Biodun Ajiboye
The Punch Editorial Board’s October 16, 2026 piece on the political participation of chief executives of federal parastatals is much worse than merely flawed. It is an ill-fated, ill-informed overreach. It stands as a textbook instance of journalism trying to dictate legislation with out primary comprehension.
The editorial’s central argument collapses underneath an elementary error in political science: conflating the civil service with the general public service. In primary public administration (Public Administration 101), the civil service is recognised strictly as a subset of the bigger public service framework. It constitutes the everlasting, tenured paperwork inside ministries and operates underneath its personal distinct civil service guidelines. By failing to understand this foundational distinction, the editorial builds its thesis on a essentially flawed premise.
The public service spans a far wider scope than the core civil service, incorporating political appointees, fee heads, and leaders of extra-ministerial departments whose workplaces exist on the president’s pleasure. Federal parastatal chief executives function as political appointees and public servants quite than profession civil servants.
To equate a presidentially appointed director-general, governing underneath a selected statutory Act, with a profession Level 8 civil servant within the Ministry of Works is both profound mental laziness or deliberate mischief. If we’re to just accept Punch’s distorted logic from its, then federal ministers—who’re additionally presidential appointees—should equally be barred from political engagement. Would Punch ever dare to publish an editorial claiming the Minister of Information can’t marketing campaign for his personal authorities? The absolute absurdity of that premise exposes the vacancy of their whole argument.
The basis of this debate isn’t the opinion of Punch. It is Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, which the newspaper conveniently ignored. Section 40 ensures each particular person, together with public officers, the suitable to assemble freely and affiliate with different individuals, together with forming or belonging to any political get together.
This proper isn’t a privilege granted by any media organisation. It is constitutionally assured. Any restriction on that proper should be justifiable underneath Section 45—that means that it should be fairly justifiable in a democratic society within the curiosity of defence, public security, public order, public morality, or public well being. Where is the general public hazard in a director-general mobilising help for the president who appointed him? There is none.
Punch writes as if the Supreme Court has not spoken on this matter. It has, and authoritatively so. In INEC v. Balarabe Musa & 7 Ors (2003) 10 WRN 1, the apex court docket demolished the very argument Punch is now recycling.
Justice Emmanuel Ayoola (JSC) delivered a definitive blow to restrictions on civic freedoms, ruling that barring public and civil servants from political get together membership is completely indefensible in a democratic society. The apex court docket explicitly rejected the argument that public security, order, morality, or well being may justify such a ban, declaring that any try and weaponise Section 45(1)(a) to undermine the basic political rights assured underneath Section 40 of the Constitution is essentially inaccurate.
The Supreme Court explicitly branded it inaccurate, but the newspaper—in a blatant characterisation—upheld it as legislation. In his landmark concurring judgment, the previous Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, dismantled any ambiguity.
He declared that the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution are absolute: each citizen, together with civil servants and public workplace holders, possesses the basic proper to assemble freely and affiliate with any political get together, commerce union, or affiliation to guard their pursuits. Justice Uwais underscored that the structure makes zero exceptions and enforces no restrictions on public officers. Where the best legislation of the land refuses to attract traces, Punch has arbitrarily invented them.
Even the Head of Service round, upon which Punch’s argument implicitly depends, was clarified by the Supreme Court judgment. After her workplace was inundated with requests for clarification on the apex court docket’s ruling, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation issued a memo dated May 5, 2022, trying to implement the 2008 Public Service Rules concerning partisan politics.
That clarification is strictly what the newspaper missed. The Public Service Rules can’t override the structure. Because the principles are merely subsidiary laws, the structure stays supreme. Where the PSR conflicts with Section 40 (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), it turns into void to the extent of that inconsistency. This is the core precept of constitutional supremacy underneath Section 1(3)—one thing paper ought to nicely know.
We are arguing for authorized precision, not anarchy. The legislation attracts a pointy line between the suitable to belong to a political get together and the act of partisan mobilisation on official responsibility. This distinction is anchored in express phrases of appointment, strict codes of conduct, and enabling statutes. It can’t be erased by a blanket editorial lumping everybody right into a single class.
A chief government retains each lawful proper to be a dedicated member, supporter, and mobilizer for the All Progressives Congress (APC), supplied these actions are performed inside authorized boundaries and outdoors official features. The legislation doesn’t demand political neutrality; it calls for structural integrity.
What it strictly forbids is the weaponisation of the workplace—particularly, the diversion of public funds, the exploitation of official hours, and the usage of coercive energy to compromise subordinates. By issuing a sweeping, lazy ban, Punch utterly bypassed this important authorized nuance, mistaking respectable affiliation for institutional abuse.
This editorial is a masterclass in authorized illiteracy and political alarmism. It is a clear try and intimidate appointees legitimately driving the re-election marketing campaign of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Let there be no mistake: momentum is firmly on our aspect, and the opposition is visibly feeling the warmth.
Recent media commentary has drifted into fiction, but our resolve stays unshaken. We will proceed to consolidate our positive aspects and maintain the momentum of our strategic political engagement. Moving ahead, our actions will stay strictly inside the legislation, guided solely by our official mandates and the structure—not by exterior noise.
The legislation is settled and the Supreme Court has cleared the air. All Nigerian staff, whether or not civil or public servants, possess the constitutional proper to take part in politics. No media editorial can rewrite the structure. The Punch is just late to class.
* Otunba Ajiboye is Chairman, Media & Publicity Committee of FORCEPA, and Executive Secretary/CEO, National Institute for Cultural Orientation (NICO)
