Nigeria Content Online

Over the past three weeks, there has been a raging
debate on whether INEC has been castrated in its effort to compel
parties to practice internal democracy. In an insightful article, “How the
National Assembly Castrated INEC” (Sunday Trust, 20/2/11), Abdul-Rahman
Abubakar cites comments by the Cross River’s State Resident Electoral
Commissioner that the National Assembly played a trick on them when
they requested the change of dates for the elections. According to the
Commissioner “extraneous clauses were inserted that led to the
castration of INEC.”

Specifically, the National Assembly removed the
previous Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act which states that “Where a
political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the
conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be
included in the election for the particular position in issue.”

The lawmakers then introduced a completely new
Section 31(1) which then forbids INEC from rejecting candidates
presented by political parties for any reasons whatsoever. The parties
celebrated this section by conducting primaries in a reckless manner
that completely disregarded the warning from INEC’s Professor Jega that
parties must practice internal party democracy in accordance with the
law.

All reports from the primaries indicated clearly
that godfathers were still in control. In many cases, delegate’s
elections did not take place and candidates were imposed rather than
elected from congresses. Many persons disliked by godfathers were
summarily prevented from contesting for elections. Worse still, so many
people who took part in and won primaries were dropped by party bosses
and substituted by others.

This is an unfortunate development because
political parties constitute the bedrock of multi-party democracy. The
character of legislative, executive and local government institutions
is largely shaped by the ideological platform, objectives and
recruitment procedures of political parties. Indeed political parties
are the single most important institutions in the democratic process.

My view is that party godfathers are celebrating
the so-called castration of INEC too early. Although the new Section
31(1) says INEC cannot refuse a candidate submitted by a political
party, the law makers did not remove the portions of Section 87 that
defined who a candidate is. The definition of a candidate in the Act
remains: “The aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of
voting shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and
aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to the Independent National
Electoral Commission as the candidate of the party, for the particular
State.”

When parties therefore send names to INEC of
people who had not contested in the primaries or had been defeated in
the primaries, the said persons are submitted in contravention of the
provisions of the Electoral Act. I think the attitude of INEC should be
to allow the law to takes its course. The legitimate candidates whose
names have been dropped should go to court to regain their mandate and
hope to benefit from the Amaechi effect.

This is the only option open but is not the best.
The court processes will take a long time and voters will go to the
polls not knowing who will eventually emerge as the legitimate
candidate they are voting for. Although the 2010 Electoral Act as
amended still contains clear directives for the institutionalisation
and enforcement of democratic norms in the functioning of political
parties, politicians have created conditions for subverting it.

It is now clear that the full application of the
Electoral Act 2010, which spells out the path for political parties to
take in upholding the core principles of internal party democracy
including openness, transparency and inclusiveness in their operations,
will now be mediated by the judiciary.

The judiciary is however undergoing a crisis of
confidence as the dog fight between the Chief Justice of the Federation
and the President of the Court of Appeal continues. It is frightening
that the fight is about how parties can use or are using the judiciary
to subvert outcomes of elections. To save our democracy both
individuals must step down immediately and the allegations and counter
allegations investigated. Both individuals cannot preside over their
allegations of corruption. The Chief Justice cannot preside over an
enquiry which emanates from allegations over his own corruption. The
President of the Court of Appeal has serious allegations over his own
conduct and must give way.

Nobody ever said that deepening democracy in
Nigeria was going to be an easy task. The challenges we are facing are
however more complex than many of us imagined. Just when Nigerians were
getting confident that the judiciary was playing a positive role in
adjudicating electoral disputes, the judiciary itself is now being
compromised.

In a sense, the political class continues to misbehave because it
does not really believe that the 2011 elections will be different from
those of 2003 and 2007. It is imperative that Attahiru Jega and his
team in INEC prove them wrong. They must do what it takes to organise
credible elections this year.