AFTER JAIL TERM WHAT FUTURE FOR FAROUK LAWAN?

th 56 1 jpeg

AFTER JAIL TERM WHAT NEXT FOR FAROUK LAWAN?
Former House of Representatives member, Farouk Lawan, was released from prison on Tuesday after serving five years for bribery. Upon his release, he declared this the “beginning of a new chapter” in his life. But what could this new chapter hold for the once-influential figure in Nigerian politics?
Lawan, who represented Bagwai/Shanono Federal Constituency of Kano State from 1999 to 2015, reached his pinnacle of national prominence as the chairman of the ad hoc House committee investigating the 2012 subsidy fraud during President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration.
Before this, Lawan was widely respected for his strong anti-corruption stance, earning him the nickname “Mr. Integrity.” He played a central role in a major leadership crisis in the House, leading a faction known as the Integrity Group, which facilitated the removal of the first female Speaker, Patricia Etteh, and the election of Dimeji Bankole, the youngest Speaker in Nigeria’s history.
However, Lawan’s political ascent was short-lived. In 2012, he was caught in a bribery scandal. And after years of legal battles, he was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to seven years in prison for requesting and receiving a $500,000 bribe from businessman, Femi Otedola, to remove the latter’s company from a list of firms implicated in the subsidy fraud. The Court of Appeal later reduced the sentence to five years, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023.
With his release, speculation has grown over Lawan’s political future, especially as rumours of his potential defection from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) started gaining grounds even before he left the custodial centre.
Legal implications for Lawan’s future
Hameed Jimoh, an Abuja-based legal practitioner, explained that the Nigerian Constitution provides guidelines on the eligibility of ex-convicts for elective office. Section 137(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) disqualifies individuals who have been convicted and under “imprisonment or fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) or for any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal or substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on him by such a court or tribunal.”
However, exceptions exist. If an ex-convict is granted a pardon by a competent authority, such as the president or a governor, or if the crime is considered a political offence, the individual may still run for office.
Jimoh noted that Lawan, who was sentenced to five years, would only qualify to contest if he receives an official pardon. However, the bribery conviction complicates matters, as Section 137(1)(e) specifically disqualifies anyone convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, regardless of the sentence length.
“Bribery is classified as a crime involving dishonesty, so Lawan remains disqualified from holding an elective office without a pardon,” Jimoh said.
Are political appointments a possibility?
While Lawan may be barred from running for office, political appointments present a different scenario. Another legal expert, who requested anonymity, explained that the Nigerian Constitution does not explicitly prohibit ex-convicts from being appointed to political offices. However, the appointing authority must weigh public sentiment and ethical considerations before making such a decision.
“In Lawan’s case, his bribery conviction may cause public and ethical concerns, which could complicate his potential appointment,” the legal expert noted.
Beyond the legal aspects, there is the question of public perception. Though Lawan may have the legal right to pursue appointments, his conviction for bribery could tarnish his reputation, making it difficult for him to regain public trust.
Jimoh urged caution regarding Lawan’s potential reintegration into political life.
“His conviction is a serious matter, and it sends the wrong message if he quickly returns to the political scene. Any reintegration must be handled carefully to avoid undermining public confidence in the fight against corruption,” he said.
As Lawan begins this “new chapter,” the road ahead is fraught with challenges. Legally, his conviction bars him from contesting elections unless he receives a pardon. Even if he seeks a political appointment, his conviction may be a significant obstacle. Moreover, rebuilding his public image after a high-profile bribery scandal will not be easy.
Analysts believe that in the short term, Lawan may take time to realign and reflect on his next steps. Whether he seeks a pardon or attempts to re-enter public service through appointments, the coming months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of his post-prison life.
Ultimately, while Lawan’s release may mark the start of a new chapter, his political future remains uncertain. Any return to the spotlight will require careful navigation of both legal hurdles.

  • Dons Eze

    DONS EZE, PhD, Political Philosopher and Journalist of over four decades standing, worked in several newspaper houses across the country, and rose to the positions of Editor and General Manager. A UNESCO Fellow in Journalism, Dr. Dons Eze, a prolific writer and author of many books, attended several courses on Journalism and Communication in both Nigeria and overseas, including a Postgraduate Course on Journalism at Warsaw, Poland; Strategic Communication and Practical Communication Approach at RIPA International, London, the United Kingdom, among others.

