Constitutional Riot or Constitutional Rot?
Lawal Maruf
Many, but not all people believe that constitutional crisis arises as result of heated dispute about the best interpretation of the law or the constitution, or when political opponents are making a wrong interpretation of the constitution.
In his article “Constitutional Hardball”, Mark V. Tushnet, an American scholar who specialised in Constitutional Law and Theory, argued that people who engage in hardball tactics deliberately violate old norms in order to create a new ones and gain political advantages, which in most cases sparks outrage and leads to reprisals in politics.
There can only be an instance of constitutional crisis if the constitution has failed in its central task – “to keep disagreement within the boundaries of ordinary politics rather than breaking down into anarchy, violence or war”. However, in AFAS’ case, it is not the case of constitutional crisis but a constitutional rot. It is, therefore, a phenomenon that plays out when politician disregard norms of fair political competition and undermine public trust by using constitutional hardball to rig the system in their favour and keep themselves or their allies in power.
To every discerning Afasites who witnessed the political events in the last session, the political landscape within AFAS enjoyed relative peace and a healthy relationship between the executive and the legislative cabinets. Although there arose some issues between the executive and the legislative, but they were able to weather the storm without raising a false alarm. However, No sooner that the electoral activities to elect the new crop of leaders and subsequently after the election than the political atmosphere began to form a new shape.
From the nearly disqualification of Mojuba on manifesto day by AFASIEC – he flouted election rule two times – to the disqualification of Hon Yeboah Daniel from contesting as the FLC speaker due to the clear antics of Mojuba to plant him as the speaker of the faculty legislative council and his inability to meet the requirement – CGPA and AFAS dues, AFASites kept their fingers crossed and watched as the event unwrap itself.
Undoubtedly, these events foreground the episodes of political drama that would grace the faces of Afasites in the subsequent time.
The emergence of Mojuba as AFAS president alongside the eventual emergence of Rt. Hon Miqdad as FLC speaker was enough to sound a brumbeat of things to expect in AFAS. Although after the emergence of Hon Miqdad, both pledged to shelve their personal interests and “work hand in hand in line with the constitution to ensure the association move forward “. However, at the present moment, the survival of the pledge is being put to test, if not to rest.
Even though the storm surrounding the AFAS constitution had subsided, it was one of the remote causes of the previous situation – Constitutional Crisis. In turn, it was further fuelled by the long silence and non-clarification of the last parliamentary session in deciding on which particular constitution guides the affairs of AFASites.
During one of the sittings of the last parliamentary session – February 23rd, 2024, former speaker Rt Hon Alagufon, said that “On the issue of the constitution at this point, we are yet to get a clear statement from the appropriate quarters. The two constitutions are still in the legal unit.” In a bid to remedy the confusion and get a proper clarification, he alongside the former AFAS president, Olaniyi Esther went to the Staff Adviser but “his response was that the status quo should remain” and they should ensure smooth running of AFAS affairs.
Moving forward, it is worth noting that both constitution were in operation until after the recent AFAS election. Amongst the provisions of the “new constitution” that was effected were nomination of individuals for electoral committee by departmental presidents, subject to the ratification of the FLC and the provision of a new office – Welfare Director. Also, the recent AFAS election was conducted according to the “new constitution” even though the committee was inaugurated according to the “old constitution”. And, in the last parliamentary session, there was no co-opted members from the executive council in the FLC, all which attested to the fact that the “new constitution” was partly effective.
While there is nothing like a judicial arm in AFAS which could serve as a final arbiter whenever the need arises, the onus lies on the FLC as a quasi-judicial arm to strike down any decision that is not compatible with the codified constitution. Though, with the consultation with the Faculty management. FLC as an administrative and a quasi-judicial body should know that aside from holding sittings, they are to ascertain certain facts, weigh evidence, make conclusions from the facts, and reach a binding decision.
Since we are in a democratic setting, where the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers strictly operate, it will amount to an aberration if the executive council continues to meddle unnecessarily into the affairs of the FLC. As this will lead to anything but slowly moving towards an authoritarian setting.
Also, Article 24, SECTION A & B stipulate the conditions for a bill to be passed into law and amendment. Members of the FLC should as a matter or urgency pass any bill that will protect the interests of general AFASites and make amendments that will enhance the smooth running of the association.
