Democracy does not thrive on silence, fear, or selective interpretation of the law. It thrives on open debate, constitutional literacy, and respect for judicial authority. Attempts to weaponize civil service rules to suppress dissenting or inconvenient opinions are not acts of patriotism; they are assaults on constitutionalism. The Constitution speaks clearly. The Supreme Court has spoken decisively. Civil service rules are not superior to Nigeria’s Constitution.
At the heart of this debate lies a simple but powerful truth: civil service rules are subordinate to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They are instruments of administration, not instruments of constitutional exclusion.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria laid this issue to rest in the landmark decision of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) v. Balarabe Musa & Ors (2003) 10 WRN 1. In that case, the apex court unequivocally affirmed that civil and public servants are not barred from political association merely by virtue of their employment. The Court held, among other things, that section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which guarantees freedom of assembly and association applies to every person, including civil servants. There is no justifiable basis in a democratic society for prohibiting civil servants from registering with or belonging to political parties. Where provisions of the Civil Service Rules conflict with constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, those rules must give way. Political rights guaranteed by the Constitution are unqualified, except where the Constitution itself expressly provides limitations.
Expressing a political opinion is not the same as partisan misconduct. The Nigerian Constitution does not criminalize thought, opinion, or intellectual commentary. On the contrary, it protects them. More critically, academics occupy a unique constitutional and moral space. Academic freedom recognized globally and implicitly protected under freedoms of expression and association includes the liberty to interrogate public policy, critique governance, and comment on political developments from an informed, scholarly standpoint. To suggest that academics must retreat into silence on political issues is to attack the very soul of scholarship.
It is true that civil service rules impose certain restrictions, particularly around active partisan engagement, misuse of office, or contesting for elective positions without resignation. These are administrative safeguards designed to preserve institutional neutrality—not constitutional gag orders. Indeed, even legal practitioners and labour unions, including the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), consistently rely on INEC v. Balarabe Musa to reaffirm that civil servants retain their political rights as citizens. Where a civil servant intends to contest an election, resignation within the statutory timeframe is required. That requirement, however, does not extinguish the right to political opinion, association, or commentary.
Against this clear constitutional and judicial backdrop, the position advanced by the puppets and proxies of the so-called ‘Honourable Packaging’ called Nigeria First Group that civil servants should not comment on political developments is not only mistaken but legally unsustainable. To argue that a civil servant, or worse still an academic, is prohibited from expressing political opinions is to fundamentally misunderstand both constitutional law and democratic norms.
One would have hoped that your sponsor to raise an empty and ill-conceived complaint have at least completed his Law diploma at the Aminu Kano College of Islamic and Legal Studies, or progressed meaningfully in a law degree programme he has abandoned, would have been sufficiently grounded to advise you that drafting such a petition is an exercise in futility. Rather than advancing any credible argument, it merely exposes deep intellectual shallowness, poor judgment, and a preference for emotional posturing over reasoned analysis.
Truth does not lose its force because it is uncomfortable. And constitutional rights do not evaporate because they are inconvenient to powerful interests. In a constitutional democracy, the law not intimidation, misinformation, or administrative overreach must always prevail.
Abdussalam Muhammad Kani, FCFA
PhD (Economics), M.Sc. (Economics), B.Ed. (Economics), N.C.E. (English/Economics)
Principal Consultant/COE NexGen Consult Solutions Limited