By Enyeribe Anyanwu
The presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Ahmed BolaTinubu was in the early hours of March 1, 2023 declared the winner of the Nigerian presidential election of February 25, 2023. The declaration sparked widespread controversy and discontent across the length and breadth of the country.
One of the numerous reasons for the controversy and opposition to the INEC’s declaration is the constitutional requirement that a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in 2/3 of the 36 states and the Federal Capital territory, Abuja, in addition to receiving the greatest number of popular votes cast in the election.
Though Tinubu was declared as having scored the highest number of votes cast in the election and also polled at least 25 per cent of the valid votes in 12 states in line with the Constitution, he failed to secure 25 per cent of votes in the FCT.
Specifically, Section 134 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution states: “A candidate for an election to the Office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election: (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) 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.”
Many who fault the INEC’s declaration of the APC candidate as winner insist that Tinubu did not win 25% of votes in Abuja and, therefore, cannot be declared winner of the presidential election.
According to some legal luminaries who have lent their voices to this controversy, the winner of the presidential election must receive 25% of votes in Abuja in addition to winning 12 states of the federation. But to others who are in support of INEC’s declaration, winning Abuja or getting 25% of votes there does not matter. They regard the ‘and’ in the clause as of to no effect. But is that so?
While the constitutional clause may be seen as requiring judicial interpretation, it is equally important to understand the meaning of the conjunction ‘and’ as well as its function in a sentence. This is because no matter how the learned gentlemen would like to interpret the word or the meaning they would want to ascribe to it, the word ‘and’ as a conjunction will remain what it, and will continue to perform its function in a sentence.
As an old English graduate, I have had to delve into my voluminous grammar books and the dictionary to take another look at the conjunction ‘and’. Reassuringly, the word has not changed in meaning and usage, despite the modern day onslaught on the Use of English.
Merriam Webster dictionary defines ‘and’ as a word “used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type”. It goes further to explain that the word is used “to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function”. Still explaining further, the dictionary states that the word is “used as function word to express logical modification, consequence, antithesis, or supplementary explanation”.
And according to the authoritative “English Grammar Composition and Correspondence” by M.A Pink and S.E Thomas, ‘and’ is a co-ordinating conjunction used to connect words or phrases or clauses that are of equal rank, and are, therefore independent of one another. Herein lies the true meaning and function of the English word ‘and’. This presupposes that “two-thirds of the all the states in the federation” and “the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” are phrases of equal rank. Hence the controversial clause can be broken into:
- A candidate for an election to the office of the president shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, being more than two candidates for the election, he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all states in the federation.
- A candidate for an election to the Office of the President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election, he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja.
These two sentences show the power of ‘and’ as a conjunction, as it joins words, phrases and clauses of equal strength. It is very clear that the constitutional clause makes it clear that a presidential candidate must win the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to be declared winner. This, no doubt, is the mind and intent of the framers of the constitutional clause.
That the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is not listed as a state shows its unique status. The use of ‘and’ to join it with other states in the clause underscores this unique status, making it of equal rank with the states. This makes it mandatory for a presidential candidate to win the territory to be declared winner.
Of all the legal luminaries that have analysed the issue, the submission of Emeka Ozoani, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) hits the nail on the head. The senior lawyer insists that for any candidate to be constitutionally declared a winner of a presidential election in Nigeria, he or she must win in Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Apart from his legal interpretation, he draws from the grammatical function of ‘and’ as used in the contentious clause. Said the lawyer:
“The interpretation of ‘and’ is in the issue. We submit that the word, ‘AND’ means ‘Conj’, ‘in addition’, ‘together with’, and ‘plus’. See Webster’s Universal Dictionary and thesaurus, Bedded and Grosset, P. 31. Also, ‘AND’ means, ‘generally, a cumulative sense, requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins together and herein, it is the antithesis of ‘OR’. See Stroud’s judicial dictionary of words and phrases, Seventh edition, VOL. 1, Daniel Greenberg, London Sweet and Maxwell, 2006, P 128.”
All that the SAN has said is in line with the true meaning and function of ‘and’ in a sentence. Anything outside this interpretation is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth –and an endorsement of fraud.