THE debate over whether a new president should be inaugurated on May 29, 2023 while the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, PEPT, is yet to rule on the February 25, 2023 presidential election is still raging. Meanwhile, the state pushes aggressively ahead with inauguration preparations.

The presidential running mate of the Labour Party, LP, Senator Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, courted controversy when he asserted that if the inauguration is conducted while the Tribunal has not ruled on the winner of the election, it would be “the end of democracy”.

A legal expert, Aloy Ejimakor, in an article also argues that there is nothing sacred about swearing in a new President on May 29, 2023, as it is not mandated in the Constitution, the electoral law or any other law. 

He opined that nothing stops outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari from remaining in office until his successor is sworn in. However, foremost legal luminary, Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, thinks otherwise. He says it would be “against the law” for the inauguration not to take place.

We assert that though May 29 as our Inauguration Day was a decision made by the military regime that birthed the present constitutional order, the Constitution directs that the President must vacate office after completing his tenure. There is no provision for extension of the president’s tenure after May 29.

It is even dangerous to suggest that a president should hold on to power under any guise when his tenure expires. It could be exploited by rogue presidents and their supporters for their selfish gain and possibly render our democratic order again vulnerable to the antics of adventurists.

We understand the concerns of Nigerians who are wondering what would happen if an election petition succeeds against a newly-sworn in president, with all the powers that will be at his disposal. They wonder if Nigerian judges can be trusted to brave the odds and uphold justice even if it means asking a sitting president to vacate his office because he did not win the election.

For us the answer is simple. Should that happen, the decision of the PEPT must be upheld. 

That a president is sworn into office does not place him above the law and the courts. Swearing in a person pronounced winner of a presidential election by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, does not necessarily mean the electoral process is over.

Under our laws, once an election result is challenged, the process can only be concluded when the final verdict is pronounced by the PEPT. We must tidy this up further by revisiting our laws to ensure that no one is sworn in while an election petition against him is still ongoing. 

The existing shoddy arrangement allows discredited ruling parties to perpetuate themselves in power.

It is anti-people.