One of the irrefutable laws in life is that humans have origins. No matter how distant and clumsy the trace may be, we are all citizens of at least one country.
Citizenship can be defined as the status of being a citizen in a sovereign state. In Nigeria, Section 25-28 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended (hereinafter referred as CRFN 1999) extensively provides for three classes of citizenship. These are: citizenship by Birth, Registration, and by Naturalization.
On the issue of dual citizenship, S.28(1) CFRN 1999 provides that: Subject to the other provisions of this section, a person shall forfeit forthwith his Nigerian citizenship if, not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship or nationality of a country, other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth.
Furthermore, S.66 subsection(1)(a)CFRN 1999 states that: No person shall be qualified for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives if: (a) subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria or, except in such cases as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, has made a declaration of allegiance to such a country.
Speaking in the same vein, this provision also echoes the similar position for prospective candidates into the position of a President, Governor, and the House of Assembly as seen in S.137, S.182 and S.107 of the CFRN 1999.
Now, the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution raise questions such as: is S.28 contrary to the provision of S.66(1)(a), does that mean an individual that possesses dual citizenship cannot seek an elective post in Nigeria?
These questions were judiciously proffered answers to in the Court of Appeal case of Dr Willie Ogebide v. Mr. Arigbe Osula.
Before giving the ratio decidendi (reason for judgment) of the Court, there is a need to comment on the phrase subject to as used in that provision of the Constitution. It’s a trite and well-settled principle of judicial interpretation that whenever the phrase “subject to” is used in a statute, the intention and legal effect is to make the provisions of the section inferior, or limited and restricted in application to the section to which they are made subject to. In other words, the provision of the latter section shall govern, control, and prevail over the provision of the section made subject to it. It renders the provision of the subject section subservient liable subordinate and inferior to the provisions of the other enactment. See the case of Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592.
In this present case, it means S.66(1)(a) S.137(1); S.182(1), and S.107(1) are subjected to S.28. It’s not really about the numbers durgggg😀.
Based on this background, the Court of Appeal per Onnoghen JCA (as he then was) stated unequivocally that: ‘it is clear and I hereby hold that the acquisition of dual citizenship by a Nigerian per se is not a ground for disqualification for election to the National Assembly particularly where the Nigerian citizen is a citizen by birth. That is the clear meaning of the provisions in sections 66(1) and 28 of the 1999 constitution when taken together. The only Nigerian citizen disqualified by the said sections is one who is a citizen of Nigeria by either registration or naturalization who subsequently acquires the citizenship of another country in addition to his Nigerian citizenship…’
Putting it in a prospective, if Charlie is a Nigerian by birth and goes ahead to acquire the citizenship of another country, making it a dual citizenship, he cannot be barred from contesting in an elective office. However, if a Ghanian man comes to Nigeria and becomes a Nigerian through Naturalization after fulfilling the requirements, then proceeded to acquire the citizenship of another country, such a person will not be allowed to contest.
From a keen observation, we could see that the court that gave this erudite pronouncement was the Court of Appeal. Could such a decision be changed by the Supreme Court? After all, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the power to set aside any other courts’ decision. The answer is no. The reason being that by virtue of S.246(3) CFRN 1999, the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect to appeals arising from the National and State Houses of Assembly election petitions are final. See the cases of: Onuaguluchi v Ndu [2001] 7 NWLR (pt.712) 309; Awuse v Odilli [2013] 18 NWLR (pt.851) 116, Abubakar & Anon v Usman v Ors [2017] LPELR-SC. 167/2016
Please click on the like button. Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 