The word “Consequences” means the effect or end result of a thing. It also means the positive or adverse effect of a thing or the other. The word “change” means the alteration of the conditions of a thing from an earlier position to a new position. The word “change” also means the act of moving something from an original position to a new one.
The word “government” on the other hand means the totality of devices, instrument or mechanism adopted in managing the government of a nation or a state. “Government” in political or administrative parlance means a group of human beings who are legally or constitutionally vested with power in running the affairs of a government.
The phrase “extra-legal” means something outside the use of law or something beyond the legal order.
On the other hand “extra-constitutional” means something outside the use of a constitution or a device contrary or inconsistent to provision of a constitution.
The phrase “Could d’état is a French terminology which means a sudden, illegal and violent takeover of a nation. Such an incident of a coup d’état is often perpetuated or brought about either by a military junta or revolutionary group.
Therefore, the topic “consequences if change of govt by extra-legal or extra-constitutional means” is about an unlawful approach or an illegal approach or an unconstitutional approach to take over the govt of a country.
The federal republic of Nigeria has often been described as the giant if Africa and a force to reckon with in West Africa and in the common wealth. Nigeria started its nationhood in 1914 after amalgamation by Lord Luggard. Between 1914 and 1960, Nigeria was running certain number of colonial constitution. This included the Luggard constitution of 1914, the Clifford constitution of 1922, Richards of 1946, MacPherson of 1951, Lyttleton of 1954 and finally Nigeria became an independent state in 1960 under the 1960 independence constitution. In between 1960 and 1966, there were political crises in Nigeria and this brought about the first military intervention of 15th Jan 1966. This led to 13years of military intervention in the first instance in politics of Nigeria. Eventually, the first republic came up in 1979 under the Shehu Shagari regime. After that, there were military interventions again in 1975, 1976, 1983, 1985 and 1993.
In the circumstances of this lecture, the crucial question we want to ask is this, can the military intervene again in the politics of Nigeria? If it does happen, what will be the reactions of Nigerians and those of the international community? These are our hypothesis that we need the intervention of scholars and research in our studies.
The backbone or the gravamen of this study is that we as students of this university looking practically at what are these things that can prevent the unjustifiable or unlawful intervention of military in Nigeria politics.
Our justification of this enquiry lies in the fact that Nigeria is a signatory to the Unites Nations convention on democracy and democratization and therefore there is no room for any military intervention in Nigeria. It is good to say that Nigeria gas signed the convention on democracy and democratization. Hence, military intervention in politics is a taboo in Nigeria. However, what will happen if a wicked civilian govt is put in place that continues to oppress the people, increase their poverty life, and embellish corruption and stealing of public funds with relics without enough power in the people to correct them? The answer to this question may subjective or objective. It is subjective because of the following reasons:
This question can also be answered objectively in the following manners:
If as we have noted, a wicked civilian govt is in place which continues to oppress the people, shall the people continue to allow it forever? The answer to this is *NO* because sovereignty belongs to the people according to section 14(29) it holds that “from whom the govt derives all it powers and authority “. Hence, such a govt can be dismissed illegally and violently irrespective of any law or provisions of the constitution against coup d’état.
However, there is a counter argument to this position: that a bad Civilian govt need not to be dismissed through a coup d’état. Such a govt can be dismissed through a free, fair electoral process but our observation in this lecture that there have been incidences of wicked civilian govt whose leaders never allowed a free, fair election to take place in order to dismiss them. When that happens, what should people do? Here, people will have no option than to take laws into their hands to dismiss such govt, illegally or violently. Examples of such govt are: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Sanni Abacha of Nigeria, Muhammad Gaddafi of Libya, P. Mochett of Chad Republic.