Senior Advocate of Nigeria Yemi Candide‑Johnson spoke with Tunde Ajaaja about the recent power‑devolution bills signed into law by President Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), the elections, the surge in election petitions and their impact on the judiciary, among other issues.
About two weeks ago the President signed the power‑devolution bills, which now allow states to legislate and control prisons, railways, power and other sectors. Many Nigerians have long awaited such reforms, yet public excitement has been muted. Some amendments are fundamental—devolving authority over prisons, power, judicial independence and state assemblies—while others, such as renaming local governments, seem less relevant. Nonetheless, devolution represents a critical constitutional change that could reorganise a flawed document to serve the nation’s best interests. By bringing decision‑making closer to the people, devolution can enhance accountability and enable regions to manage their affairs more efficiently and effectively.
Candide‑Johnson noted that he has struggled for two weeks to obtain a copy of the amendment. The first public notice was a newspaper announcement, and he finds it troubling that such a significant constitutional change remains virtually secret. Even officials in government could not provide the text. Greater public awareness, he argues, would yield beneficial outcomes. While the amendments are now law, discussion has been scarce at all levels except Lagos, where Governor Babajide Sanwo‑Olu has already unveiled the state’s electricity policy. Once a constitutional amendment is signed, it takes effect immediately, allowing states to act on their new powers. Lagos, for example, has launched a power initiative, and other states such as Kaduna and Oyo may follow suit. The real test will be whether states can translate these powers into optimal performance, rather than relying solely on federal ministers.
Regarding the constitution itself, Candide‑Johnson acknowledged its dubious origins—drafted in secrecy by a military regime—and the view that a fresh constitution might be preferable. He stressed that a constitution is a political and social contract; if the people accept it, its historical creation becomes less relevant. While a completely new charter would better reflect diverse interests, drafting one is a monumental task. He believes that targeted amendments at key points are a more efficient use of political capital than attempting a wholesale rewrite. The priority, he suggests, is for the President to unite and inspire a diverse nation, fostering peace and progress by demonstrating that government belongs to all citizens, including those who did not vote for him. This requires strict enforcement of the law, accountability of ministers, and a commitment to the rule of law.
On the recent naira crisis, Candide‑Johnson criticized the Supreme Court’s intervention in a currency case, describing the policy as political, futile and damaging to the economy. He argued that the Supreme Court’s order should have been respected, noting that the failure of the Attorney General and the Central Bank governor to comply reflects a lapse in presidential oversight. He maintained that the appropriate forum for the dispute was the Federal High Court, but the Supreme Court asserted original jurisdiction to avoid procedural delays. Once the Supreme Court claims jurisdiction, it becomes the final arbiter, and its credibility hinges on adherence to its rulings. He warned that courts must consider the enforceability of their orders, lest they appear powerless and erode public confidence.
Turning to the elections, Candide‑Johnson emphasized that contests for political power inevitably generate intense emotions and accusations of fraud. He accepts that allegations of voter suppression, rigging and violence exist, but insists that only provable evidence should be considered. Election petitions provide a legal avenue to test such claims, and courts are the proper venue for dissecting facts. He likened the situation to the United States’ 2020 election disputes, where the legal question was whether alleged irregularities affected the outcome. In his view, the recent election largely complied with the Electoral Act and reflected the voters’ will.
He observed that the governorship race exposed ethnic and religious tensions, noting that politics in Nigeria often aligns with primordial identities rather than ideology. While politicians may exploit these divisions for convenience, the law prohibits organising political identity on ethnic or religious grounds. Nonetheless, “dog‑whistling” persists. Candide‑Johnson urged educated citizens to rise above such sentiments and engage across communal lines, stressing that personal needs—such as access to water—should outweigh tribal considerations.
Regarding INEC, he argued that the body must accept responsibility for electoral outcomes, even though corruption and incompetence among staff are inevitable. Substantial compliance with the law, rather than perfection, should be the benchmark. Security agencies also share blame for irregularities; both competence and capacity issues exist, compounded by chronic underfunding and understaffing. He highlighted the importance of police authority and public respect for the law, citing examples from the United Kingdom and Rwanda where a visible, respected police presence deters misconduct. In Nigeria, however, elite impunity undermines confidence in the legal system.
Candide‑Johnson contended that combating impunity requires making examples of untouchable figures—former governors, judges or lawyers—so that respect for the law can grow incrementally. He noted that even long‑standing democracies like the United States and European nations continue to grapple with electoral and civil‑rights challenges, yet Nigerians should take pride in their progress and strive for further improvement.
He addressed the perception that “going to court” is a convenient way to settle disputes, affirming that litigation is an appropriate response when confidence in other mechanisms is lacking. Nonetheless, public trust in the judiciary is low, especially concerning high‑profile election cases that appear perverse or politically motivated. Strengthening the courts’ independence, impartiality and efficiency is essential to restore confidence and ensure that judicial decisions are seen as fair and just.
Finally, Candide‑Johnson reflected on the Supreme Court’s recent statement defending its judgments against criticism. He deemed the response self‑inflicted, arguing that judges must anticipate public reaction and communicate decisions clearly, while respecting freedom of speech. Citing Lord Denning, he maintained that criticism of judicial rulings should not be suppressed; judges’ conduct, not defensive statements, should vindicate their authority. The Supreme Court’s foray into political rhetoric, he warned, was a serious lapse in judgment.
Comments are closed for this story.