INTRODUCTION

The rule of law is the notion that the powers of state and government can be exercised
legitimately according to laid down procedures. Thus, the legitimacy of all organs of state and its
institutions must have roots in the law. Furthermore, as administrative lawyers in common law
jurisdictions would say: the exercise of any power of state or government must be traceable to
applicable written law and procedure. In this regard, every public office-bearer and official is
accountable for every act done that the law does not authorise. The rule of law is therefore
intended to safeguard against arbitrary and capricious governance and abuse of power and
enforce limitations on the power of the state and all its institutions of government. The hallmarks
of respect for the rule of law include separation of powers of the executive, the legislature and
the judiciary; regular free and fair elections in which the electorate is asked to choose their rulers
freely; an independent and impartial judiciary, coupled with an independent, fearless and vibrant
legal profession. Free and independent media institutions and equality of the people before the
law are equally important features of the rule of law. The rule of law is extremely important
because it is the bedrock on which democracy and democratic practices are anchored. Our
business in this paper therefore is to interrogate the interplay between the rule of law and
national interest.

RULE OF LAW IN AFRICA

The rule of law in Africa provides a general context of Africa's challenges. Charles Fombad, a
Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, provides a detailed analysis of the meaning of the
concept of the rule of law. He points out that there is no generally agreed meaning of the
concept of the rule of law because of its broad nature. Nevertheless, Fombad indicates that
there is now general recognition that it is a critical bulwark against insecurity, poverty,
capricious and arbitrary government and entails the observance of good laws that demand, at a
minimum, good governance accountability and the protection of human rights. Drawing from
published surveys on the rule of law, Fombad demonstrates that there has been a steady decline
in the state of the rule of law in Africa for nearly two decades. This is of concern especially
considering that even in countries that had recorded significant gains as far as the rule of law is
concerned, there has been a steady decline, while some countries have consistently scored poorly
over the years. Fombad recommends the enhancement of mechanisms for monitoring compliance

1
and enforcement. He suggests that this should be done within the existing legal framework of the
African Union (AU), such as the African Union Commission, the Peace and Security Council,
and the African Peer Review Mechanism.

The rule of law is the bedrock on which democracy and democratic practices are supposed to be
anchored. Although democracy in one form or another is well established through the regular
holding of multiparty elections in sub-Saharan Africa, there are many signs of creeping
authoritarianism. This is so not only in countries with a good record on democracy, such as
Botswana and South Africa, but also in those countries that have used democracy as a charade
behind which to dissimulate their despotism, such as Cameroon and Zimbabwe. Frimpong and
Agyeman-Budu use the Ghanaian experience from independence to date as a case study for
democracy and the rule of law. Their article takes us on a journey through the various phases of
the rule of law and democracy situation in Ghana, from independence in 1957, through the
period of military regimes to date. The article exposes two problems facing the rule of law and
democracy in contemporary Ghana: the security of tenure of judges and the appointment of
members of parliament as ministers of state. The authors illustrate how the reasoning by the
judges of the Supreme Court in the presidential election petition challenging the election of John
Mahama failed to uphold the constitution. The Court instead chose the convenient option and
upheld the election of Mahama rather than uphold the law and the cardinal democratic principle
that elections must always reflect the wishes of the people. The authors argue that the Ghanaian
courts, on numerous occasions, when allowed to do so, have failed to uphold the rule of law in
their decisions. The article also raises an interesting point in its claim that the Constitution of
Ghana inherently undermines the rule of law.

NATIONAL INTEREST

National Interest is a rationality of governing referring to a sovereign state's goals and ambitions,
economic, military, cultural, or otherwise. The expression "reason of state" (Ragion di Stato)
was first popularised by Italian political thinker Giovanni Botero and championed by Italian
diplomat and political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli. Prominently, Chief Minister Cardinal
Richelieu justified France's intervention on the Protestant side, despite its Catholicism, in the
Thirty Years' War as being in the national interest to block the increasing power of the Catholic
Holy Roman Emperor. At Richelieu's prompting, Jean de Silhon defended the concept of raison

2
d'État as "a mean between what conscience permits and affairs require". Within international
relations, national interest has frequently been assumed to comprise the pursuit of power,
security, and wealth.

