Sanitizing
the Electoral Process in Nigeria
(2)
One
conclusion that can be drawn from the large turnouts and enthusiastic
presentations at the public sittings of the Electoral Review Committee (ERC)
held across the federation over the last few weeks is that Nigerians are
totally
fed up with elections that are manipulated and outcomes that are at variance
with the wishes of the people. The prevailing anxiety for a transparent
electoral
process is buoyed by widespread appreciation of the multifarous problems that
engender electoral malfeasance: presenter after presenter catalogued the
maladies in the electoral process and, with astonishing consistency, pointed
out the way forward.
The topical
issues about which the most strindent and repeated calls were made by state
governments, political parties, professional bodies, traditional
institutions,
religious groups, trade unions, security agencies, NGOs, and individuals that
appeared at the various venues of the ERC sittings included the issue of the
autonomy of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) and the
appointment of
it’s helmsman. Many presenters harped, quite rightly, on the need to take the
institution saddled with the responsibility for the conduct of the
election away
from the influence of the executive arm of government. To do this, the
general
opinion was that the funding of INEC should be charged direct to the
consolidated revenue fund. This would release the commission from the
whims and
caprices of an executive arm of government that is at all material times an
interested party in electoral combats.
An amendment
of the laws with provisions for INEC to be headed by a retired justice of the
Supreme Court, for membership of the commission to be reserved for
non-partisan
persons of impeccable integrity, for independent candidates to be recognized,
to peg political parties to a minimum of two or a maximum of five and for the
adoption of “Option A4” (modified open/secret ballot system) were also widely
canvassed. While, some argued that delimiting the number of political parties
would constitute an infringement of constitutional rights of citizens, many
averred that a great percentage of the political parties in Nigeria exist
in name
only – and are virtually kept alive not by any membership commitments but by
the largess which the unnecessary fiscal grant by the federal and state
governments to political parties constitutes.
Another issue
of widespread concern was the interminable duration of election petitions.
While
petitions linger, impostors occupy public offices – and eventually use it to
legitimize their position. Worse still, the statutory provisions for uniform
conduct of particular elections contained in S. 48 of the Electoral Act
2006 and
S. 180(2) (b) of the 1999 CFRN have been blasted because by virtue of the
landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Peter Obi v INEC, the tenure of
Governors who were sworn in the aftermath of elections nullified or
ordered by
the Court of Appeal will now end at varying times. Elections thereto cannot,
therefore, be held “at the same time and place in the federation”. The way
out,
for many, is to ensure that general elections are conducted three to six
months
before the prescribed date of swearing in so that all election petitions
and appeals
can be disposed of before the swearing in of elected persons. And any
person howsoever
elected after the swearing in date should be considered to be serving out the
term as if they were sworn in on the prescribed swearing in date.
Concerning
the so-called State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs), the general
opinion was
that these contraptions be scrapped and legislated out of existence having
failed to meet
the vision behind their establishment. The SIECs were found to be
vulnerable to
manipulation by the appointing authority - the Governor and the ruling
party in
their various states. To restore the
integrity of the electoral process at the grassroots levels, the consensus
was that the
duties of SIECs be reverted to INEC which, not being under the apron
strings of
state authorities, is better placed to provide a level playing field for all
candidates.
The absence of internal
democracy in the political parties was also placed on the chopping block. In
particular, the predilection to “consensus candidates” was seen as an
abbreviation the democratic process which facilitated the imposition of
candidates and the subordination of the will of the people to the wishes of
those who control the party. Given the provisions of S. 133(a) and 179(a) of
the 1999 CFRN, which stipulate that even when one candidate emerges for the
office of President or Governor prior to an election, the popularity of such
candidate must be determined through the ballot box, the general view was
that
the only acceptable “consensus” should be the consensus of the ballot box.
Of course,
some of the problems identified as hamstringing the electoral process and
some
of the recommendations made at the ERC sittings will require constitutional
amendments to implement. But it must be clear that in matters of
elections, the
process is as important - if not more important - than the outcome. If,
therefore, it becomes necessary to amend the constitution in order to ensure
that the desire of the people to have sustenable democracy is realized,
public
expectation will be that the members of the National Assembly see that the
requisite amendments are made expeditiously. Afterall, the reason why they
are
in congress in the first place is to effectuate the wishes of the people.
As the ERC
begins to sieve the grains from the inevitable chaff in the myriad
presentations which it has received, there is reasonable apprehension in the
polity: Nigeria
has a poor record of utilizing the recommendations of panels or committees
which are set up to investigate one national malady or the other. The
presidency is generally regarded as a burial ground where painstakingly
written
reports the pages of which hold the proactive solutions to national
challenges
are allowed to gather dust. This fate must not befall the report of the ERC.
The countdown to the 2011 election has already begun. If there is any legacy
that the Yar’Adua administration can leave for the nation, it is to adopt
whatever measures and institute whatever framework that is necessary to
ensure
that in 2011 and all subsequent elections, the wishes of the people prevail.
All said, how much any electoral reform
in Nigeria
will succeed will depend on how far the attitude of the people can also be
reformed to see the ballot box as the ultimate arbiter in electoral
matters. It
will also, to a great extent, depend on how far the members of the national
assembly will be prepared to go in order to put a statutory restraint on the
illogical activities of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal
Commission which has transformed public office in Nigeria into a lotto that
guarantees instant wealth.
By Uche Ohia
uchebush@yahoo.com;
0805 1090 050