The death of a leading
or emerging winner of a gubernatorial election and the mode of its possible
replacement is silent in the Nigeria constitution; the drafters didn’t envisage
this reality, hence the lacuna in the law. Lawyers and political Pundits have
since been let out of the cage and have flood the space with diverse opinions,
though, everyone canvass their opinions with various section of the constitution
which presupposes that the law is not clearly stated for this case. While it
is okay for every stakeholder in this election to canvas for their interest it
is also important that a valid and logical solution is arrived at to proffer
solution to this quagmire. It shall be distasteful to have a decision that is anti-people
and out rightly violate the rule of good conscience and negate democratic
values. Because, when a bad precedent subsist it forever become a bane of
social justice and a clog in the wheel of growth in a developing country like
ours.
While the PDP have
argued that the demise of Late Abubakar Audu may his soul rest in peace automatically means that the APC is out of the race and has asked INEC to
declare their candidate the winner of the election being the runner up for the
result so far declared. INEC has maintained that there will be a supplementary election to conclude
the poll and has asked the APC to provide another candidate through a new
primary, a decision that many have argued as unlawful and has offered a word of
caution to the APC. Mr. Abiodun
Faleke, the running mate to late prince Audu has on the other hand argued and asked
INEC to declare him the winner of the election owing to the fact that he ran on
a joint ticket with his late principal, but his call seems to have met deaf
ears as INEC insist on the supplementary election and some group have call for
his rejection as he is from a minority in the state and that he cannot rule the
Igala dominated state.
Undoubtedly, democracy
is a government of the people ruled by a candidate with the majority and this
is why some groups systematically adopt the concept of power rotation among diverse
interest to forestall undue marginalization of certain interest. When an
uncertain circumstance prevail in a democratic setting that wasn’t envisaged by
the rules, necessity becomes the mother of invention and this must be carried
out in line with existing precedent relating to similar case and shouldn’t be
unjust and biased in any form.
The argument that Mr
Abiodun Faleke should not be declared winner and Governor of the state because
he is not from the region with majority is very illogical to good conscience
and good reasoning. Mr Abiodun Faleke and late Prince Audu may his soul rest in peace ran on a joint ticket and as a deputy he
is expected to fill the shoes of his principal whenever and where he is call to
duty and he is absent; this is what the role of a deputy governor refers. If by
virtue of circumstance the principal passed on untimely, the next thing to
reality that should happen is to allow Faleke to step into the shoes of his
boss as anything short of this is illogical, bias and unjust.
It is still very fresh
in our mind how ex-president Goodluck Jonathan was almost denied the opportunity
of becoming the president after his principal passed on. Thankfully enough, men
and women of good conscience prevailed and the doctrine of necessity was
introduced to save the situation. This is exactly what we should be doing in
this case and not the many efforts being played out to undermine logic and good
will.
As a people, we must
know that a majority in any place is a minority somewhere and we should be
guided by fairness, justice and equity anytime. The concept of democratic
majority is not for dominant tribe to enslave the minority or deny them sense
of belonging. Hence, the many causes for self-agitation. If a Kenyan can rule
America, Mr. Abiodun Faleke can rule Kogi.
I wish to urge all
stakeholders to embrace peace, fight for a united Kogi and do what is considered best for the state at this time. The APC shouldn’t shout change to echo the
force alone but must be seen to be acting it out in its best interest. There is
however no doubt that litigation shall flood the court regardless of what
decision is taken but where illegality was sustained, the courts shall right
the wrongs on the long run.




