ometimes one cannot stop wondering; when anybody thinks Nigerians are running out of options, there are more to behold. If there was any surprise, certainly not any emanating from the use of language, whether limited by ethnic vocabulary, the use of English or its bus-stop equivalent, the "Pigeon". Nigeria's foremost founding politicians used to be known for their parliamentary diction and eloquence. Nnamdi Azikiwe (Zik) had his style and so did Obafemi Awolowo; however, K.O. Mbadiwe kept professors and students scrambling for imitation. The man of "Timber and caliber" knew exactly how to deal with situations whenever "Come comes to become", never missing the opportunity to maintain his posture as the political "Juggernaut" in substance and creative flamboyancy. Stories are replete with exaggerations how less-educated Onitsha traders used to turn the daily newspapers upside-down while reciting aloud in memory what their revered and learned compatriots Zik and KO said or did not say in contemporary debates. Those days have since passed away with their creators, taking with them the glorious moments in intellectual excellence and erudition. These days members of the National Assembly prefer to express their emotions in fracas, not minding who and who are watching from the gallery or elsewhere. Those who eventually manage to escape in torn robes find the exit in time before the "Howitzer" blows start flying across. The language of fury is certainly confounding, especially when fully engaged in tow with stuffed Ghana-must-go bags, the reward for the "National Moi Moi" food fight.

advertisement

The cloud was just lifting from Abia (Ngwaland) following the previous week-end release from captivity, the four members of the Nigerian Union of Journalists abducted on their way from Akwa-Ibom. While the siege lasted and holding, there seemed to be a temporary drop in the Doppler controlling the sound of politics across the land. "To zone or not to zone" has been the question before the distraction came from those extortionists, Nigeria's terror-gang of opportunists. The mute button did not stay long enough before the noise level assumed a new normal and in time for Ochereome Nnanna to weigh in; in his July 19 Vanguard report, Nnanna was certain nothing was going to come out of the so-called "Northern unity" in support of quota politics; he sounded sure it "Won't stand", reasoning that "regional gang-ups cannot hold against the political ambition of the current occupant of Aso Villa", President Goodluck Jonathan. In a similar bid, the Action Congress (AC) and its spokesman, Chief Lai Mohammed wasted no time in reacting to the call by Ike Ekweremadu, a chieftain of the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP). Chief Ekweremadu would like the amended Constitution to be ratified and adopted, providing for the order of the 2011 presidential election. Specifically, Sections 132 and 178 of the Constitution as amended come into question regarding election time-table. The referenced sections provide for "Elections to be held not earlier than 150 days and not later than 180 days before May 29. 2011." In that regard, the presidential election must in essence be held between December 31, 2010 and February 1, 2011. To that extent, Chief Mohammed could not hold back; he cried foul, regarding "Honorable" Ike's suggestion as a ploy towards rigging the election in favor of the ruling party. According to the AC scribe, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its new Chairman have yet to be fully situated and organized for the election; in addition, the 2007 voters' register must be updated and validated to ensure full access of participation by the electorate. To accord INEC the proper accommodation for the election, Chief Mohammed then insisted the amended Constitution if ratified, must be suspended promptly for a justifiable due cause; to that effect, he called on the National Assembly to apply the "Doctrine of Necessity".

Obviously, Ike Ekweremadu is not Lai Mohammed, and certainly none is Zik, Awo or KO; but the country has never found itself lacking in the use of manufactured expressions. In the era of "Military Democracy", Nigerians learned about the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its "Conditionalities" for which the country was required to implement what was then known as "Structural Adjustment".

That process required the "Junta" government to implement "Austerity" measures. In an attempt to make the jaw-breaker palatable, the popular musician Sir Warrior (Oriental Brothers International) told Nigerians he was embarking on a one-man journey across the country in search of the animal called "Austerity". Nobody seemed to know where to locate such animal; Warrior became frustrated and decided to settle for an identity. He christened "Austerity", Nigeria's motherless child; the one always on the detail gathering fire-wood, fetching water and doing all menial domestic errands. In the end and for all the toil, effort and labor, the child was always fed on left-over, the dreg and clog of the "Bottom-pot".

Chief Lai Mohammed reminded listeners that the National Assembly has had to invoke this doctrine in the most recent past. He recalled the constitutional imperatives relating to former President Umaru Yar'Adua's health, the implications and consequences of being indefinitely absent from duty post by a sitting president without official transfer of power to a duly authorized deputy. The law-makers contrived a resolution, conferring on the country's vice-president the position of Acting President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with all duties and privileges pertaining to the office of President and the Military Command. Thus, Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan was transformed into an Acting President pending the return to active duty of the substantive president. Unfortunately, President Yar'Adua never recovered from his illness and upon his death, Jonathan was sworn in as President.

President Yar'Adua had been away in Saudi Arabia receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness. He left the country without handing over the executive power of the presidency to his deputy, Vice President Jonathan as required by Section 145 of the Nigerian Constitution. The Federal Executive Council (FEC) could not exercise its own constitutional obligation either by declaring the president incapable of remaining in office on the grounds of ill-health. Nigeria and Nigerians found themselves in a political quagmire since no constitutional provision existed, countering Section 145 that would automatically triggering the empowerment of the vice-president to assume the duties of the office of President under the prevailing situation and condition. Thus, after 78 days of the president's continuing absence, the country found itself adrift with no leadership in view and none directly in-charge of the ship of state. Finally, on February 9, 2010, the Senate President, David Mark and the entire National Assembly, placed a resolution on record, conferring on the vice-president the rights and privileges enabling Goodluck Jonathan to become "Acting President". According to David Mark, the National Assembly reached that decision relying on the "Doctrine of Necessity".

