Electoral Act: Who is Afraid of Amendment?

Eddy Odivwri

In 2018, the lawmakers at the time had proposed some amendments to the Electoral Act. As always, the amendment is aimed at improving the conduct of elections in the country. At the time, the proposal to amend the Electoral Bill was somewhat less than six months before the 2019 elections. But the Senate President at the time, Bukola Saraki had become the political enemy of Mr President, having decamped from APC to the rival PDP. So, on the ground of being too close to a major election, the president declined to assent to the Bill to amend the Electoral Act.

Three years after, and nearly two years to another major general election, President Mohammadu Buhari has again,declined assent to a revised version of the Electoral Act. Although the law does not demand an explanation for declining to sign a Bill from parliament, he gave four reasons why he refused to sign the Bill. Essentially, the reasons include: security, being undemocratic, high cost of the exercise, and gateway to open litigations. Although opinions have been slightly divided since the president declined assent on the Electoral Act amendment, the generality of Nigerians believe the President missed a chance to write his name in gold as a leader who had a genuine interest in electoral reform, which the Bill was all aimed at achieving.

Many people who have commented blamed the President for failing to do the needful: sign the bill, and probably call for an amendment to any section he does not quite like, as he did with the PIB Bill. Those who believed the president did not do well surmise that what Mr President did was akin to throwing away the baby and the bath water, as they pointed out that there are many other laudable provisions in the Electoral reforms which has now been eclipsed by the banal argument about Direct or Indirect primaries. Apart from the provision for electronic transfer of election results, the amendment had provided for only High Courts as having the powers to adjudicate on election matters, just as the INEC was given more powers to do a review of elections etc etc.

In declining his assent, Mr President raised the issue of security. How does Direct Primary foster or promote insecurity? If that argument is to be stretched, how safe would it be therefore to hold the general election itself? Between Direct primary and the general election, which one would have more crowd? If we can hold general elections and not exercise fear about security or the lack of it, then why is Mr President bothered about security during Direct primaries?

He talked about the cost. What cost? It is a party affair! The so-called cost of Direct primaries will not come from the federal purse. Members of political parties should devise ways of funding the Direct primaries. So, why is Mr President drinking Panadol for political parties’ headache? In any case, is Mr President truly concerned about the cost of electioneering in the country? We glibbed over the issue of placing a seal on Campaign spendings. Has it ever been activated? Has anybody or political party been penalized for overspending on campaigns? Or have they (including even Mr President) stayed within the limit of campaign expenses during elections? So, talking about cost as a reason for declining assent is merely calling a dog a bad name so it can be hanged.

He further claimed that the provision for Direct primaries, is indeed undemocratic, as it would mean an imposition of a particular mode of primaries even on smaller political parties. Which is more crucial: that the democratic base for a Direct primary is much wider for party members or that smaller political parties may not be able to afford Direct primaries? Which one is of greater interest to the greater majority of the people? Does the ethos of democracy not err on the side of the majority? Would the President in the pretencious feeling for the so-called smaller political parties, rather sacrifice the greater benefit of Direct primaries to the larger number of Nigerians? Is Mr President truly so gospelled for the minority? If yes, why is this only being mouthed on election matters and not on the welfare of the masses?

Many people even think that what should worry Mr President is the absence of a true and updated membership register in all the political parties in the country, including even the All Progressives Congress (APC), and not whether some political parties can afford it or not.

But even if all the above are discounted, how can it be explained that in a National Assembly dominated and controlled by the ruling party, that both Mr President and the National Assembly leadership are not on the same page on such a crucial National concern? Where is the place for consultation and political synergy between the Executive and Legislative arms of government?

What’s more, the said Amendment is a product of a long and tortuous legislative process which included a Technical committee fed by members of both National Assembly chambers, the INEC, Civil society Organisations (CSOs) and even representatives of the Ministry of Justice. Their suggestions were subjected to Public Hearings and filtered further by the National Assembly before it is put together as a bill and sent to Mr President for his assent. It is thus ironical that the same ministry of Justice which had representatives in the Technical Committee that produced the Amendment Bill is the same ministry whose minister and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami advised Mr President not to sign the Electoral Act amendment Bill. Virtually all the points raised by Malami in his memo to Mr President are the same reasons Mr President cited in his letter to the National Assembly explaining why he had to withhold his assent to the Bill. Not many are surprised that Malami, who is fast appearing like an electoral bandit, has been consistent in misleading Mr President in taking decisions that vitiate the popularity of President Buhari.

