WAEC SSCE - Government - 1993 (Essay)

Detalhes da Resposta

Equality Before the Law under the Rule of Law: Theory and Practice

One of the main principles of the Rule of Law, as expounded by A.V. Dicey, is equality before the law. This means that all persons, whether rich or poor, high or low, ruler or ruled, are subject to the same law and the same courts, and that no one is above the law. In theory, everyone should receive equal treatment and equal protection.

However, in practice this equality is not always true, for the following reasons:

1. Immunity of certain officials: Heads of state, governors and diplomats enjoy legal immunity from prosecution while in office, so they cannot be treated the same as ordinary citizens.
2. Influence of wealth: The rich can hire the best lawyers, meet bail conditions and pay fines, while the poor may be convicted or remain in detention simply because they cannot afford good defence.
3. Corruption in the justice system: Bribery of police, prosecutors and even judges means that justice may go to the highest bidder rather than to the deserving.
4. Special courts and privileges: Certain groups such as the military and public officers are sometimes tried under special laws or tribunals, not the ordinary courts.
5. Discrimination: Prejudice based on class, religion, ethnicity, sex or political affiliation may lead to unequal treatment of citizens.
6. Ignorance and illiteracy: Many poor and illiterate citizens do not know their rights and cannot enforce them, unlike the educated and powerful.
7. Delay in the administration of justice: Congested courts and slow procedures work against the weak, while the powerful can manipulate or speed up the process.

Conclusion: Although the Rule of Law proclaims that all men are equal before the law, factors such as official immunity, wealth, corruption, discrimination and ignorance make this equality more of an ideal than a reality in practice. The principle nevertheless remains an important standard which governments should strive to attain.

Detalhes da Resposta

Confederal Features of the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U)

A confederation is a loose union of independent, sovereign states which come together for common purposes but retain their sovereignty and can withdraw at will. The O.A.U (established in 1963) resembled a confederal arrangement in the following ways:

1. Retention of sovereignty by members: Each member state remained fully independent and sovereign; the O.A.U had no power to override the internal authority of any member.
2. Voluntary membership and right of withdrawal: States joined freely and could withdraw from the organisation whenever they wished, as in a confederation.
3. Equality of member states: All members, large or small, were treated as equals and each had one vote in the Assembly of Heads of State.
4. Weak central authority: The O.A.U had no strong central government that could impose its will on members; its decisions and resolutions were largely recommendations.
5. Non-interference in internal affairs: The Charter upheld respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state and non-interference in their internal affairs, a hallmark of confederations.
6. Decisions by consensus/agreement: Major decisions depended on the agreement and cooperation of member states rather than on binding central legislation.
7. No common army, currency or citizenship: Each state kept its own armed forces, currency and citizenship, and there was no central taxation of citizens.
8. Reliance on member contributions: The organisation depended on the voluntary financial contributions of members, which they could withhold.

(Any relevant points are acceptable.)

Detalhes da Resposta

Comparison of British Indirect Rule and French Assimilation

Both were colonial policies of administration in West Africa, but they differed sharply in aim and method.

Similarities: Both were designed to serve the interests of the colonial power, both exploited the colonies economically, and both ultimately kept political control in the hands of the Europeans. Assimilation later proved too costly and was modified into the policy of Association.

Detalhes da Resposta

Ways Traditional Rulers Controlled Their Subjects in Pre-Colonial West Africa

Before colonial rule, kings, chiefs and elders maintained order and controlled their subjects through the following means:

1. Use of religion and belief in the gods: Rulers were often regarded as divine or as intermediaries between the people and the gods and ancestors. Fear of the gods and of ancestral punishment made subjects obedient.
2. Enactment and enforcement of laws: The ruler and his council made laws and customs which the people were expected to obey, and breaches were punished.
3. Administration of justice: Traditional rulers settled disputes and tried offenders in their courts, imposing fines, banishment or other penalties to enforce order.
4. Control of land: As custodians of communal land, rulers allocated land to subjects, giving them economic power and control over the people.
5. Use of force and the army: Rulers maintained warriors, palace guards and age-grades who could be used to enforce decisions, defend the community and punish rebels.
6. Use of secret societies and cults: Institutions such as the Ogboni, Oro and masquerade cults enforced decisions and instilled fear and obedience.
7. Taxation and tribute: Rulers collected taxes, tributes and levies, and the obligation to pay reinforced their authority over subjects.
8. Reward and title system: The power to confer titles, chieftaincies and honours secured the loyalty and cooperation of prominent subjects.
9. Council of chiefs and elders: The ruler governed with a council whose members helped to transmit decisions to, and control, the various sections of the community.

