With neither the All-Progressive Congress (APC) nor the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) unable to get 25% of votes for the first time since 1999 in the Federal Capital Territory. A lot of questions are being asked. But it’s mostly along the line of the provision of Section 134 of the Constitution which provides.

A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected, were, there being only two candidates for the election he has the majority of votes cast at the election; and he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The place of emphasis lies in the requirement of 25% of votes in the

FCT by parties. Most people have claimed that it is mandatory that parties must get it or while others have claimed otherwise. There are two issues to be considered here, the word “AND” and the use of the word “FCT” in Section 132 (1) (b) of the Constitution.

FIRST, is the word “FEDERAL CAPITAT TERRITORY” a state or special creation by law? The Court in countless decisions have made recourse to Section 229 of the Constitution to state that, FCT IS A STATE in the sight of the law. So, instead of 36 states, 37 states are contemplated by law. That provision expressly received judicial recognition in the case of BAKARI v OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1768) where the court held that:

By virtue of section 299(a), (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As amended), the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as if it were ONE OF THE STATES of the Federation…”

Similarly, the Court of Appeal posited the same in the case of IBORI v OGBORU (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 102 that:

By virtue of section 299 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as if it were ONE OF THE STATES OF the federation. In other words, THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IS TO BE TREATED LIKE A STATE; and it is not superior or inferior to any state in the federation.

It boils down to states that within the compass of constitutional framework, FCT Abuja is regarded as a “State”, also see the Court of Appeal case of OKOYODE v. FCDA (2005) LPELR-41123(CA)/ (2005) 27 WRN 97 page 105 that:

“By virtue of Section 299 of the Constitution of the Federation, the Federal Capital Territory is in law a state. In other words the Federal Capital Territory should be treated as one of the states in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

SECOND issue to be considered the word “AND” as used in that section. The word “AND” to the lay man is mostly used in the conjunctive sense. That is, it is used to join one or more thing together. But in law, it can be used otherwise. In the notorious case of NDOMA-EGBA v. CHUKWUOGOR [2004] 6 NWLR (Pt. 869) 382 it was the position of the court that:

In ordinary usage, the word ‘or’ is disjunctive and the word ‘and’ is conjunctive. However, there are situations which make it necessary to read ‘and’ in place of ‘or’ and vice versa. this may order in CARRY OUT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. Such interpretation may also be quite useful in order to avoid absurd or IMPRACTICABLE RESULTS. Short of such circumstances, the words ‘or’ and ‘and’ being unambiguous words, should be given their ordinary plain meaning notwithstanding the fact that such interpretation will lead to an unreasonable and unfair result.

The words to note here are clear. The use of the word ‘and’ when used literally will mean parties must win the Federal Capital Territory in addition to other states. But then, this is where the “purposive doctrine of interpretation” comes to play.

In interpreting the Constitution, the purpose of that section in conflict must be interpreted with the purpose of the framers of the Constitution in mind. In MARWA v NYAKO (2012) 6 NWLR (Part 1296) 199 the court held that:

While in an ordinary statute the normal rule is that the terms used must be given the meaning they bore at the passing of the statute, a constitution is intended to be permanent and must be interpreted by looking at the past and according to present conditions in order to fulfil the object and true intent of the Constitution.

The purpose of the framers of the constitution would not be that, the nation is given the onerous burden of undergoing another election when 25% of votes is not obtained in the FCT, this is why the FCT is defined as a state. Instead, the aim will be that, being a federating nation, a candidate is required to obtain not just popular votes but states acceptance as well.

Also, the use of the word “AND” there can also be interpreted as “or” when it will lead to IMPRACTICABLE RESULTS” as stated in the NDOMA-EGBA v. CHUKWUOGOR. The logical question to ask is; will it be right to subject Nigerian to the gruesome and burdensome task of going to the polls again, because neither of the top two contending candidates secured 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory? I do not think so

Hence, the law is complete and does not need addition. Our obligation is to go by its dictate whether it favors us or not. As captured in “Dura lex sed lex” a Latin term that means “it is harsh, but it is the law.

_______________________________________________

Oliver Azi is a penultimate Student of Law at the University of Jos with keen interest in legal research, legal writing and speaking. He can be reached at oliverazi20@gmail.com or WhatsApp 07088859703

In this article