Like 2007, like 2011
On paper, the 2010 Electoral Act is an ambitious piece of draft
legislation. The Act seeks to repeal the 2006 Electoral Act, under which the
disgraceful 2007 general elections were conducted, and to introduce
unprecedented changes to the electoral process. One striking example is the
independent candidature model.
The Act also seeks to end the idea of state funding of political
parties. In addition, it seeks to confine election petition adjudications to a
sensible time frame, a departure from the current situation where cases are
still being decided by the courts three years after the elections that gave
rise to them.
The bill has its failings. In not seeking to alter the current
mechanism by which the Chairperson of INEC is appointed – the powers of appointment
and sack are currently vested in the President – it falls short of being truly
revolutionary.
There are those who will argue that the conferment of these
powers on the President is the principal defect of our current electoral
set-up. Indeed, speaking at the presentation of the Electoral Reform panel
report to former President Umar Yar’Adua at the Aso Villa in 2008, the Chair of
the panel Mr. Uwais said: “The independent national electoral commission and
the state independent electoral commission lack the requisite independence.
This is a key deficiency of our electoral process.”
To remedy this the Uwais-led panel recommended that the Head of
the Electoral Commission should be appointed by the National Judicial Council,
subject to the confirmation of the National Assembly.
It is indeed absurd to grant that power of appointment to the
President, a patently partisan individual, who clearly has vested interests in
the election process. Take the current scenario as an example: very soon
President Jonathan will appoint a substantive head for INEC. This appointee
will be the person who will oversee the conduct of the 2011 presidential
elections, in which, from all appearances, Mr. Jonathan will be not only a
contender, but also the candidate with the overwhelming advantages of
incumbency.
The failure of the 2010 Electoral Act to adopt the Uwais panel
recommendation on the appointment of an INEC chairman is its “key deficiency”.
As the 2011 elections approach, there are therefore no guarantees of the
autonomy of the electoral commission. We hope that as the draft bill undergoes
further deliberations in both chambers of the National Assembly, and as
Nigerians get a chance to make an input through public sittings of the
Assembly, the Act will be rendered free of glaring loopholes and deficiencies.
It must also be noted, however, that until the new Act is
signed into law by the President, it is merely a commendable listing of hopes
and aspirations, of no value to Nigerians and to the electoral process. As
things stand, the significantly flawed 2006 Act is still the final word on
elections in Nigeria. There is no guarantee that will change in time for next
year’s elections.
That 2006 Act, in the light of the massive changes that its
successor seeks to bring to it, represents the dark ages of the Nigerian
electoral process. It leaves INEC at the mercy of the Executive arm of
government, in terms of funding. It makes no provision for expeditious
adjudication of election petition cases. At the moment, Alphonsus Igbeke, a
member of the National Assembly – the arm of government in whose hands a speedy
overhaul of the Electoral Act lies – is still unsuccessfully trying to claim
his seat, three years after he was elected. Joy Emordi, who fraudulently
usurped his seat, has managed to hold on all the while by exploiting the
snail-like progress of the petition process. Unfortunately, Mrs. Emordi’s
antics are the rule, not an exception.
Instances like this hurriedly dispel whatever meager hopes
Nigerians have that the National Assembly is ready to ensure that 2011 does not
end up being a repeat of 2007.