(Any relevant points are acceptable.)

Detalhes da Resposta

(a) Legal Sovereignty and Political Sovereignty distinguished

In short, the legal sovereign makes the law, but the political sovereign (the electorate/public opinion) controls the legal sovereign.

(b) Factors that Limit the Sovereignty of a Government

1. The constitution: A written and rigid constitution places limits on what government can lawfully do.
2. Public opinion: Government must respect the wishes and feelings of the people to remain in power.
3. International law and treaties: Obligations to other states and to bodies such as the UN, AU and ECOWAS restrict a government's freedom of action.
4. Fundamental human rights: Guaranteed rights of citizens set limits on the exercise of governmental power.
5. Separation of powers and checks and balances: The division of power among the arms of government limits the powers of each.
6. Pressure groups and political parties: Organised interests influence and restrain government decisions.
7. Economic dependence: Reliance on foreign aid, loans and investment limits the independence of government policy.
8. Judicial review: The power of the courts to declare acts of government unconstitutional restrains it.

(Any relevant factors are acceptable.)

Detalhes da Resposta

The Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP), 1923

The NNDP was founded in 1923 by Herbert Macaulay, and is regarded as the first genuine political party in Nigeria. It was formed to take advantage of the elective principle introduced by the Clifford Constitution of 1922, which allowed the election of a few Africans into the Legislative Council for Lagos and Calabar.

(a) Objectives of the NNDP

1. To contest and win the elective seats provided by the Clifford Constitution for Lagos and Calabar.
2. To promote the political education and awareness of Nigerians and encourage participation in government.
3. To press for greater African representation in the Legislative Council and in the running of the country.
4. To secure the welfare and interests of the people, and to work for eventual self-government within the British Empire.
5. To promote the development of commerce, education and municipal (local) government in Lagos.
6. To defend the rights of Nigerians and provide leadership against colonial excesses.

(b) Achievements of the NNDP

1. It won all the three elective seats for Lagos in the 1923, 1928 and 1933 elections, dominating Lagos politics for over a decade.
2. It became the first organised political party in Nigeria and set the pattern for later party politics.
3. It awakened political consciousness and mobilised Nigerians to participate in the political process.
4. It provided effective opposition to and criticism of colonial policies in the Legislative Council.
5. It established the Lagos Daily News, which it used to educate the public and propagate its views.
6. It contributed to the growth of nationalism and trained many Nigerians in the art of politics.

(Any relevant points are acceptable.)

Detalhes da Resposta

How a Naturalised Citizen May Forfeit Acquired Citizenship

A naturalised citizen is one who was not a citizen by birth but acquired citizenship after fulfilling the laid-down legal conditions. Because such citizenship is acquired rather than natural, it can be lost or forfeited in the following ways:

1. Voluntary renunciation: the citizen may, of his own free will, formally renounce or give up his acquired citizenship, usually in order to take up the citizenship of another country.
2. Imprisonment within the qualifying period: if the citizen is sentenced to imprisonment for about three years within seven years of his naturalisation, his citizenship may be withdrawn.
3. Fraud or false declaration: where the certificate of naturalisation was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or a false declaration, or where the citizen breaches the terms of the citizenship agreement, it can be revoked.
4. Espionage or subversive activities: a citizen who engages in espionage, subversion or other acts that undermine the sovereignty and security of the state may lose his citizenship.
5. Treasonable felony: a citizen found guilty of treason or a treasonable felony against the country may forfeit his citizenship.
6. Disloyalty to the new country: where the citizen shows disloyalty, or trades with or aids an enemy country, especially in time of war, his citizenship may be withdrawn.
7. Retention of former citizenship: in a country that does not permit dual citizenship, a person who fails to renounce the citizenship of his original country may lose the acquired one.