    Related Posts

    NO MERGER DEAL WITH PDP, NNPP – PETER OBI

    NO MERGER DEAL WITH PDP, NNPP – PETER OBI The Labour Party (LP) 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has dismissed reaching a merger deal with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) or any other party. Peter Obi made this known on Thursday morning during a press conference in Abuja on the state of the nation, stating that no agreement has been established with other parties. The former Governor of Anambra State called on all lovers of Nigeria in the political space to unite in 2027 and defeat the All Progressives Congress (APC), which he accused of mismanaging the country’s resources. According to him, the level of corruption in Nigeria remained high, including the cost of governance, which has led to an astronomical increase in public debt under the current administration of President Bola Tinubu of the APC. Peter Obi maintained that government officials willfully mismanaged public funds in 2024 through incessant foreign travels. Speaking further, Peter Obi frowned at the insecurity situation in the country, stating that it is unfortunate that Nigerians are dying needlessly due to banditry, terrorism, and kidnapping-for-ransom. Meanwhile, the NNPP 2023 presidential candidate, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, has dismissed the purported report of reaching an agreement with the opposition presidential candidate of PDP, Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi, to share power by alternating terms. Kwankwa , in an interview with the BBC, expressed anger over the lies. He stressed that he was unaware of such a claim but had heard reports that Atiku’s camp had been meeting with regional leaders, including clerics, to propagate the narrative. The former governor of Kano State also explained that he had found peace since leaving the PDP for the NNPP and distanced himself from the power-sharing agreement.

    DEFECTION: WHY EXECUTIVE OFFICE HOLDER CANNOT LOSE SEAT

    DEFECTION: WHY EXECUTIVE OFFICE-HOLDER CANNOT LOSE SEAT While interpreting Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution relating to prohibition of political activities by certain associations, the apex Court rightly held in Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Part 1080) 227, 317-318 that: “The above provision effectually removes the possibility of independent candidacy in our elections; and places emphasis and responsibility in elections on political parties. Without a political party a candidate cannot contest. The primary method of contest for elective offices is therefore between the parties. If, as provided in section 221 above, it is only a party that canvasses for votes. A good or bad candidate may enhance or diminish the prospect of his party in winning, but at the end of the day, it is the party that wins or loses an election. I think that the failure of the respondents’ counsel to appreciate the overriding importance of the political party rather than the candidate has made them lose sight of the fact that whereas candidates may change in an election but the party do not. In mundane or colloquial terms, we may say that a candidate has won an election in a particular constituency but in reality and in consonance with section 221 of the Constitution it is his party that has won the election.” This judicial standpoint of the Supreme Court was followed in the later decision of Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Part 1543) 61, thereby re-affirming that without a political party, a candidate cannot contest in an election; and where a candidate has won an election in a particular constituency, in consonance with Section 221 of the Constitution, it is his party that won the election. However, a calm perusal of the foregoing decisions pointedly shows that the apex Court were not interpreting any of the provisions of Sections 131, 137, 177 and 182 of the 1999 Constitution or considering the issues of disqualification of an elected executive office holder for the purposes of his removal from office or whether an elected executive office holder can lose or vacate his office by leaving the party that sponsored him at the election. The inapplicability of judicial authorities to mutually distinct and unrelated instances have been noted by the Court and in Adegoke Motors Limited v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 5 SC 113 at 166 the Supreme Court per Oputa, JSC held that: “….It also appeared in rather bold relief that there is now a tendency among our lawyers, to consider pronouncements ….in unnecessary isolation from the facts and surrounding circumstances of those particular cases in which those pronouncements were made. I think it ought to be obvious by now, that it is the facts and circumstances of any given case that frame the issue for decision in that particular case. Pronouncements or our Justices whether they are ratio decidendi or obiter dicta must therefore be inextricably and intimately related to the facts of the given case. Citing those pronouncements without relating them to the facts that induced them will be citing them out of their proper context, for without known facts, it is impossible to know the law on those facts…” Similar judicial attitude was expressed in the case of Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Part 1177) 265, 286 E-F, where the apex Court per Adekeye, JSC held that: “Cases are not to be cited at large. The facts of the case must be similar, whereas generally speaking cases are decided on their peculiar circumstances or facts. Citing cases that are inapplicable to the peculiar findings in a particular matter lead to grave misconception and ultimately miscarriage of justice. Embarking upon the exercise of comparing and distinguishing an irrelevant case amounts to an unproductive academic exercise –…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    YAR’ADUA REJECTED DANGOTE’S BID TO RUN NIGERIA’S REFINERIES – OBASANJO

    TINUBU’S GOVT LACKS IDEAS, DYNAMISM, TURNING INTO A MONARCHY – USMAN BUGAJE

    OBASANJO DOUBTS CAPACITY OF NNPC RUNNING GOVT-OWNED REFINERIES

    ENUGU HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY GETS NEW CLERK

    INFLATION: ORGANISED LABOUR PUSHES FOR MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IN 2025

    NO MERGER DEAL WITH PDP, NNPP – PETER OBI