National interest is usually defined as the interest of a state, usually defined by its government. It
is also a ground upon which support for the nation is invoked, given the appeal to patriotism it
peddles. Politicians use the term to seek support for domestic policy objectives. However, in
Africa, its persuasiveness has waned, given the usual extent of differences in domestic policy. In
contrast, in foreign policy, the term invokes an image of the nation, or the nation ‐state, defending
its interests within the anarchic international system where dangers abound, and the nation's
interests are always at risk.

National interest can also analyse foreign policy, particularly by political realists such as Hans
Morgenthau. Here the national interest is used as a sort of foreign policy version of the term
'public interest’—indicating what is best for the nation in its relations with other states. This use
of the term considers a possible threat to the nation from international anarchists and the possible
infringement on her freedom to manoeuvre in areas such as the implementation of treaties and
such other factors beyond the nation's control. This analytical usage of the term emphasises the
state's role as the embodiment of the nation's interest. The realists' use of national interest in
evaluating foreign policy has focused on national security as the core of national interest.
'Interest of state' and 'national security interest' are closely allied terms. The difficulty with the
analytical usage of the term is the absence of any agreed methodology by which the nation's best
interests can be tested. Some writers have argued that the best interests are objectively
determined by the state's situation within the international system and can be deduced from a
study of history and the success/failure of policies. Other writers concede that national interest is
subjectively interpreted by the government of the day. In this version, national interest is similar
to the politician's rhetorical usage of the term—the national interest is merely what the politician
says it is.

OBJECTIVES OF NATIONAL INTERESTS

Every nation has certain political, social and economic interests and objectives to achieve overall
development, prosperity, progress, nationalism, and international recognition with whatever form

3
of government. To attain such objectives, certain national interests are pre-requisites, which are
as follows: -

(a) Sovereignty: Foremost interest of the nation is to be autonomous and remain independent.

(b) Integrity: The nation should be full, indivisible and have a well-defined territory.

(c) Unity: The nation should be a secular union of states with political power belonging to a
central confederate authority, with united and undivided goals without factional, sectarian or
fanatical prejudices. It should be tolerant towards colour, creed, religion and language of each
other.

(d) Security: The nation must ensure safety, territorial integrity and protection of the state against
external threat or subversion.

HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND TO NATIONAL INTEREST

The national interest has a much longer history as an instrument of action than as an analysis
tool. According to a historian who traced past uses of the term, political actors made claims on
behalf of the national interest as early as the sixteenth century in Italy and the seventeenth
century in England (Beard 1934, pp. 22-24). At that time, claims made in the name of "the will
of the prince," "dynastic interests," raison d’état, and other older catchwords began to lose their
effectiveness as a new form of political organisation, the nation-state, came into being and served
as the political unit to which men owed their allegiance. Thus, the old terms were gradually
replaced by new ones that reflected the new loyalties. The national interest was one of these, as
was "national honour," "the public interest," and "the general will." Beard also found that "the
term, national interest, has been extensively employed by American statesmen since the
establishment of the Constitution" (1934, p. 26).

Many decades elapsed, however, before the national interest attracted attention as a tool of
analysis. Not until the twentieth century, when two world wars made it clear that mass publics
had both a vital stake in foreign affairs and played a vital role in them, did analysts focus on the
national interest as a concept that could be used to describe, explain, and assess the foreign
policies of nations. Beard was himself one of the first to develop the concept for this purpose and

4
distinguish it from the "public interest," which has come to be used about nations' domestic
policies through the convention.

