Needless fuss over poll order
If members of the
National Assembly have their way, as they seem intent on doing, presidential
poll would tailguard the sequence of the Nigerian general election due next
year. And if that happens, the election management body, the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC), would be crudely arm-twisted over the timetable it
has already announced, which heads up with national elections comprising the
presidential and national assembly polls.
The national lawmakers
dug their heels deeper into the gameplan late last week as the Senate fell into
line with an alteration to Section 25 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended,
being proposed by the House of Representatives. The House had late last January
altered the principal act by inserting a new sub-section 25 (1) providing that:
‘Elections into the office of the
president and vice president, the governor and deputy governor of a state, and
to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and House of
Assembly of each state of the federation shall be held in the following order:
(a) National Assembly elections (b) State Houses of Assembly and Governorship
elections, and (c) presidential elections.’
Besides tweaking the
sequence of elections already made public by INEC, the deal being proposed by
the national lawmakers involves three streams of elections. The commission in
its timetable had outlined two streams of poll by combining national (namely
presidential and national assembly) elections on one day and state (i.e.,
governorships and state houses of assembly) elections on another day. That, of
course, isn’t mentioning the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) area council poll
that the commission has scheduled to hold simultaneously with the state
elections.
To engender certainty
about election schedules in Nigeria in the absence of statutory specification
of dates as one would find in many other electoral jurisdictions, INEC had
since March, last year, announced a standardisation of national elections to
henceforth hold on the third Saturday in February of a general election year,
while state elections are to hold two weeks after. For the 2019 elections in
particular, the commission early last January outed with a notice of poll
scheduling national elections for February 16th 2019, and the state
elections for March 2nd.
As things presently
stand, however, National Assembly members are among other amendments proposing
a three-phased election schedule that would conclude with the presidential
poll, thereby tossing the electoral body’s work plan in the thrash bin. My aim
in this piece is to interrogate the propriety, and that is not mentioning
legality, of the changes being proposed by lawmakers.
History offers some help
in understanding how INEC hit upon two-streamed election schedules, as opposed
to three streams being canvassed with the NASS amendment. Up till 2011,
elections were conducted in at least three phases, and they typically kicked
off with nationally assembly elections and concluded with the presidential
poll. But following the reforms of 2011 that restored integrity to the ballot
box – invariably, though, with cost escalation arising from hugely expanded
logistics – clamour surged from the
Nigerian public for all elections to be conducted simultaneously on the same
day. In any event, the clamour aligned with global best practice, because that
happens to be the pattern in most developed democracies and, indeed, developing
democracies like Kenya, Liberia, Egypt and South Africa. Nigeria was out of
that loop, though.
In response to the
public clamour, and with only nascent strides yet achieved in restoring
integrity to Nigerian elections, INEC under the former leadership of Professor
Attahiru Jega balked at taking the plunge down the one-day-for-all-elections route.
But it did scale down the scheduling profile by collapsing national elections
into one day, and state elections into another day for the 2015 general
election.
The notice of poll for
the 2019 general election recently published by the current electoral commission
led by Professor Mahmood Yakubu was obviously in keeping with that cost-cutting
and public responsive initiative. Only that the amendments now being proposed
by national lawmakers are primed to overturn all that.
‘Why wouldn’t (NASS) consider grouping
legislative elections into a stream and executive elections into another
stream, for minimal disruption of INEC’s logistical designs?’
The legislators have argued
that the proposed alteration in no way infringed the statutory independence of
INEC to schedule and conduct elections. Among others, the chair of Senate
committee on Electoral Act amendment, Senator Suleiman Nazif, was last week
reported saying re-sequencing of the 2019 elections through the proposed amendments of the principal act did not
conflict with extant provisions. Sections 76(1), 116(1), 132(1) and 178(1) of
the 1999 Federal Constitution, as amended, for instance, empower INEC to
appoint the date for respective election – but with a 2010 amendment caveat, to
wit: ‘in accordance with the Electoral
Act.’ Nazif stated: “For avoidance of doubt, this amendment bill with the
inclusion of section 25(1) which makes provision for sequence of elections
different from the one earlier rolled out by INEC has not in any way violated
any provisions of the laws governing the operations of the electoral body.”
On the face of things,
he could seem right. Because the apparent logic is that the Constitution, by
way of the 2010 amendment, already commits INEC to exercise its assigned powers
in deference to the Electoral Act – which exactly is what NASS members are
pushing to amend to suit their re-scheduling fancy. But this logic begs the
question of the effect of subsection 15(a) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of
the 1999 Federal Constitution, which prescribes that INEC shall ‘have power to organise, undertake and
supervise all elections to the offices of the President, Vice-President, the
Governor and Deputy Governor, of a state, and to the membership of the Senate,
the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each state of the
Federation.’
Many would argue, and
the commission could as well, that the constitutionally endowed power to ‘organise’ and ‘undertake’ elections invariably involves INEC setting the dates and
sequences it fancies for such elections.
But we could as well
leave arguments about the fine points of law and consider practical
implications of the proposed reordering of the 2019 elections. And the place to
begin, perhaps, is by asking what or whose interest the new arrangement being
proposed is likely to serve. I do not pretend to be infallible on this matter;
but so far as I see, the proposed re-sequencing would only possibly shield
national lawmakers up for election next year from the proverbial bandwagon
effect of the presidential poll.
But if that is all there
is to gain from the proposed plan, the price for Nigeria to pay in material and
social dislocation costs of having three election days in 2019 rather than two
is unduly monumental. Recall, for instance, that the country is usually locked
down on election days, with tailspinning dislocation of social and economic
activities, including local and international travels. Some interrogators have
actually wondered why the NASS won’t consider grouping all legislative
elections – national and state assemblies – into a stream and executive
elections – governorships and presidential – into another stream, if only for
minimal disruption of INEC’s logistical designs.
That, of course, isn’t
counting the sheer escalation of the material cost of staging three elections,
as opposed to staging two. Such escalation would come from mobilising,
deploying and demobilising more than a million regular and ad hoc polling
officials as well as security agents for three election days. Actually, it
could also overtax the psychological potential of these essential polling
staff. And that is not to mention similar levies to be borne by domestic and international
election observers.
Truth be told, the
proposed re-sequencing of the 2019 elections by NASS is a terribly bad idea and
should be discarded.
Comments