“School Certificate or its Equivalent”
The news that the gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the just-concluded gubernatorial elections in Osun State, Senator Isiyaka Adeleke, sat for (or passed) only English language in the Secondary School leaving examinations conducted by the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) in May/June 1981, if true, seems to have been accepted by even informed opinion, as satisfying the eligibility requirements for that office under the 1999 Constitution. Those provisions (Section 177(d)) seem straight-forward enough. They simply state that “a person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State, if he has been educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent”.
The question, in my view, is how these provisions should be interpreted. Do they mean that mere certification by WAEC or any other relevant body, such as the National Examinations Council – NECO, that a person sat for a school leaving examination (as was done, in the case of the distinguished Senator, by WAEC) suffices? Or, more realistically, do they mean, at least impliedly, that such a candidate must have attained the minimum acceptable standards for having successfully completed that course of study? In other words, that he or she has attained a pass? Would such an interpretation be tantamount to amending the Constitution unconstitutionally? We shall attempt a few answers.
General Overview The educational requirements for contesting elective offices under the 1999 Constitution are virtually the same. In other words, the provisions of Section 177(d) thereof applicable to Governorship elections, are identical with those of:
- Section 106(c) applicable to State Houses of Assembly;
- Section 131(d) applicable to Presidential Elections; and
- Section 65(1)&(2)(a) applicable to elections into the National Assembly, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives.
In each case, the minimum requirement is that the candidate must be “educated up to at least school certificate level”. Now, there are at least two school levels in Nigeria – primary or elementary school, and secondary school. Everyone seems to have accepted the latter, i.e., secondary school certificate, is what these provisions contemplate, but is that the true position of the law? I am personally unaware, of any judicial interpretation of any of the aforesaid provisions.
But, if they are to be interpreted liberally (as all constitutional provisions are required to be: NAFIU RABIU v THE STATE (1981) 2 NCLR 293), then nothing stops a primary school certificate from sufficing. Does it? This leads us to, the question of the intention behind those provisions of the Constitution. It is settled that, this is the paramount consideration in any constitutional interpretation. It is also clear that, that intention is to be deduced from the words used: IFEZUE v MBADUGHA (1984) NSCC 314.
Why ‘School Certificate’ Level? It can safely be assumed that, the purpose of this stipulation is to ensure that the candidates (and therefore, the eventual winner of the contest) possesses a certain level – the barest minimum, presumably – of education. The reason for this, is pretty obvious: so that he or she can cope with the demands of the office (if not the age), and thus, be equipped to perform. This is how it should be, of course, as a stark illiterate, functional illiterate or a semi-literate person, would clearly be a misfit and an embarrassment to everyone including him/herself. Hence, the framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, conferred on the National Assembly (vide Section 4(2) and Item 60(e) of the Exclusive Legislative List) the power to “establish and regulate authorities for the Federation or any part thereof to prescribe minimum standards of education at all levels”. In pursuance of this power, the National Assembly enacted (or is deemed to have enacted) the National Examinations Council (NECO) Act, the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) Act, the National Universities Commission Act, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) Act, etc.
Each of these laws was enacted specifically for setting minimum standards to be attained, inter alia, for admission into higher institutions. The object is to ensure that products of our education sector, are relevant to the society and to themselves. This objective is consistent with the Preamble to the 1999 Constitution which provides, inter alia, that the purpose of the Constitution is the promotion of “good government”. Needless to say, this laudable goal cannot be achieved if outright failures, such as those that scored F9 in all subjects in their school leaving examinations, are permitted to seek elective office. Surely, this cannot be the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
So, what is the proper construction of Section 177(d), et al?
Apart from the intention of the Constitution-framers, the Apex Court has, over the years, laid down other markers for interpreting the Constitution. Chief among these, are that the Constitution should be interpreted as a whole, in that related provisions should be construed together. See TUKUR v GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 20 NSCC Pt. III, page 225 @ 273. Others are that, a constitutional provision should not be construed, so as to defeat its evident purpose, and that the principles upon which the Constitution was established, rather than the direct operation or literal meaning of the words used, measure the purpose and scope of its operations. See ATT-GEN. OF BENDEL STATE v ATT-GEN. OF THE FED. (1982) 3 NCLR pg. 1 @ 132. This latter principle, is an admonition against being unduly taken in by the ipssisima verba of any constitutional provision, and harks back to the Preamble to the Constitution earlier referenced, which espouses good governance.
All this recalls, in my view, the ut res magis valeat quam pereat principle of constitutional interpretation. This rule prescribes that “where a provision is capable of two interpretations, the construction which will bring about an effective result, should be adopted, rather than one which will lead to absurdity or futility”. See KALU v ODILI (1992) 5 NWLR pt. 210 pg. 130 @ 196. In other words, a constitutional interpreter is enjoined to construe a provision to save it, and should by interpretation, avoid making nonsense of the Constitution, so as not to defeat its manifest intention: OBOMHENSE v ERHAHON (1993) 7 NWLR pt. 303 pg. 22 @ 43
In relation to the constitutional requirement that a candidate for elective office be “educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent”, I humbly posit that, it can be interpreted in two ways: firstly, that once the candidate produces evidence (such as a Certificate) that he/she graduated from a school, it suffices, and it is irrelevant whether he/she sat for an examination, or, if he/she did, regardless of his or her grades therein. Alternatively, that mere production of such evidence is not enough, and the grades scored by such candidate in any examination pursuant to which that certificate was issued, are more important. Simply put, the candidate must have successfully passed through school.
I humbly posit that, the latter view is preferable, as that is the essence of the aforesaid constitutional provisions, which empower the National Assembly to prescribe minimum standards of education at all levels. I submit that, accepting the former view would be absurd, as it would imply that, as previously argued, even a complete failure - in terms of his school grades - can nonetheless be elected as a member of a State House of Assembly, House of Representatives, Governor, or even the President. This is contrary to all known norms and international best practices, and cannot possibly be the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
The foregoing is not a matter of surmise or conjecture, as the Preamble to the Constitution puts it beyond peradventure, that it seeks to promote good governance, as aforesaid. Accordingly, the choice is obvious. The candidate’s grades must count. This interpretation is more consistent with common sense, and it avoids making nonsense of the said provisions, as opposed to the literal and direct construction which will clearly lead to absurdity and defeat the manifest intention of the Constitution.
Conclusion As our practice of constitutional democracy evolves, we should be ever- so-vigilant, to ensure that we make the right choices. We should be keen to avoid making calls, which might seem expedient, if not easy. By all means, we must resist the temptation to adopt the lowest common denominator in selecting our leaders, especially those chosen through the ballot, as it is said that, a people deserve the leaders that they get.
Our elected officials, are a reflection of our collective values and aspirations. Accordingly, we must ensure that only our very best get our mandate, in every election cycle. We should elect leaders who are credible, inspirational, courageous, patriotic and, above all, knowledgeable. Anything less, will be catastrophic. Who can forget a Governor during the ill-fated Second Republic, who, when questioned about the mineral resources produced by his State, promptly named the products of a popular soft-drink manufacturer - without batting an eyelid?
“WE SHOULD ELECT LEADERS WHO ARE CREDIBLE, INSPIRATIONAL, COURAGEOUS, PATRIOTIC AND, ABOVE ALL, KNOWLEDGEABLE.... WHO CAN FORGET A GOVERNOR DURING THE ILL-FATED SECOND REPUBLIC, WHO, WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE MINERAL RESOURCES PRODUCED BY HIS STATE, PROMPTLY NAMED THE PRODUCTS OF A POPULAR SOFT-DRINK MANUFACTURER - WITHOUT BATTING AN EYELID?