Interrogating Legality Of Political Agreement
By Enideneze Etete – Granted, politics is a game driven by strategies. Thus, politicians deploy all sorts of shrewd strategies and tactics, including entering into agreements for personal and clique interests, while projecting public interest on the surface. Such agreements are either done surreptitiously in the form of voodoo oath; written and signed contract, or in parol (oral).
In which ever form, political agreements, may or may not bind on the parties involved, and it might be difficult to get legal remedy in court, for reasons advanced hereafter.
After all, as politics is a game of wits, and as political agreement is like a gentleman understanding, especially when the terms negate constitutional provisions, public policy and public interest, a party in the agreement could renege after signing.
Politicians are Machiavellian. They know Machiavelli’s extreme political ideas or naturally apply them in the game. Niccolo Machiavelli said, a leader (politician) should act both like a lion and a fox to recognize traps and enemies.
His words in The Prince: “The lion cannot protect itself himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves, one must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves”.
Breach an agreement before the other party breaches it, because if the other party does so first, it would affect you, Machiavelli extremely opined.
Thus, politicians could enter into an agreement, and breach one or more unpalatable terms or the entire agreement, knowing also that it might not be easy for the aggrieved to get remedy in court, if the terms are against public interest.
Sometimes, the terms of the agreement might be so illegal that the aggrieved may not even have the moral courage or clean hands to go to court, except applying a political solution, often in the form of sanctions or cutting off ties with the disloyal person.
Though I am not a lawyer, undergraduate and postgraduate law of contract, in business law, a compulsory course in business administration, exposed me to the elementary aspects of a valid and justiciable contract.
I draw on the little knowledge of it, besides my smattering knowledge from core principles of political science/public administration postgraduate stuff to interrogate the issue of political agreements vis-a-vis public interest and legality.
Lawyers will surely know better, and should feel free to contribute to this article, in the comments section.
In this law of tort, I was taught by law lecturers that a contract is an agreement between two or more parties; a consensus ad idem: a meeting of two or more minds, a written covenant that is signed, sealed and delivered, even though oral agreements with witnesses could also hold some water.
And that one party offers to do something in return for something, and the other party accepts the offer.
The parties must have legal capacity: be of statutorily required age, have a stable mental state to enter into the agreement, and have right over what is being covenanted about.
Fulfillment of the terms, especially the major ones must not be too great for the party accepting the offer; what is been agreed upon or the obligations must not negatively affect existing laws, public policy and public interest, or the rights of other persons.
There must be legal relationship between the parties, speculating that a breach could occur and lead to legal dispute. The legal consequences of violating the terms and how to get relief must therefore be clearly stipulated, including when the terms could be seen to have been discharged (performed) within agreed time, when and how the contract could be formally or naturally ended.
These elements, which indeed determine the validity or invalidity of a contract, purportedly exist in political agreements between aspirants, candidates, parties, godfathers and godsons.
Thus, political agreements seem to have legitimacy, even if it protects personal or clique interest but without trading off public office, public resources, or negating existing laws of the land.
But the genuineness of such political agreements, terms and how to fulfill them, is usually suspect. This is because selfish motives are uppermost, not the professed common good as usually cited by some politicians and their cheerleaders.
To execute the terms in political agreement, say, for giving a party ticket to someone, and or backing the person to win general election, it could be difficult for the beneficiary to meet the terms without sacrificing public wealth and positions in public offices, to please the benefactor.
And this is where, the illegality of contracting for a political or public office in return for agreed benefits to the benefactor, at the expense of extant laws and the common good, comes to my mind. Just as the aggrieved party might not have clean hands to go to equity in a credible legal system.
Perspectives from Enideneze Etete titled Interrogating Legality Of Political Agreement
