Boolean Logic, lacking brackets and the 2023 Nigeria Presidential Election Tribunal
The 2023 Nigeria Election was an incredible event the place a minor candidate with a tiny celebration rode on social media help to getting virtually the identical variety of votes because the ruling celebration and the previous ruling celebration.
The election simply ended, and the vote could be very shut between all events:
- Peter Obi Labour Get together: 6.1 million votes
- Atiku Abubakar PDP Get together: 6.9 million votes
- Bola Tinubu APC Get together: 8.7million votes
The Labour Get together and Peter Obi filed a case on the election tribunal difficult the end result of the election, and there’s a very attention-grabbing provision that rests on the way you interprete the boolean logic of the structure.
Right here is the issue: Nigeria has 36 states and one Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The FCT just isn’t a state just like the others – it’s managed by the federal authorities and acts because the capital. It doesn’t have a Governor, it has a minister that’s appointed by the federal authorities.
There’s a clause within the constitution:
137 (2) (b) A candidate for an election to the workplace of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected the place, there being greater than two candidates for the election he has not lower than one-quarter of the votes forged on the election every of a minimum of two-thirds of all of the States within the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
What precisely does the “and” imply right here? There are two methods of decoding this
- The candidate has 25% of the vote in 2/third of the states, of which the FCT is to be handled as a state.
- The candidate has 25% of the vote in 2/third of the states, and individually, wants to realize 25% of the vote within the FCT as effectively
There has by no means been a scenario prior to now the place a candidate received the favored vote, however didn’t obtain 25% within the FCT. Within the present election, solely Peter Obi achieved the 25% threshold within the capital metropolis, whereas the opposite two candidates, who INEC mentioned had extra votes, didn’t obtain this threshold. So the intepretation of this phrase turns into essential, because it modifications who wins the election.
Some argue that the drafters of the structure wished the FCT to be a particular territory, and because the heart of unity of the nation, presidents ought to present that a minimum of 25% of the residents there need them. Others argue that if that is allowed to carry, then any presidential candidate fashionable sufficient within the FCT can all the time stop different candidates from profitable by merely sweeping all of the votes within the FCT. They are saying that what is supposed is that the FCT ought to be handled the identical as some other state for this objective.
Let’s attempt to describe this programmatically:
Situation one (FCT just isn’t particular)
total_states = 37
states_25_percent_achieved = x
ratio_achieved = states_25_percent_achieved / total_states
if ratio_achieved > (2/3):
eligible_to_win = true
else:
eligible_to_win = false
Situation two (FCT is particular)
total_states = 36
won_25_percent_in_fct = y
states_25_percent_achieved = x
ratio_achieved = states_25_percent_achieved / total_states
if ratio_achieved > (2/3) and won_25_percent_in_fct:
eligible_to_win = true
else:
eligible_to_win = false
However now this introduces a wrinkle. 2/third of 37 states is 24.66 states. 2/third of 36 states is precisely 24. If the primary state of affairs is appropriate, then what precisely does 24.66 states imply? Does it imply the particular person should obtain the edge in 24 states or does it imply 25 states? Some argue that because the 24.66 was not explicitly clarified, it should suggest that the second state of affairs is the right one.
Additionally what precisely does “and” imply within the constitutional part:
“of a minimum of two-thirds of all of the States within the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”
In programming, when you say x and y, then you definitely imply that each x and y should be true. However the place the brackets are positioned matter.
“of a minimum of two-thirds of (all of the States within the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja)”
is totally different from
“of a minimum of (two-thirds of all of the States within the Federation) and (the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja)”
Sadly, the drafters of the structure failed so as to add the brackets, and now the supreme court docket might want to determine the place precisely these brackets belong.