Initially, the national interest appealed to analysts whose main concern was evaluating the
foreign policies that led to World War II—impressed with the thought that the global conflict
might have been avoided if the British and the French had not acquiesced to Hitler Munich in
1938. If the United States had not adopted isolationist policies throughout the 1930s, several
analysts turned to the national interest as a way of determining the adequacy and effectiveness of
past, present, or future policies. They reasoned in retrospect that the advent of World War II
made it clear that the prewar policies of the three nations were ill-advised and that the policies
proved to be contrary to the best interests of England, France, and the United States. To these
analysts, it thus seemed apparent that the best interest of a nation is a matter of objective reality
and that by describing this reality, one can use the concept of the national interest as a basis for
evaluating the appropriateness of the policies that a nation uses pursues. Because of their
underlying assumption that the national interest can be objectively determined, we shall call
these analysts "objectivists."

The analyst is Hans Morgenthau, whose works advance "a realist theory of international politics"
founded on the concept of national interest. "Interest is the perennial standard by which political
action must be judged and directed," Morgenthau wrote ([1948] 1954, p. 9), emphasising that,
therefore, the "objectives of a foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest" (p.
528). Moreover, precisely what constitutes the interest of a nation? Morgenthau recognised that
"the kind of interest determining political action in a particular period of history depends upon
the political and cultural context within which foreign policy is formulated" (p. 8). However, he
envisioned accounting for these contextual factors by defining interest in terms of power (p. 5).
For Morgenthau, the power at a nation's command relative to that of other nations is, at any
moment in time, an objective reality for that nation and thus serves to determine what its true
interest is and should be. As will be seen, however, the difficulty with Morgenthau's formulation
is the lack of a method for determining a nation's relative power. That is, he does not indicate
how the use of the criterion of power will enable nations to "follow... but one guiding star, one
standard for thought, one rule for action: the national interest".

5
As the discipline of political science emphasised scientific explanation, another group of analysts
joined the objectivists in converging upon the national interest as an analytic concept. Concerned
less with evaluating the worth of foreign policies and more with explaining why nations do what
they do when they engage in international action, this group found the national interest attractive
as a possible means of probing the sources of foreign policy. They reasoned that nations do what
they do to satisfy their best interests and that by describing these needs and wants, the analyst
would be able to use the concept of the national interest as a tool for explanation. These analysts,
in other words, deny the existence of an objective reality that is discoverable through systematic
inquiry. For them, the national interest is not a singular objective truth that prevails whether or
not the members of a nation perceive it, but it is a pluralistic set of subjective preferences that
change whenever the requirements and aspirations of the nation's members change. For want of a
better term, hereafter, we shall call those who approach the national interest in this way the
"subjectivists."

The advent of the decision-making approach to international politics (Snyder et al. 1954)
provided the subjectivists with an additional rationale for their approach to the national interest.
Partly as a reaction to the objectivists and partly out of a concern to render concepts usable by
linking them to observable behavior, students of decision making contend that the national
interest, being composed of values (what people want), is not susceptible of objective
measurement even if defined in terms of power and that, accordingly, the only way to uncover
what people need and want is to assume that their requirements and aspirations are reflected in
the actions of a nation's policymakers. For these analysts, in other words, the national interest is
whatever the officials of a nation seek to preserve and enhance. As two leading spokesmen for
this approach put it, "The national interest is what the nation, i.e., the decision-maker, decides it
is" (Furniss & Snyder 1955, p. 17).

THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE RULE OF LAW AND NATIONAL INTEREST

Having examined the definitions of the rule of law and national interest, there is the need to
critically interrogate the interplay of these two concepts and how they inter-relate within a
national context. Given that both are ideals that the nation-state employs in the realisation of
good governance and continued formidable existence, one would expect that the rule of law and
national interest would take sides. However, is that the case? Do the two work in tandem, or do

6
they negate each other? The amorphous nature of national interest efficiently renders it suspect in
possession of dubious state actors. Whereas the rule of law is anchored in constitutionality with
referable codes and guidelines, the national interest could be borderless in its presentation. It,
therefore, can be easily hijacked by the sentiments and predilection of state actors whose
interests are projected as national interests. It remains an amorphous concept that has not been
clearly defined by any government. There is no "body" of laws or a national code called national
interest. No one has ever been charged with breaching the national interest. This remains in the
realm of innovative political fabrication that empowers personal or group agenda with an alibi.

