A Misguided Narrative: The Dangerous Implications Of Punch’s Editorial

By Otunba Biodun Ajiboye

The Punch Editorial Board’s October 16, 2026 piece on the political involvement of presidents of federal parastatals is far even worse than simply flawed. It is an unfortunate, ill-informed overreach. It stands as a book example of journalism trying to determine law without standard understanding.

The editorial’s main argument collapses under a primary mistake in government: conflating the civil service with the general public service. In standard public administration (Public Administration 101), the civil service is acknowledged strictly as a subset of the bigger civil service structure. It makes up the long-term, tenured administration within Ministries and runs under its own unique civil service guidelines. By stopping working to understand this fundamental difference, the editorial constructs its thesis on an essentially flawed property.

The general public service covers a far broader scope than the core civil service, integrating political appointees, commission heads, and leaders of extra-ministerial departments whose workplaces exist at the president’s satisfaction. Federal parastatal president run as political appointees and public servants instead of profession civil servants.

To relate a presidentially designated Director-General, governing under a particular statutory Act, with a profession Level 8 civil servant in the Ministry of Works is either extensive intellectual laziness or intentional mischief. If we are to accept Punch’s distorted reasoning from its, then federal ministers– who are likewise governmental appointees– should likewise be disallowed from political engagement. Would Punch ever attempt to release an editorial declaring the Minister of Information can not project for his own federal government? The outright absurdity of that facility exposes the vacuum of their whole argument.

The structure of this argument is not the viewpoint of Punch. It is Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as modified, which the paper easily overlooked. Area 40 warranties everyone, consisting of public officers, the right to put together easily and relate to other individuals, consisting of forming or coming from any political celebration.

This right is not an advantage given by any media organisation. It is constitutionally ensured. Any limitation on that right need to be understandable under Section 45– suggesting that it needs to be fairly understandable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public security, public order, public morality, or public health. Where is the general public threat in a Director-General mobilising assistance for the president who selected him? There is none.

Punch composes as if the Supreme Court has actually not spoken on this matter. It has, and authoritatively so. In INEC v. Balarabe Musa & & 7 Ors (2003) 10 WRN 1, the peak court destroyed the extremely argument Punch is now recycling.

Justice Emmanuel Ayoola, JSC, provided a conclusive blow to constraints on civic liberties, ruling that disallowing public and civil servants from political celebration subscription is totally indefensible in a democratic society. The peak court clearly turned down the argument that public security, order, morality, or health might validate such a restriction, stating that any effort to weaponise Section 45( 1 )(a) to weaken the essential political rights ensured under Section 40 of the Constitution is basically incorrect.

The Supreme Court clearly branded it incorrect, yet the paper– in an outright characterisation– maintained it as law. In his landmark concurring judgment, the previous Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, took apart any uncertainty.

He stated that the arrangements of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution are outright: every person, consisting of civil servants and public workplace holders, has the basic right to put together easily and connect with any political celebration, trade union, or association to secure their interests. Justice Uwais highlighted that the constitution makes absolutely no exceptions and implements no constraints on public officers. Where the greatest unwritten law declines to draw lines, Punch has actually arbitrarily created them.

Even the Head of Service circular, upon which Punch’s argument implicitly relies, was clarified by the Supreme Court judgment. After her workplace was swamped with ask for information on the peak court’s judgment, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation released a memo dated May 5, 2022, trying to implement the 2008 Public Service Rules concerning partisan politics.

That explanation is precisely what the paper missed out on. The General Public Service Rules can not bypass the Constitution. Due to the fact that the Rules are simply subsidiary legislation, the Constitution stays supreme. Where the PSR disputes with Section 40 (as translated by the Supreme Court), it ends up being void to the level of that disparity. This is the core concept of constitutional supremacy under Section 1( 3 )– something paper must popular.

We are arguing for legal accuracy, not anarchy. The law draws a sharp line in between the right to come from a political celebration and the act of partisan mobilisation on main task. This difference is anchored in specific regards to visit, rigorous standard procedures, and making it possible for statutes. It can not be removed by a blanket editorial lumping everybody into a single classification.

A Chief Executive maintains every legal right to be a dedicated member, advocate, and mobilizer for the APC, supplied these activities are carried out within legal limits and outdoors main functions. The law does not require political neutrality; it requires structural stability.

What it strictly prohibits is the weaponisation of the workplace– particularly, the diversion of public funds, the exploitation of main hours, and using coercive power to jeopardize subordinates. By releasing a sweeping, lazy restriction, Punch totally bypassed this essential legal subtlety, misinterpreting genuine association for institutional abuse.

This editorial is a masterclass in legal illiteracy and political alarmism. It is a transparent effort to frighten appointees legally driving the re-election project of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Let there be no error: momentum is securely on our side, and the opposition is noticeably feeling the heat.

Current media commentary has actually wandered into fiction, yet our willpower stays unshaken. We will continue to combine our gains and sustain the momentum of our tactical political engagement. Moving on, our actions will stay strictly within the law, assisted solely by our main requireds and the Constitution– not by outdoors sound.

The law is settled and the Supreme Court has actually clarified. All Nigerian employees, whether civil or public servants, have the constitutional right to take part in politics. No media editorial can reword the Constitution. The Punch is just late to class.

• Ajiboye is Chairman, Media & & Publicity Committee, of FORCEPA, and Executive Secretary/CEO, National Institute for Cultural Orientation (NICO).