A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Afam Osigwe, speaks with Esther Blankson about election petitions, the illegality of calling for an interim government, and other issues. Those advocating for an interim government argue that it is needed for reform. Osigwe rejects this premise, stating that any reform outside the constitutional framework would amount to a coup. The constitution provides for a change of government through elections, and a winner has already been declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission. While some candidates have taken their grievances to court, using the call for an interim government as justification for constitutional reforms suggests that reforms cannot be achieved within the existing framework—a view he does not share.
He questions what legal basis would govern an interim administration, noting that the constitution would not apply and that such a body could become a supreme law‑making entity, eventually sliding into anarchy. Although many aspects of Nigeria could be improved, Osigwe argues that an interim national government is not the solution, and, as a lawyer, he sees no constitutional justification for it.
Regarding the Department of State Services’ (DSS) press statement pledging loyalty to the President‑elect, Osigwe finds it unprofessional. If there were a genuine plot to overthrow the government, the DSS should act within its statutory powers to arrest the conspirators. Yet, a week after the statement, no arrests have been made, suggesting the claim lacked credible intelligence and that the investigation is not concrete. Consequently, the press release reflects poorly on the agency.
On the root causes of ongoing agitations and calls for secession, Osigwe emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, a sense of belonging for all citizens, and merit‑based access to jobs and political opportunities. When governance is parochial and certain groups feel excluded, discontent grows. Progress, he says, requires addressing bad policies, nepotism, and rewarding merit.
When asked about a series of protests and attempts to obtain a court injunction to block the President‑elect’s inauguration, Osigwe affirms that peaceful protest is a protected right and part of freedom of expression. However, he would be surprised if any court issued an injunction preventing a declared winner from being sworn in. Historically, election winners have been inaugurated while petitions were pending—examples include the elections of 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015. Petitions are resolved through the judicial process, and unless a Supreme Court upholds a removal order, the winner assumes office. The system allows for removal, replacement, or a rerun, ensuring that the state does not grind to a halt.
Addressing concerns raised by the Human Rights Commission about potential threats to the judiciary, Osigwe notes that the courts are overburdened by rights violations during elections and inadequate law‑enforcement responses. While the judiciary’s role is to settle disputes, the politicisation of legal processes has elevated political cases above criminal and commercial matters, harming society. A fair and transparent electoral process would reduce litigation.
Finally, on the suggestion to involve retired judges in tribunals to ease the judges’ workload, Osigwe agrees that increasing the retirement age or appointing more judges could help. However, retired judges remain retired unless the law is amended, so he does not consider the current call justified.
Comments are closed for this story.