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

Biodun Ajiboye

The Punch Editorial Board’s October 16, 2026 piece on the political participation of chief executives of federal parastatals is far worse than merely flawed. It is an ill-fated, ill-informed overreach. It stands as a textbook example of journalism attempting to dictate law without basic comprehension.

The editorial’s central argument collapses under an elementary error in political science: conflating the civil service with the public service. In basic public administration (Public Administration 101), the civil service is recognised strictly as a subset of the larger public service framework. It constitutes the permanent, tenured bureaucracy within ministries and operates under its own distinct civil service rules. By failing to grasp this foundational distinction, the editorial builds its thesis on a fundamentally flawed premise.

The public service spans a far wider scope than the core civil service, incorporating political appointees, commission heads, and leaders of extra-ministerial departments whose offices exist at the president’s pleasure. Federal parastatal chief executives operate as political appointees and public servants rather than career civil servants.

To equate a presidentially appointed director-general, governing under a specific statutory Act, with a career Level 8 civil servant in the Ministry of Works is either profound intellectual laziness or deliberate mischief. If we are to accept Punch’s distorted logic from its, then federal ministers—who are also presidential appointees—must similarly be barred from political engagement. Would Punch ever dare to publish an editorial claiming the Minister of Information cannot campaign for his own government? The absolute absurdity of that premise exposes the emptiness of their entire argument.

The foundation of this debate is not 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 guarantees every person, including public officers, the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons, including forming or belonging to any political party.

This right is not a privilege granted by any media organisation. It is constitutionally guaranteed. Any restriction on that right must be justifiable under Section 45—meaning that it must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health. Where is the public danger in a director-general mobilising support 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 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 party membership is entirely indefensible in a democratic society. The apex court explicitly rejected the argument that public safety, order, morality, or health could justify such a ban, declaring that any attempt to weaponise Section 45(1)(a) to undermine the fundamental political rights guaranteed under Section 40 of the Constitution is fundamentally erroneous.

The Supreme Court explicitly branded it erroneous, yet the newspaper—in a blatant characterisation—upheld it as law. In his landmark concurring judgment, the former 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: every citizen, including civil servants and public office holders, possesses the fundamental right to assemble freely and associate with any political party, trade union, or association to protect their interests. Justice Uwais underscored that the constitution makes zero exceptions and enforces no restrictions on public officers. Where the highest law of the land refuses to draw lines, Punch has arbitrarily invented them.

Even the Head of Service circular, upon which Punch’s argument implicitly relies, was clarified by the Supreme Court judgment. After her office was inundated with requests for clarification on the apex court’s ruling, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation issued a memo dated May 5, 2022, attempting to enforce the 2008 Public Service Rules regarding partisan politics.

That clarification is exactly what the newspaper missed. The Public Service Rules cannot override the constitution. Because the rules are merely subsidiary legislation, the constitution remains supreme. Where the PSR conflicts with Section 40 (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), it becomes void to the extent of that inconsistency. This is the core principle of constitutional supremacy under Section 1(3)—something paper should well know.

We are arguing for legal precision, not anarchy. The law draws a sharp line between the right to belong to a political party and the act of partisan mobilisation on official duty. This distinction is anchored in explicit terms of appointment, strict codes of conduct, and enabling statutes. It cannot be erased by a blanket editorial lumping everyone into a single category.

A chief executive retains every lawful right to be a committed member, supporter, and mobilizer for the All Progressives Congress (APC), provided these activities are conducted within legal boundaries and outside official functions. The law does not demand political neutrality; it demands structural integrity.

What it strictly forbids is the weaponisation of the office—specifically, the diversion of public funds, the exploitation of official hours, and the use of coercive power to compromise subordinates. By issuing a sweeping, lazy ban, Punch completely bypassed this crucial legal nuance, mistaking legitimate association for institutional abuse.

This editorial is a masterclass in legal illiteracy and political alarmism. It is a transparent attempt to intimidate appointees legitimately driving the re-election campaign of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Let there be no mistake: momentum is firmly on our side, and the opposition is visibly feeling the heat.

Recent media commentary has drifted into fiction, yet our resolve remains unshaken. We will continue to consolidate our gains and sustain the momentum of our strategic political engagement. Moving forward, our actions will remain strictly within the law, guided exclusively by our official mandates and the constitution—not by outside noise.

The law is settled and the Supreme Court has cleared the air. All Nigerian workers, whether civil or public servants, possess the constitutional right to participate in politics. No media editorial can rewrite the constitution. The Punch is simply late to class.

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