Detalhes da Resposta

Ways the Executive May Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary

The independence of the judiciary means that judges should decide cases freely, without fear or favour. However, the executive arm can undermine this independence in the following ways:

1. Appointment of judges: Where the executive appoints judges, it may appoint only loyalists or party sympathisers who will favour the government in their judgements.
2. Control over promotion and transfer: The executive can use promotion, transfer or posting to reward compliant judges and punish or frustrate independent-minded ones.
3. Control of judicial finance: By controlling the budget and salaries of the judiciary, the executive can starve the courts of funds and make judges financially dependent and vulnerable to pressure.
4. Removal or threat of removal: The power to discipline, suspend or remove judges can be abused to intimidate them into giving favourable decisions.
5. Refusal to enforce court judgements: Since the executive controls the police and coercive machinery, it may refuse to obey or enforce judgements that go against it, thereby weakening the courts.
6. Use of executive orders, decrees and ouster clauses: The executive may issue decrees or laws with ouster clauses that remove certain matters from the jurisdiction of the courts.
7. Intimidation and harassment: Judges may be threatened, arrested, detained or their homes invaded by security agents to force them to decide cases in the government's favour.
8. Prerogative of mercy: By pardoning offenders convicted by the courts, the executive can nullify the decisions of the judiciary.

To protect judicial independence, judges' salaries should be charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, their tenure and conditions of service guaranteed, and appointments made through a Judicial Service Commission.

Detalhes da Resposta

Effects of the 1964 General Elections on Political Developments in Nigeria

The federal elections of December 1964 were the first to be conducted by Nigerians after independence, and they had far-reaching effects on the political life of the country:

1. Deepened political rivalry and polarisation: The contest between the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA) and the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) sharpened regional, ethnic and party divisions in the country.
2. Widespread malpractice and violence: The elections were marked by rigging, intimidation, thuggery and irregularities, which discredited the electoral process and democracy.
3. Election boycott and constitutional crisis: UPGA boycotted the elections in some areas, and President Nnamdi Azikiwe initially hesitated to call on Prime Minister Balewa to form a government, creating a serious constitutional crisis.
4. Loss of public confidence in government: The manipulation of the elections destroyed the people's faith in the ability of politicians to conduct free and fair elections.
5. Crisis in the Western Region: It contributed to the disputed Western Region election of 1965 and the breakdown of law and order known as "Operation Wetie".
6. Paved the way for military intervention: The disorder, violence and loss of confidence created the atmosphere that led directly to the first military coup of January 1966 and the collapse of the First Republic.

Conclusion: The 1964 elections weakened democratic institutions, exposed the dangers of ethnic and regional politics, and set the stage for the military takeover that ended the First Republic.

Detalhes da Resposta

Measures to Make Public Corporations More Efficient

Public corporations are government-owned business organisations set up to provide essential services. Many suffer from inefficiency, and the following measures can improve their performance:

1. Appointment of qualified and experienced managers: Board members and managers should be appointed on merit and competence rather than on political or ethnic grounds.
2. Adequate and prudent funding: The corporations should be well financed and their funds properly managed and accounted for to avoid waste and shortage of working capital.
3. Reduction of political interference: Government should allow the corporations reasonable autonomy in day-to-day management and appointments so that decisions are guided by business considerations.
4. Regular auditing and accountability: Their accounts should be regularly audited and managers held accountable to check corruption, fraud and mismanagement.
5. Motivation of workers: Staff should be well trained, adequately paid and rewarded for good performance to boost productivity and morale.
6. Commercialisation or partial privatisation: Some corporations can be commercialised or partly privatised so that they operate on sound business principles and become profit-conscious.
7. Provision of modern equipment and technology: They should be equipped with up-to-date machinery and technology to improve the quality and quantity of their services.
8. Effective supervision and control: There should be adequate supervision by the supervising ministry and periodic review of performance without stifling autonomy.

(Any relevant measures are acceptable.)