an election is treasonous.” I, too, do not consider it to be hate speech. In a democracy, it is, in my opinion, the bare minimum that a candidate or any disgruntled party can do.
“Does Baba-Ahmed imply that he or his party plans to seize control of government apparatus by force?” What precisely is hate speech? Our recent history has proven that any public comment that does not go well with the APC administration is readily interpreted as hate speech. “It is intolerable,” he said.
Ogun cautioned the administration not to exacerbate tensions in the country by making harmful insinuations.
According to him, Baba-views Ahmed’s may be offensive to some, but they are not hate speech or treason.
People who feel duped in the voting process, he said, have the right to air their complaints in court, in words, and in action through public protests.
“The government of the day should be glad that some of our people are not taking advantage of the latter since it’s all part of democratic rights,” he added.
Yet activist and lawyer Toluwani Yemi Adebiyi believes otherwise.
According to him, INEC, the legally empowered agency, proclaimed a presidential candidate to be the winner, and from that point forward, the declared winner assumed the legal position of President-elect.
He stated that no one has the right to argue otherwise unless a court of competent jurisdiction rules differently.
“For whomever and whatever misconception by anyone to say that INEC declared candidate is not the elected President and should not be sworn in, is crassly subversive and divisive, particularly where the electoral law specifically provides what to do by parties not satisfied; to proceed to court for redress and not uttering derogatory, unconstitutional, combustible and inciting statement against the declared candidate, the constituted electoral body, the judicious Bab-Ahmed completely missed it here.
“His perspective and erroneous remark have no legal standing.” He has made a mistake. The only legal alternative for him and LP is to go to court and dispute that election; anything else might result in significant legal penalties.
“With a deep sense of duty, some Nigerians have grown so lawless that their reasoning, clouded by failing self-interest and self-devised interpretations of the Constitution, have swamped their minds and callings with undignified attitudes and myopic illusions.” Even some pastors on the pulpit are not immune to this heinous crime,” he stated.
According to Adebiyi, the election was hotly contested and yielded unexpected results.
According to him, an election “rigged” by the governing party can never cause it to lose the presidential election in Lagos (Tinubu stronghold), Kaduna (El-Rufai stronghold), Kano (Ganduje stronghold), or Katsina (Buhari stronghold).
According to him, such a thing cannot happen where elections are manipulated, hence it cannot be a “rigged” election.
“How can someone claim that swearing in Tinubu/Shettima is equivalent to swearing in the Nigeria Army, or that democracy would cease on May 29?” That is a vulgar and self-incriminating remark, worse than hate speech, and an unguided egregious abuse of free expression. It is excessive and unpatriotically self-seeking.
“Your right to swing your hand in any way stops the moment it begins to hit someone on the head, your right to shout becomes an infringement when it becomes a nuisance to someone else’s right to peace, such right of freedom of speech stops where it becomes an infringement on the statutory provision that aggrieved person should go to court if not satisfied; rather than crassly make reckless and thoughtless inciting statements.”
“May I repeat emphatically that the media outlet that conducted the interview did nothing wrong and should not be held accountable, but the author of the instigating words.”
“The host clearly separated himself from the guest’s unpatriotic sentiments.” “He maintained professional etiquettes and patriotic views that readily justify the station everywhere, any day, any time, in accordance with the appropriate NBC Codes,” he said.
The lawyer emphasized that the declared winner has evidence of majority support, which none of the losers have, and urged them to express their displeasure through the court rather than abusing free speech by “making crass, thoughtless, ill-motivated, self-serving, criminally-inciting, incendiary, and dissentious seditious statements that have legal consequences.”
Moreover, Mr. Abiodun Ashiru, Professor, Department of Public and Private Law, Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo, claimed that the Nigerian Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression rather than free speech.
The significance of the distinction, he emphasized, resides in the breadth and extent to which the rights might be exercised.
While free speech is restricted to spoken words, he claims that expression extends to every other means of communication, including signs and symbols.
“Section 39 of the Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and the press, and normally, this right embraces all forms of communication, including that of the LP’s vice presidential candidate,” he stated.
“However, the right to freedom of expression, like every other right protected in the fourth Chapter of the Constitution, is subject to certain limits, such as the law of defamation, hate speech, the law of sedition, cyber-bullying, and so on.”
“As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any charges against Baba-Ahmed at the moment, but assuming he was charged for an offence created by the Criminal Code, that is, sedition or treason, the proper thing to do will be to critically examine the elements of the offence, which he is being charged with, and see if his statement satisfies these elements.”
“For example, if he were charged with sedition, the inquiry would be whether his speech is capable of instilling in members of the public a desire to overthrow the government by illegal methods, or of instilling hatred against the government.”
“One can question again if these laws are constitutional under a democratic regime, and the answer is yes.” Proponents of inviolable free speech are accustomed to claiming that the Constitution protects free speech and freedom of expression. What they frequently overlook is that there is a part of the Nigerian Constitution that allows for appropriate restrictions to the right in issue.”
He referenced Section 45 of the Constitution, which provides for the derogation of the right to free expression in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morals, or public health.
He noted that the rules criminalizing sedition and treasonous comments are enacted in accordance with Section 45 of the Constitution, which deals with public safety, order, and defense.
“The sole limitation imposed by the Constitution is that these laws must be substantially justified in a democratic society.” To assess whether a legislation is fairly defensible, the court normally weighs the interests of the parties, therefore it will be Baba-right Ahmed’s to free expression vs all other Nigerian citizens’ right to a peaceful atmosphere.
“Even if there is no method to get at this, the court would most likely agree with the prosecutor,” he asserted.