Pursuing this thought further, governments invariably assume the right to determine rather than
define national interest. Whatever they determine to be the national interest at any particular time
and for any particular reason is supposed to be accepted by the people as the national interest.
This is an egregious power construct that conflicts with the idea of proper governance, conflating
the interest of certain state actors and those of some other interested groups into the so-called
national interest.

The truth is that they cannot mean the same thing. We deal with a vague but dangerous concept
that has allowed governments to act arbitrarily and abuse individual and human rights.
Moreover, they have gotten away with murder – literally and metaphorically.

A government comes into being on the strength of the people's expressed wishes – in a
democracy, that is. However, while the people live with the well-tended fiction that democracy is
a government of the people by the people and for the people, the rulers operate with the reality
that their right to treat the people according to their whims and caprices is a given.

The African Big Man earned his stripes from a mindset that tends to see a government's primary
duty as saving the country from its people. A government's determination of what constitutes
national or security interest is based on this concept of keeping the country safe from the people
and keeping the citizens caged to protect the country.

Once a government offers national interest as its reason, this often becomes suspect as it
invariably leads to the abuse of people's rights and the circumscription of their freedom. The
government feels justified in its actions because they are tarred with the national interest brush.
The problem is that this vague thing called national interest, determined not by law but by the

7
whims and caprices of some political elites, jostles to overthrow the rule of law and assume its
place, as occasion would favour. This chaotic arrangement of the polity seems a favourite of the
leadership class in Africa. A vast library of history supports this notion.

While the rule of law ought to be the fundamental pillar of democracy that protects people's
rights, freedom and liberty, the continued allowance of the national interest card, unduly served,
constitutes a plank on which the denial of people's freedom and rights as guaranteed by the
constitution, which is the supreme law, is promoted.

Democracy may be the form of government most favoured by the people, but it can be argued
that it is much resented by those who hold the reins of power in Africa, going by their body
language. For one thing, to them, democracy is restrictive because of the following reasons:

I. It diffuses power and refuses to concentrate all the powers in the hands of one man.
II. It insists on checks and balances.
III. It insists on accountability to ensure that the government's books are open to the people
because they have the inalienable right to be informed about how they are governed.

Given the disconnect between the views of government and those of the citizens in what
constitutes national interest, the government finds it both easy and necessary to try and
subordinate the rule of law to whatever it determines at any particular time to be the national
interest.

For instance, the Nigerian president, Muhammadu Buhari, claimed that the Supreme Court
recognises that the rule of law must yield primacy of place to it when national interest is
threatened. In his reaction to the president's claim, the National Publicity Secretary of the
opposition party, PDP, Kola Ologbondiyan, said, "There is no pronouncement by the Supreme
Court that subjugates the constitutional rule of law and rights of citizens to the whims, caprices
and dictatorial impulses of any president."

It is agreeable to say, "our national interest is thoroughly embedded, expressed and enforced only
under the rule of law as provided by our constitution." In which case, national interest and the
rule of law become allies that work together to produce an internally self-regulated society and
defend from external aggressors or opportunists. The hope for a greater Africa indeed rests

8
squarely on the full observance of the rule of law. Without it, the citizens of African states have
no rights, no freedoms, and our constitutional government blows in the wind.

NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY

The doctrine of necessity is a term used to describe how extraconstitutional actions are taken by
the administrative authority to restore order or attain the power to achieve stability in the polity.
Any action taken on the strength of this doctrine escapes the repudiation of the law, even if such
an action would generally be deemed to be in contravention of established norms or conventions.
It also includes the ability of a private person to violate a law without punishment where the
violation of law was necessary to prevent even worse harm. The maxim on which the doctrine is
based originated in the writings of the medieval jurist "Henry de Bracton", and similar
justifications for this kind of extra-legal action has been advanced by more recent legal
authorities, including William Blackstone.

