Nigeria’s political parties, INEC and the judiciary

 

As the dust gradually settles on the seventh general elections in this Fourth Republic, it is time to engage in some post-election audit. I have decided to start with three out of the 10 critical stakeholders in the electoral process. It is noteworthy that credibility or otherwise of any election is a multi-stakeholder responsibility. Actors and stakeholders in the electoral process are as follows: political parties, contestants, the electoral management bodies (i.e. the Independent National Electoral Commission and the State Independent Electoral Commissions), the legislature (National and state assemblies), the judiciary, security agencies, accredited observers from the civil society groups, the media (accredited journalists), the donor partners and the electorate otherwise call the voters.

Political parties act as intermediaries between the people and the government. They perform aggregative and informative functions by harmonising the various demands made from the political environment into the political system and communicating the activities of the government to the people. Section 229 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, interpreted political parties to include “any association whose activities include canvassing for votes in support of a candidate for election to the office of president, vice-president, governor, deputy governor or membership of a legislative house or of a local government council.”

Eighteen political parties contested various political offices in the 2023 general elections and I dare say the behaviour of many of the party chieftains and candidates leaves much to be desired. While the political parties with representatives in the National Assembly did their best to influence the content of the Electoral Act 2022, the real anti-democratic behaviour of most political parties were exhibited in the lead up to the party primaries, campaigns and elections. Ahead of the party primaries, some of the political parties decided to abuse their party waiver policy. They admitted new members on the eve of their party primaries and cleared them to participate in the party nomination process.

Take for example, former Anambra State governor, Peter Obi, was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party until May 24, 2022, when he resigned to join the Labour Party in less than two weeks of joining the party, he was cleared to participate in the party presidential primaries and later became the party’s presidential standard bearer. Similar thing happened in the Social Democratic Party in Rivers State where Senator Magnus Abe left the All Progressives Party in July 2022 after losing the party governorship ticket to Tonye Cole and became the Social Democratic Party governorship candidate thereafter.

Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2022 says, “A candidate may withdraw his or her candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for the election and the political party shall convey such withdrawal to the commission not later than 90 days to the election.”

This provision was widely abused by political party gatekeepers who sometimes mount pressure on already nominated candidates to withdraw from the race after heavy inducement from aspirants who lost out on other party platforms. Recall that dominant political parties such as the APC and PDP set prohibitive expressions of interest and nomination fees for aspirants under their parties. In spite of this, the party primaries conducted were heavily flawed and undemocratic. This is why there were over 600 pre-election matters filed in court over the authentic party candidates. Up till now, legal disputes over the genuine candidates of some political parties are unresolved even as the general elections have been conducted.

When some political party chieftains started grandstanding over the outcome of the 2023 general elections and accused INEC of conducting flawed elections I laugh because it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Did they do better than INEC in their internal party elections? Let’s move over to campaigns. For the first time, the Electoral Act 2022 makes room for 150 days of campaigns according to section 94(1) of the Act. Despite signing two peace accords facilitated by the National Peace Committee, the Nigeria political class exhibited scant regards for fair play. They killed, maimed, engaged in hate speeches and fake news against their political opponents. Of course they were responsible for the 21 deaths reported by the European Union Election Observation Mission. Even the poll officials of INEC were victims in the hands of these desperate politicians who spared no efforts to win at all cost. If I may ask, who sent thugs to invade the INEC collation centres in Birnin Gwari in Kaduna, Fufore Local Government Area in Adamawa State and Obingwa in Abia State? Who sent thugs to abduct 19 INEC officials in Imo State and two in Maradun LGA in Zamfara State? Who is responsible for the death of an INEC ad-hoc worker, Arumodum Akoi, shot and killed by political thugs in Ward 7, Abua Central, Abua-Odual LGA of Rivers State?

The reprehensive behaviour of a section of Nigeria’s political class reminds me of the immortal words of former INEC Chairman between 2000 and 2005, Dr. Abel Guobadia, who in one of his public statements said, “Nigerian political parties behave like war machines cocked almost permanently to go into combat with perceived opponents, both existing and potential. More often than not, the enemy is not just the opposition party but also the electorate who refuse to toe the party line. Once in power, the parties want to remain there forever (Tarzarce) by hook or by crook, intolerant to challenges either from within or from without.”

On the part of INEC, we saw how the electoral umpire over promised but under delivered. Despite 24 years of organising general elections and other off-cycle and court ordered polls, the commission still grappled with perennial logistical challenges leading to late commencement of polls especially on February 25. While the creation of additional 56,872 polling units in June 2021 was a welcome development, the distribution of voters into the overall 176,846 PUs was lopsided with many still having thousands while others have few voters posted to them. The inability of INEC to post results of the presidential election in real time on its Result Viewing Portal was seen as a deliberate act of mischief.  To my mind, INEC’s over-reliance on ad-hoc staff for its logistics and conduct of elections will continue to raise concerns. INEC had to recruit over 1.4 million ad-hoc staff some of whom have partisan interest or simply see the exercise as an opportunity to cash out from politicians.

Section 8(5) of the Act says, “A person who, being a member of a political party, misrepresents himself by not disclosing his membership, affiliation, or connection to any political party in order to secure an appointment with the commission in any capacity, commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term not more than two years or both.” Did INEC conduct background checks on its estimated 1.4 million ad-hoc staff comprising members of the National Youth Service Corps, federal university students and academics? It’s an open secret that leadership of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Unions and Boat Owners Association whom INEC rely on for conveying election materials and personnel have partisan interest. It behooves INEC to think out possible alternatives to these categories of ad-hoc staff who can act in a manner to discredit the work of the commission.

The permanent and ad-hoc staff identified to have acted unprofessionally in the conduct of the 2023 general elections should be properly investigated and if prima facie case is established against them, they should be arrested and prosecuted.

The judiciary does not conduct elections but has the last say on the matter due to the power given to it by the constitution and the Electoral Act to review the actions of political parties and INEC. The election dispute resolution phase is significant because of the need for restorative justice. I implore their lordships at the election petition tribunals and appellate courts to do substantial justice and not dwell on technicalities. Section 135 (1) of the Act says, “An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.” This principle of law should be exercised with utmost discretion.