IVY-Nerd:

Much ado about nothing, the case of dual citizenship and right to run for an office is a forgone conclusion in Nigeria, yet we're beating a dead horse. The appellate court has ruled on this matter, setting a legal precedent that is unlikely to be changed by the Supreme Court except if there is ambiguity in the interpretation. Keep in mind that Supreme court has ruled on a similar issues in the past "The Supreme Court Ruling on Electoral Act 2001 and Dual Citizens/Nigerian Citizens Resident Abroad" Check the following website for detail, http://www.dawodu.com/aluko18.htm

I know some of us are not lawyers, thus, I don't expect us to know the modus operandi of the court. However, we can at least do some research using google or lexisnexis to search for cases relating to the issue in contention. For the record, I don't see Akala or PDP pursuing the case against Ajimobi to the supreme court because it is a loosing proposition. I don't even see Supreme Court taking up the case since the Appeal Court's and Federal Court ruling in 2004 and 2007 was congruent.

For the record, the Court of Appeal decision in the case of "Ogbeide vs. Osula {2004} 12 NWLR PART 886" as pronounced by Justice Adamu, reading the lead judgment, states that:

“WHEREAS a person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest such elections under any circumstances even where Section 65(1) is read with Section 137. A person who is not a citizen of Nigeria can be so registered, but where he is not a citizen of that other country by birth, his registration will be conditioned on the renunciation of his citizenship of that other country. In other words, renunciation of citizenship does not apply to a citizen of this country by birth.

What one can make of that section read with Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution is that a citizen of this country by birth never loses his citizenship even where he holds dual citizenship of another country and cannot be disqualified from contesting elections into the House of Representatives for reasons only that he holds such dual citizenship.”

As such, the Court’s pronouncement and reasoning is clear and logical and cannot be controverted. This Court of Appeal’s decision has been followed by a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in the case of "Professor Odidi & Akeem Bello vs. INEC (Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/28/07)." The applicants, in this case, had challenged the validity of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to disqualify the first two applicants, who were respectively the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the New Democrats Party, from contesting the 2007 presidential elections on the basis that both of them held citizenship of Canada and America (respectively). They stood disqualified from contesting the country’s presidency by virtue of the provision of Section 137(1) (a), of the Constitution. The presiding judge, Justice A.I Chikere quoted with approval the dictum of His Lordship, Adeniji JCA, in the Ogbeide case {supra} that
“A person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest election under any circumstances even where section 65(1) in the present case is read together with Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.”

The judge then directed INEC to register the two applicants to contest the 2007 election. Again, there is no where in the record that says INEC challenge the verdict in Appeal or Supreme Court because its lawyer know better. Hopefully Akala and PDP's lawyer will come to their senses soon. Except the aforementioned parties have too much money to spend on legal fees.

The jurisprudence in other countries and in international courts also follows this line of reasoning. The most recent decision on the matter seems to be the decision of European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tanase and Chirtoaca vs. Moldova, which the court delivered on the April 27, 2010. In that case, the applicants, both Moldovan nationals had challenged a 2008 amendment to the Moldovan Constitution which barred Moldovans who held dual nationality from contesting for parliamentary positions. The Grand Chamber of the Court held that the 2008 amendments were unlawful and disproportionate to any concern of loyalty the country may have. The court ruled that:


“…in a democracy, loyalty to a state did not necessarily mean loyalty to the actual government of that State or to a particular political party. There were other methods available to the Moldovan Government to ensure loyalty of MPs to the nation, such as requiring them to take an oath. Such measures had been adopted by other European countries.”


I don't intend to comment on this issue any longer because it is an effort in futility. I would rather stick with court's interpretation of Nigeria constitution as opposed to listening to "non-learned" opinions, which often the case is prevalent in our society. Adios[color=#006600][/color]

I admire your contributions but you are clearly stretching the application of that ruling by the Court of Appeal. You are putting the wrong construction on the word 'forfeited'as used by the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal by giving it a broader meaning than intended.

There are two ways in which you can forfeit your citizenship under the Constitution of Nigeria. They are by voluntary renuciation as an adult or deprivation by an agent of the Nigerian State like the President. And there is a clear difference between renunciation of citizenship and deprivation of citizenship.

Nobody, including the President can deprive a citizen of Nigeria by birth or even by registration (a woman married to a Nigerian citizen by birth who chooses to register or an adult born abroad whose grandparents were Nigerians by birth after they seek and obtain citizenship by registration). See Section 29 of the Constitution.This arm of forfeiture is covered under the ruling.

But clearly, the Constitution allows any Nigerian of full age to voluntarily renounce his citizenship, if he chooses. The way to renounce one's citizenship is to make a 'declaration in the prescribed manner'. The process is complete if the President çause such declaration to be registered'. Note that there is no duty outlined in the Constitution for the President to publish the declaration or to gazzette as someone suggested.

Now, it is also clear that the embassies of a country are extensions of the office of the President. It also makes sense that one of the basic training diplomats receive is on how help citizens do the 'declaration in the prescribed manner'. For the person who sent $50 to renounce, do not be surprised if someday it comes back to haunt you - if you ever think of going back to Nigeria someday.

So, the idea that you cannot lose your citizenship by birth is a fallacy. The idea that you can renounce your citizenship at any time and pick it up again without any formality, at will, is also not founded on the Constitution of Nigeria. So, voluntary renuncitation as a means of forfeiting one's citizenship is clearly not covered under the Court of Appeal ruling. Even if it is: it would be a wrong ruling that would be overturned by the Supreme Court someday. But it is not.