In modern times, the doctrine was first used in a controversial 1954 judgment in which Pakistani
Chief Justice Muhammad Munir validated the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers by
Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, the Chief Justice cited Bracton's
maxim, "that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity", thereby providing the
label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was establishing.

The doctrine of necessity has since been applied in many Commonwealth countries, and in 2010
was invoked to justify extra-legal actions in Nigeria when, on 9 February 2010, the Nigerian
National Assembly passed a resolution making Vice President Goodluck Jonathan the Acting
President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Both chambers of the Assembly passed
the resolution after President Umaru Yar'Adua, who for 78 days had been in Saudi Arabia
receiving medical treatment, was unable to formally empower the vice president to exercise full
powers as acting president, as provided for in Section 145 of the country's constitution. No
provision of the Nigerian constitution empowering the National Assembly to pass any such
resolution, causing Senate President David Mark to assert that the Senate had been guided by the
"doctrine of necessity" in arriving at its decision. Even though in this instance, the doctrine was
invoked in aid of a worthy cause which was in the national interest – a nation cannot be allowed
to become rudderless in the prolonged absence of its incapacitated leadership, President
Yar'Adua – however, it could fall into abuse and misuse in the hands of a dubious government.

9
The doctrine of necessity is an extant political protocol lacking in constitutional legitimacy and
grounding. In as much as it can be evoked to positive and justifiable ends, it much more is a
virulent tool to engage in deviance and promote fascism. In the hands of typical African
overlords, it is a perfect tool to masquerade authoritarianism and selfish interests. Furthermore,
conveniently, they would always tout the doctrine of necessity in defending "national interest".

RULE OF LAW AND SURVIVAL OF THE STATE

Upholding the rule of law and adherence to the principles of National interest plays an important
role in the economic and social development of a Nation; this is because the rule of law and strict
observance of national unity can guarantee peace, security and stability. For a Nation to be
ranked among the civilised and developed Nations committee, the rule of law and principles of
national unity must be upheld. Upholding law and order, providing predictable and efficient
judgments through the institutional framework and attributes necessary to actuate the rule of law
such as well-trained law enforcement officers, functional courts, an independent judiciary,
comprehensive law and equipped correctional facilities and homes are the things upon which the
nation can continue, prosper and survive.

The ideal meaning of the rule of law can be discerned from its characteristics which, according
to Stein (2009), are:

1. The law is superior to all members of the society, including government officials vested with
legislative, executive or judicial power.

2. The law is known, stable and capable of being predicted and applied equally to all persons in
like circumstances.

3. Members of the society have the right to create and refine laws that regulate their behaviours.

4. The law is just and protects the human rights and dignity of all members of society.

5. Judicial power is exercised independently of either the executive or legislative arms, and
individual judges base their decisions solely on facts and law as applicable to individual cases.

10
The state can survive under the rule of law if it is well implemented and enforced in that no one
is above the law.

NATIONAL COHESION AND NATIONAL INTEREST

National unity is the process of unifying a society that tends to make it a harmonious city based
upon and order its members to regard it as equitably harmonious. Ojo (2009) see

Jacob and the Tenue in Ojo (2009), quoted by Onifade (2013), described national unity as a
community relationship among people within the same political entity. He further explained that
it is a state of mind or disposition to be cohesive, act together, and commit to mutual
programmes. Morrison, quoted by Onifade (2013), sees it as a process by which members of a
social system become less consequential in affecting behaviour. In this process, members of the
social system develop an escalating sequence of contact, cooperation, consensus and community.

