Electoral Act amendment: Another unfinished business

With the next general elections fast approaching, the clamour for electoral reforms through the amendment of the Electoral Act has assumed a life of its own. GBADE OGUNWALE captures stakeholders’ expectations about the review

The report of the 2007 Electoral Reform Committee chaired by Justice Muhammadu Uwais and the outcome of the 2014 National Conference appear to boldly encapsulate the centrality of demands by a broad section of Nigeria’s informed populace for electoral reforms. The Uwais Committee had submitted its report way back in 2008, while the 2014 Conference had also delivered on its mandate.

But, like many other numerous reports from past national discourses, the recommendations of the two panels have continued to gather dust on the shelf. There has been some peripheral tinkering by successive National Assembly sessions, in what has now become a seasonal ritual of Electoral Act review.

However, by accident or design, the results therefrom have not been able to address the popular yearnings of the electorate for an enduring electoral legacy for the country. A wholesale review in one fell swoop may prove unattainable within the four-year tenure of any administration. But there are specific aspects central to the quest for amendment of the Electoral Act that has continued to dominate public discourse among stakeholders across the federation:

 

 Electronic voting:

Electronic voting begins with the use of a Smart Card Reader or any other technological device for voter accreditation. This has already been captured in Section 41 of the Electoral Act and has been in use since the 2015 general elections. Stakeholders, however, demand that the process be extended to electronic transfer of data from polling units to designated collation centres. This will then move through the layers, to the central database at the headquarters of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

It also requires that INEC maintain at its headquarters, a register containing the database of all election results, to be updated continuously. The data should be made available to any person or political party in printed or electronic format upon payment of prescribed fees to be determined by the electoral body.

Also, INEC is expected to leave open its central database containing the data of accreditation of voters and polling unit results for elections until all election petitions and appeals are heard and determined by the relevant tribunals and courts. It’s a demand for wholesale deployment of technology all the way from start to finish for all elections. This, stakeholders say, would eliminate cases of ballot stuffing, ballot snatching and falsification of election results.

 

Electoral Offences Tribunal:

Some of the highlights contained in the Uwais Committee report as regards the electoral process in Nigeria identified the existence of weak democratic institutions and processes. The report also attributed the violence and disruptions that often characterise elections to negative political culture, weak legal framework, and lack of independence and capacity of the electoral management bodies.

To curb the malaise, the committee had recommended the establishment of Electoral Offences Commission (EOC) to deal with cases of electoral offences. The EOC will then process the charges for onward transmission to an Electoral Offences Tribunal (EOT) for the prosecution of offenders. Cases of ballot stuffing, ballot snatching, and falsification of results have continued to dog the electoral process since the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1999. To date, offenders have been able to walk away with merely a slap on the wrist, courtesy of their politician sponsors and godfathers. Recommendation for the setting up of EOC and EOT had been sent to the federal legislature a couple of times. But, for reasons not far-fetched, the political class, including members of the National Assembly has prevaricated about the idea. The Electoral Act, as it is, does not give INEC the powers to prosecute electoral offenders.

 

Demilitarisation of the process:

Another sore point is the heavy militarisation of the electoral process, particularly on Election Day. The law assigns to police personnel and those of other paramilitary agencies some roles in the electoral process. Such roles, as defined by the relevant rules, allow such personnel to maintain law and order during elections. Even at that, they are required to be a disinterested party and to monitor the processes from a distance. But at every election circle, personnel of the police and other paramilitary agencies have got themselves entangled with the electoral process, with accusations of ballot stuffing, ballot snatching and falsification of election results in many instances.

Sadly, the ugly trend has continued to grow in leaps from one administration to the other. The trend has now peaked with the co-option of heavily armed military personnel being drafted for election duties. Every administration has justified the deployment of military personnel with the need to provide security cover for voters, electoral officials and materials. However, opposition parties that are always left with the short end of the stick have often alleged intimidation of voters with a heavy presence of the military around voting environments. The trend started with the 2003 general elections conducted by the then ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) under the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidency.

But, it climaxed during the 2014 off-season governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states under former President Goodluck Jonathan and his PDP. As it were, the All Progressives Congress (APC), which stridently opposed militarisation of the process while in the opposition, has also conveniently embraced militarisation, singing the PDP refrain. It reached a tipping point during the 2019 general elections conducted under the APC administration, leaving the now opposition PDP to play the victim. This is perhaps a case of the PDP falling on its own sword. Political analysts and other stakeholders are in agreement that the mere sight of heavily-armed military personnel in a polling environment is enough to scare away many prospective voters.

 

Who appoints the INEC chair?:

Sections 154(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the power to appoint the chairman of INEC in the President. However, in making the appointment, the constitution makes it mandatory for the President to consult the Council of State, and subject to the confirmation by the Senate. But, one of the radical recommendations contained in the Uwais report and which has continued to gain traction, sought to divest the President of the powers to appoint INEC chairman. Such powers, the report said, should be vested in the National Judicial Council (NJC).

The reasoning of the 22-member Uwais panel was that of the three arms of government, only members of the judiciary are constitutionally excluded from partisan politics or contesting elections. And that being apolitical, the NJC should be the appropriate body to appoint a chairman for the electoral umpire. Apart from ensuring a good measure of independence for the electoral body, it will also shield the leadership of the commission from undue influence by the executive arm, which is headed by the President. The late President Umaru Yar ‘Adua had, in 2009, forwarded an edited version of the report to the National Assembly for consideration, minus the aspect ceding the power of appointment of INEC chairman to the judicial arm.

However, Jonathan who took over in 2010, following the death of Yar ‘Adua, submitted the full report to the National Assembly unedited. Curiously, the federal lawmakers at the time rejected the request to allow the judiciary to appoint the INEC chairman. For the electoral umpire to be truly independent in the real sense of the word, key stakeholders insist this is the most auspicious time to effect the change.

They argue that this is the appropriate time to do it because the tenure of the present INEC chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, who was first appointed by President Buhari in late 2015 and reappointed in 2020, is due to expire in 2025. As such, Yabuku will outlive Buhari in office, as the president’s tenure will expire in 2023. For this reason, observers say there will be less rancour, insinuations and innuendos among lawmakers in the process of effecting the change. For instance, there will be fewer tantrums or accusations that the required change is targeted at President Buhari. And since the identity of who is going to be president after Buhari is yet unknown, nobody should be seen fighting for the interest of a yet-to-be-known president.

 

 Early nominations:

It is observed that INEC keeps struggling with challenges arising from inadequate timeframe at every election circle, forcing the commission to work under acute pressure in preparation for elections. Most times, there are court orders and counter orders to contend with, as politicians fight tooth and nail to secure the tickets of their various parties. To address this snag, a joint committee of the National Assembly Committee on INEC had, during the last Electoral Act amendment process, recommended that INEC call for nomination of candidates at least 360 days to the election. Six months (180 days) was recommended for political parties to submit their list of candidates to the electoral body to give it ample time to process the documents. If this amendment scales through and assented to by the President,

INEC will call for nominations for the 2023 general election by February 2022. By implication, political parties will have up to July 2022 to conclude their primaries and submit their list of candidates to the electoral umpire. This is the process put in place by advanced democracies like the United States and even Ghana. Incidentally, this provision was part of the amendments contained in the 2018 Electoral Act passed by the Eighth National Assembly but to which President Buhari declined assent.