As at last Tuesday, the outrage of the lawmakers against Mr President for refusing to sign the bill, had gathered much momentum so much that about 75 senators had appended their signature in support of over-riding Mr President. Section 58, sub section 5 of the 1999 constitution as amended, gives the veto power to the National Assembly if and when Mr President declines to sign a Bill. The lower Chamber on its part has merely shifted the battle date till next year when it will resume from the Yuletide break. The absence of the members of the House of Representatives may foil the attempt to veto Mr President on this issue. Was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila delaying the duel so to prepare the ground for his master—Bola Tinubu?

It is remarkable that both the state governors and Mr President are pitted against the lawmakers. Most of the governors are serving out their second term in office, just like President Buhari. But they want to remain valid election oracles in their various domains and fear that adopting Direct Primaries may rob them of that privilege of calling the shots continually. Will they carry the day or will the National lawmakers have the last laugh? The battle line is drawn. Ego is now the umpire. Nigerians are watching.

Canticles…

Andy Uba and the Ifesinachi Syndrome

Eddy Odivwri

I was asked to write an essay on the topic: “The Law is a Troublesome Agent” in a job interview I attended today. I couldn’t make a head or tail out of such a troubling topic. Just how can the law be a troublesome agent?

Where did you attend the interview?

I heard the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is planning to recruit young graduates for the forthcoming Osun and Ekiti gubernatorial elections.

But why would you have difficulty in writing that essay? Have you not been following development in the Nigerian polity? Wasn’t there a recent and ready example of that topic?

Really? A recent a ready example? How ?

Need you ask? Did you not hear of the recent judgement by Justice Inyang Ekwo which nullified the candidacy of Dr Andy Uba who ran under the platform of the APC in the November 6, 2021 governorship election in Anambra?

Yes, how does that fit into the topic in question?

You are still asking that bland question? A man contested an election, and lost and while he is still nursing the wound of his loss, remembering how hundreds of millions of hard-earned money went down the drain, just like that, and then one busy-body court rules that even his candidacy in that election is nullified. How troublesome can the law be! How can a loss be nullified? What is that? What kind of double tragedy is that?

Look, it is not his loss that was nullified. It is his candidacy. The law believes that the primaries that produced him was flawed and faulty and that he was not supposed to be the candidate of the party in the first place. The law has to be straight, just in case of the future.

What future? The election is over. Somebody has been declared winner and governor-elect. The INEC has even issued the certificate of return. Everybody is waiting for swearing-in next February and then, a court goes down to the past electoral relics and digs out an old corpse claiming that somebody who has already lost the election should not even have contested at all in the first place. Is that not what the late Fela calls, Trouble dey sleep, nyanga go wake am…

It is not the same scenario sir. This is law. Not Fela’s music. Ok. What if the APC candidate, Andy Uba won the election?

Eheeeeen. In such a case, the contention would be justified. But not when Andy Uba not only lost the election, he came a distant third with less than 500 votes.

In any case, Andy Uba couldn’t have won. The forces against him are many. Was it not his brother, Chris Uba who once slapped an elected governor in the same Anambra? That slapped governor is now minister of Labour—Chris Ngige! Look, there is law of Karma. Is it the first time Andy Uba is seeking a short cut to the Anambra Government House? Did he also not smuggle himself into the Government House, Awka, on April 14, 2007 claiming that he was the elected governor even when the then legitimate governor, Peter Obi was still contesting his removal in the Apex Court? Do you remember that Andy Uba had further gone to court asking that he be declared as the Governor-in-waiting in 2010, so that he would step into the office when Obi rounds off his first term? If you have forgotten, go and ask Justice Sylvester Ngwuta who had to throw out Uba’s case, stressing to him (Uba) that “the election that brought Uba was an illegal act and nobody demands right or relief from an illegal act”.

Do not forget those were the days of Obasanjo and the PDP, where almost anything goes. The tribunal that threw away Uba’s election had not only berated INEC for conducting that illicit election, it also ordered that Andy Uba should not be listed as one of the former governors of Anambra State. So, you see, it is called Ifesinachi in Igbo language. It literally means Destiny. It is not in Andy Uba’s destiny to govern Anambra State. He should stop disturbing himself. It won’t come, as long as he wangles his way to short-circuit the system. It was he who got less than 500 votes that was warming up to challenge Soludo’s victory in court. See now! Empty Barrel makes…..

Stop the bad labelling! He has the inalienable right to seek the votes of his people. The decision to accept or reject him rests on his people, not you. So zip your lips with your loads of foul history and let me learn how to write better essays that will enable me pass interviews next time.

Look, I don’t care if you failed that interview or not. The point must be pungently made that short-cuts may appear attractive, many a times it does not lead to the same destination without tears. As you can see in this case, we must all learn to follow due process, do things rightly and respect the order and protocol of a system. Then and only then, will we survive as a people.

Let me not forget to wish you all a Merry Christmas