Looking at the above definitions, what makes an ideal definition of this concept, National unity
is seen as a process that produces an omnibus of initiatives put in place by a state, its
representative or institution guided by respect for the unique traditions and cultural background
of ethnicities sharing the same polity to harmonise all interest through a form of dialogue and
representation and addressing differences that may be divisive and conflictual using the
instrument of fairness, justice and equity in the sharing of resources, benefits, opportunities and
responsibilities in order to guaranteed stability, longevity and prosperity of the polity as long as
the inhabitants decide to remain in the polity.

Given the above, one can see that national unity is made possible when ethnic groups within a
political setting maintain unity by reaching consensus, social structure and function in society,
which bring about social order. This view is supported by the theory of structural functionalism
as quoted by Anthony (2009), in which he stated that the theory explains how the relationship
among the parts of the society are created and how these parts are functional and interrelated to
one another. They see society as a complex whole whose parts work together to promote social
solidarity and social stability. It states that social lives are guided by social structure, which is a
relatively stable pattern of social behaviour; as one part is affected negatively, all other parts
become affected. In trying to relate the view of this theory with the situation of Nigeria, one can
see that the social structures of the Nigeria society are sick; for instance, the political, economic,

11
religions, medicine, and family structures are no longer performing and promoting Nigeria to
attain meaningful development democratically.

The concept of national unity can be seen as a feeling of being united as a country, mainly in
terms of trouble. In other words, it is the process of coming together to fight against anything
that affects the human development of a particular group of people. Joseph in Maduabuchi
(2003) pointed out that the most important aspect of the development of any country is
indisputably the development of human personality. This means that the development of a
country is primarily the development of the human dimension, which is the development of a
human personality. Joseph (2003) added that the most important aspect in the development of
human persons is his moral development. Morality is a mark of human development, and it is the
most important aspect of national development.

On this note, if national interest is approached like national unity, the nation would be a more
developed society because the interest of the nation will be unified, and the issues we have with
leadership, just like the case of Nigeria, will not be in a place where a leader assumes power and
decides personal interest and defines it as a national interest coaxing and sometimes forcing the
ideas on the society.

CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH NATIONAL INTEREST

Certain factors stand against the all-around integration of a state's national interest, which
impedes the progress towards national integration. The cadets need to understand the following
factors in order to successfully tackle them and play their part in achieving the goals that align
with national interest: -

(a) Regionalism: Regionalism gives more importance to one's region than to one's nation. When
regionalism is linked with language and religion, it creates regional interests rather than national
interests. This creates parochialism among the people.

(b) Communalism: Communalism is not believing in any particular religion or observing its
rites. Excessive affinity to one's religion transforms into hatred towards other religions. Thus
religious fanaticism arises. When religion and race are used to make social and political gains, it
is called communalism. The actual cause of communalism lies in political and economic factors.
The partition of India is an instance of the intervention of religion in politics.

12
(c) Extremism: The extremist movements in different parts of the country are another challenge
to national integration. The Boko haram sect movement in Nigeria is an example. These
movements often use violence, create fear in public life, cause loss of lives of government
personnel and people and destroy public property. Primarily the youth participate in such
movements. The primary reason for taking up arms by the youth is the continuing state of socio-
economic deprivations. Moreover, the daily humiliation, denial of justice, human rights
violations, various kinds of exploitation and political marginalisation prompt them to join the
various sect movement. However, the extremist activities have been a threat to law and order and
the peaceful living of the people residing in the affected areas.

(d) Social Disparity: Social disparity among different communities, sometimes within the
community, causes tension and imbalance. Social disparity poses a great threat to national
integration.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the triumph of democracy and the promotion of good governance in Africa, the utility of the
Rule of Law in achieving social cohesion, equilibrium and order must be upheld and defended
against the imposition of a set of curious "national interests" that are purely subjective and
jaundiced.

We recommend that in African nations where multiparty democracy is being practised, duly
constituted governments should exercise their invested authority to protect their nation's
physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states. This is
strictly in the area of international relations and diplomacy. Beyond that, every form of national
interest matter that is domestic should be subjected to the scrutiny and approval of a national
body populated by representatives of the different political parties and members of the civil
society.

