RESOLVING THE FACE-OFF BETWEEN DR PAUL JOHN AND DR KENENNA OBIATUEGWU

The latest in the debate over universal suffrage in the general elections of the central national body of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) appears to be the recent brawl between the Royal Healhpilot host Mr Paul John and the Abuja-based Urologist Mr Kenenna Obiatuegwu. Mr Obiatuegwu is in Court to obtain an Order of Court that would enable him vote in the NMA National Elections. He contends in effect that an insignificant 37 doctors only have hijacked the national elections of the NMA with a membership of over 80,000 doctors under the guise of delegates voting said to be contained in the NMA Constitution. Like most politically active NMA members including the author of this article and all the candidates for the office of President of NMA in the just concluded elections, Mr Obiatuegwu advocates for one doctor one vote in NMA General Elections.

Now, while that case was still pending in Court, the NMA has gone ahead to conduct the disputed elections without Obiatuegwu in the voting. Worse still to Obiatuegwu, the election was virtually conducted as against the physical voting process contained in the NMA Constitution. Obiatuegwu therefore ran back to Court to declare the election void for being virtual and for being hijacked by an insignificant few who select rather than elect NMA National Officers.

On the other hand, Mr Paul John walloped Mr Obiatuegwu for a number of reasons. Mr Paul seeks NMA punishment of Mr Obiatuegwu for going to Court in the first place without first arguing his case at the delegates meeting of the NMA and exhausting all the domestic processes of resolving pure association issues in NMA. Mr Paul contends that the so-called delegates meeting of the 37 few is valid given the fact that the best democracy of the whole world, the USA, uses delegates voting process. Mr Paul further contends that virtual Annual General Conference and Delegates Meeting and NMA elections are permitted under the Constitution of NMA in so far that the NMA Constitution did not prohibit the method.

Let me start with my discontent with Mr Paul's position. First, there is no association that can validly stop any of its members from seeking judicial remedy for a palpable grievance either by the threat of use of threat or the actual use of threat. This is even more true when the association in question conscripts all its membership by the operation of the law. The NMA is not a secret cult and as such cannot therefore run away from the operations of the provisions of the laws of Nigeria. In fact, without the provisions of the law making the membership of NMA compulsory, Mr Obiatuegwu and many other members of NMA would have left NMA long ago to form a better association. The compulsory nature of the membership of NMA presupposes that all the members must be afforded equal opportunities to participate directly in all the activities of the association ranging from universal suffrage to the participation at the general meetings of NMA. The NMA is therefore not at liberty to operate a skewed Constitution.

Second, it appears Mr Paul is not quite in tune with the clear provisions of the current NMA Constitution. The NMA Constitution prohibits all NMA members who are not amongst the few self-acclaimed Delegates from participating in the general meetings of the association where the amendment of the NMA Constitution is carried out and where the National Officers of NMA are elected. In other words, NMA elections and meetings are held in a coven by a group of doctors who call themselves delegates without any formal selection.

It is unfortunate that the advocates of delegates voting system do not even know the meaning of delegates voting. Neither the NMA National Constitution nor NMA State Branch Constitutions (Bylaws) provide the process of selection of delegates for the National Elections. In fact, none of the Constitutions provide for the primary elections that would determine the number of delegates and who the delegates should be. The State Branch Constitutions did not also empower the Branch Chairmen to be delegates in NMA elections. In fact, the State Branch Constitutions clearly stated the functions of the Branch Chairmen and none of those functions relate to voting at the National Elections. It therefore beats all imaginations how state Branch Chairmen have arrogated so much powers to themselves and assumed functions and powers not allocated to them by any rules in the NMA. What is more! These Branch Chairmen cast votes on behalf of all the Branch Members without a prior primary elections in the state to determine the wills and aspirations of the members as it relates to the candidates of their choice. The so-called Delegates Meetings Covens of the NMA simply turns out to be a meeting by self-acclaimed delegates with no mandate from the people they claim to represent either by meetings of the association, voting at a primary election or clear provisions of NMA Branch Constitutions. This secret meeting where Mr Obiatuegwu is clearly excluded and prohibited from participating is where Mr Paul asserts that Mr Obiatuegwu should bring his case to for amicable association resolution.

On Mr Paul's assertion that just because the NMA Constitution did not prohibit virtual voting, that it allowed same by necessary implication, I must react that Mr Paul misconstrued the law as currently practised in Nigeria, and every other part of the world. The position of the law is that anything not provided for is prohibited. It is also the law that those things expressly stated excludes those not stated. The legality of the virtual voting is not in the non-prohibition of it by the NMA Constitution. By virtue of the NMA Constitution, virtual or electronic elections are not allowed. However, the powers granted the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) eroded this illegality. The Constitution of NMA empowered the ADM to depart from the Constitution if supported by 2/3rds votes. Once this procedure is followed (unfortunately it appears that it was not followed) the ADM could validly resort to virtual electronic voting. This position of the author of this article is without prejudice to the legality of an ADM being organized in virtual mode before the issue of an election following suit comes up for discussion. The illegality of the just concluded elections is thus not on the virtual mode of the election but on the illegality of the self-acclaimed delegates who were not selected or endorsed by those they purport to represent at the Delegates Meeting. Neither the Rules of the State Branches nor their Congresses selected the self-acclaimed delegates for the purpose of that Elections, nor did the Delegates actually cast their votes at the Elections. The Returning Officer for the Election failed to follow the clear provisions of the Constitution of NMA and thus conducted a futile Election. Having said all these, I shall now conclude.

Mr Obiatuegwu sued NMA and his grouse is impeccable. The only problem with his suit is that it is smitten with lots of technical infirmities. The Court will definitely decide those technicalities issues ranging from the parties to the suit and the issue of preaction notice. It is true that his grouse appears to be purely association issues. Purely association issues are caught up in the web of the association Constitution which should be the real focus of any suit to strike the constitution and its bad operators down.

Fredrick Ikenna Awkadigwe
awkadigweikenna@gmail.com
08039555380