In essence, Lai Mohammed is relying on a presumed internal consistency principle in measured equivalency with similar potential in outcome to the extent this same doctrine would remain an effective and efficient palliative to a constitutional embarrassment. The argument is that the Nigerian Constitution has remained so deficient in definitions and articles pertaining thereof to the transfer of power that it had to in essence be suspended in favor of the Doctrine of Necessity. Lai Mohammed is saying that the 2011 presidential election including all major and minor contentious issues leveraged therein, rises to the same burden of concern for which Sections 132 and 178 of the Constitution as amended must be recessed in favor of the old order for the election to hold. Lai's irony of implication is that the amended sections of the same Constitution are supposed to correct the imperfections of the old order. By serving as the bridge between the old and newly improved version, the Doctrine of Necessity would once again constitute a pragmatic corrective alternative to Nigeria's "Crazy" Constitution. What then is the Doctrine of Necessity, another motherless child?

Exactly 2 days after this resolution, February 11, 2010, Festus Eriye discussed the "ABC of Doctrine of Necessity" in the journal, The Nation. In summarizing the issues leading to Nigeria's constitutional crisis, he cited examples from Pakistan and the Caribbean country of Grenada.

At different times, the two countries employed extra-constitutional intervention as a temporary fix to flaws in the framework of political institutions that control government. In furthering the discussion, Festus quoted from Attorney Bamidele Aturu familiar with Nigeria's prior experiences with military coups and forceful takeover of government. According to Bamidele, a military coup that would normally be considered illegal is acknowledged and recognized by the courts and the decrees deriving from the occupying force of the presiding junta are equally upheld on the "grounds of necessity". Invariably, Nigeria in 2010, is leading by its own example, repeating what it started in 1965 with the first coup and follow-up armed events, including the civil war. Is it not ironical that the role models for Nigeria in this regard are Pakistan and Grenada? Finally, Festus provided the answer most people have been waiting for, by recalling the controversial judgment given by the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Judge had quoted the famous British Jurist, Henry de Bracton who described the Doctrine of Necessity as a process by which "That which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity".

Given the imperatives of "Cause & Effect", it becomes rather difficult to find anybody in disagreement with the real import of the Doctrine of Necessity. Thus those imperatives assume "Uniformity of human nature and the predictability of human beings". To fully understand the implications of this doctrine for Nigeria, one might have to dig deeper into the country's history, post October 1, 1960. Unfortunately, that assignment is on reserve for many other capable scholars. There is however no doubt that most Nigerians regardless of their chosen faith, Christian, Moslem or Traditionalists, believe strongly in "Divine Intervention", the "Predestination and Predetermination" prima to faith and religion. It is the "God is in control" and "In-shah Allah" disposition and the contradictions towards self-determination, liberty and necessity.

Here is an example: Cousin Magnus stopped by in his Toyota Corolla vehicle. We had planned to ride together to visit an Aunt living in a nearby village. I looked at the tires and found them extremely worn out, what could pass for bald eagles. I declined the ride. Magnus tried to persuade and convince me, reminding me that "God is always in control", therefore nothing would happen, the condition of those tires notwithstanding. I opted out but with an offer to pay for new tires, choosing instead to reschedule the visit another day certain. This story happened during my last visit to Nigeria in 2005.

The Doctrine of Necessity therefore seems to be anchored on two primary philosophical principles: Fatalism and Predestination or Predetermination. While both principles "assume absolute certainty of all future events", Fatalism is not necessarily the religion of the suicide bomber any more than it is the platform for the pagan unbeliever or the atheist. In the Nigerian context, Fatalism does not equate itself to the absence of personal God, even if one might decide to choose any presumed level of protection and comfort as provided for through voodoo and occultism. Predestination or Predetermination on the other hand negates prayer of hope and anticipation, essentially relying on event-controlled experiences that "come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them." Thus, all such event-controlled situations and circumstances occur by design. In simple terms, Fatalism would be considered the work of the devil while Predestination or Predetermination is ultimately controlled by the Good and Merciful Lord. Both experiences could nevertheless be catastrophic in outcome; the difference is that one is acceptable and traceable to known or predictive source while the other is not.

The confusion then arises from the contradictions that one principle imposes on the other, making it extremely difficult to apply the Doctrine of Necessity uniformly and for the common good consistent with equal protection nuances. Invariably, everything and anything good or bad can be justified by the "Necessity of Cause & Effect". Thus, the kidnappers, the armed robbers, the corrupt politicians, the drug barons, the gang members, name them, stand on the same pavilion.

The police officer at the road-block is free to cite any motorist for any infringement as he the officer deems necessary. He retains the privilege and the liberty to assume the role of the magistrate, condemning his victim, consequently issuing a sentence limited only by the option of fine determined by the arbitrary assessment of the victim's self-worth; refusing to pay that fine on demand, has the chance of turning the victim's unfortunate experience into fatality.

Thus, the choice between Fatalism and Predestination appears to be minimized whenever "Necessity" becomes the controlling factor. Unfortunately Nigeria will always nurture the environment for applying the "Doctrine of Necessity" to the extent mediocrity, greed and selfishness diminish the degree of freedom available for better alternatives.