With this kind of arrangement, the rational debate will almost always produce an agenda that is
truly reflective of the nation's national interest. As the Rule of Law continues to enjoy its pride of
place and the issues of national interest are subjected to the scrutiny of a supervisory body of
plural identities, there is a more likelihood of experiencing sanity and progress in the nation.

13
Africa must strengthen its institutions and make them tower above personal preferences, private
whims and caprices and other anachronistic tendencies.

Also, in order to achieve national interest objectives in Africa to give room for a sustainable
democracy, the following should be considered:

The idea of unity in diversity should be planted into the minds of Nigerians, particularly the
youths and younger children. This can be done by practically teaching this concept in drama into
the Nigerian primary and secondary schools at all levels. Corruption which is so high in Africa
should be fought. Furthermore, to achieve this, the leaders should see an example by themselves
by punishing anyone caught with corrupt practices in all levels of government, such as local,
state, and federal. The criminal justice system of Nigeria should put in place the idea of
punishing offenders or criminals proportionate to the offences committed as Benthan (1999)
quoted by Umar (2012) who stressed that "punishment is considered evil but a necessary evil to
prevent greater evils being inflicted on the society and thus diminishing happiness.

Understanding Unity in diversity and the sense of brotherhood should be improved through the
National youth service corps (NYSC) scheme. There should be an enlightenment campaign to
the general public, especially the illiterate's ones on the above. In line with this, Shuhaib (2012)
stated that "to maintain peace and unity in Nigeria, massive enlightenment must ensure. The
federal government must enlighten the public, especially the ignorant and illiterate population,
about unity and peaceful co-existence with the central theme of equality and oneness. This can
be relayed through the channel of media to reach a massive population.

Even though Africa is facing severe challenges in maintaining national unity, people should
understand that they are made to stay together as a society. Therefore, they are required to stand
strong and forget all other factors such as tribalism, nepotism, and the notion of "we" as they are
amongst the factors that prevent the achievement of national interest in Africa.

CONCLUSION

We must forever hold on to the truism that the law is supreme. The laws of any nation enshrined
in their constitution serve as the compass for that nation-state. The place of the rule of law in any
given society can therefore not be overemphasized. The rule of law is an indispensable
instrument use to ensure the the togertherness of any society. This was our argument in this

14
paper. Therefore, in a situation where ill-defined national interests are prioritize over and above
nation building, the sanity of the state is at risk. It is our hope that oligarchy masquerading as
national interest is not prioritize above the rule of law. This is one of the challenges mitigating
against the rule of law in Africa, and Africa will realize her potential when her leaders find the
courage to dig the graveyard for greed and lawlessnes.

REFERENCES

David Clarke, "The many meanings of the rule of law" in Kanishka Jayasuriya, ed., Law,
Capitalism and Power in Asia (New York: Routledge, 1998). 12.

Reynolds, Noel B. (1986). "Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law". All Faculty Publications
(BYU ScholarsArchive).

Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004). "On the Rule of Law". Cambridge University Press. p. 3.

Ten, C. l (2017), "Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law", A Companion to Contemporary

Wolf-Phillips, Leslie. "Constitutional Legitimacy: A Study of the Doctrinse of Necessity." Third

American Academy of Political and Social science, Philadelphia 1952 The National Interest:
Alone or With Others? Edited by Norman D. Palmer. Annals, Vol. 282.
Philadelphia: The Academy.

Beard, Charles A. 1934 The Idea of National Interest: An Analytical Study in American Foreign
Policy. New York: Macmillan.

Cassinelli, Charles W. 1958 Some Reflections on the Concept of the Public Interest. Ethics
69:48– 61.

Ubeck, A. K., 1991. “The Social and Economic Foundations of Corruption and Other Economic

15
 Crimes in Nigeria” In Kalu, A. and Osinbajo, Y. (eds), Perspectives on
Corruption and Other Economic Crimes in Nigeria Lagos: Federal
Ministry of Justice: 1991 pp.39-43.

16