THE seesaw between the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), and the National Assembly over the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 does not bode well for the electoral system and the sustenance of democracy. With only a few days left for the bill to become law early enough to enable the umpire to meet its already fixed dates for the 2023 polls, a swift presidential assent is imperative. The two arms of government owe the citizenry the duty to resolve, quickly, whatever discrepancies there may be in the bill to birth a new legal framework to guide the country’s electoral process. Further delay has negative implications for the 2023 elections.

Buhari had refused assent to the bill in December 2021, forcing the NASS to rework it before sending it back to the President on January 31. This gives him a 30-day window to assent to the bill or withhold his assent, which he had done previously on a few occasions. That window will close on March 1.

The most notable provision in the bill is about electronic transmission in the electoral process. This is in furtherance of the ideal of legally entrenching technology, and electronic processes through the entire electoral system; from voter registration, compilation, to voting and transmission of results in real-time.

Another noteworthy but controversial proposal in the bill is the amendment inserted by the lawmakers for direct, indirect primaries and consensus clauses as a mode of electing candidates by the political parties for an election.

But citing a need to “to save Nigeria’s democracy” and guard against “a severe spike in the cost of holding primary elections by parties – integral to democracies the world over” –Buhari argued in December that he had no option but to withhold assent. He cannot be faulted on this. However, this is the fifth time the President would withhold his assent to the bill, giving diverse reasons, some of them spurious. In the latest one, he says “the proposed amendments entail significant legal, financial, economic and security consequences for all Nigerians.”

Lawmakers are providing him with another pretext to reject the bill. Indeed, it is outside the powers of the NASS to legislate for political parties how to go about the selection of their candidates for elections. In a democracy, political parties are allowed, within their operational laws, the power to design and adopt suitable methods of selecting their candidates from a pool of aspirants during the primary elections – direct, indirect or consensus. An informed parliament should not decree a uniform format for all parties. The United States’ two major parties have different modes of choosing candidates and even within the same party, the rules vary from state to state.

The NASS’ attempt to micromanage parties’ selection processes is misplaced, diversionary and highly contentious. Among others, it distracts from the most critical tasks needed in an amended electoral law. Reforms long canvassed, including some recommendations made by the Muhammed Uwais electoral reforms panel in 2008 to clean up the country’s chaotic elections, are the minimum expected by Nigerians.

After Buhari’s last snub, the federal lawmakers took back the rejected bill and went to work. Although they pledged to take into cognisance Buhari’s observations for refusing assent, the parliament introduced new divisive provisions. That was the least expected given that Nigeria is running against time to prepare for the 2023 polls. Without taking this into consideration, the NASS came up with some alterations; the most ludicrous will preclude all serving political appointees from participating in some vital aspects of the electoral process, either as voting delegates, or aspirants during the conventions or congresses of their respective political parties. This is legislative tyranny.

It is undemocratic and clearly unconstitutional. The ill-fated proposal goes against the grain of democratic freedoms. No law-abiding citizen can be denied the right to pursue a legitimate political ambition on account of serving the nation in an appointive capacity. Unwittingly, the lawmakers are giving Buhari another excuse to withhold his assent for the sixth time. In the event of that, it is the country that suffers.

Federal lawmakers should be more responsible. Their outrageous shenanigans, if allowed, will automatically constrict the democratic space as some key political office holders like ministers, commissioners, and other appointees at the various levels of government will bid farewell to their political ambitions. This is a wrong way to deepen democracy.

Currently, the House of Representatives is also pushing a constitution amendment to raise the academic qualification of any aspirant to the office of the President, governor of a state and other elective public office to a university degree or its equivalent. This is another unneeded distraction. Higher academic attainment, though desirable in today’s knowledge-driven world, is not the sole determinant of good and effective governance. Examples abound, nationally and internationally, of leaders like the late Lateef Jakande of Lagos State, Brazil’s Inacio Lula Da Silva and the former Polish leader, Lech Wałęsa, who bequeathed outstanding legacies of sound governance and demonstrable leadership to their people even without having formal higher education. Wałęsa, a shipyard electrician, led the protest movement that overthrew communist dictatorship, and became in 1990 Poland’s first democratically elected president since 1926, and the first-ever elected via a popular vote.

Evidently, the two arms of government are not propelled by the love for deepening the country’s democracy. If they were, they would understand the imperative of having a sound electoral law in place well ahead of the 2023 electoral season. The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Yakubu Mahmood, has already voiced this concern. He emphasised that a tidy Electoral Act is needed now to ease the umpire’s logistical nightmares and enable it to meet the set timelines ahead of the next polls.

Civil society organisations should intensify their ongoing strong advocacy to pressure the two arms of government to act quickly in the interest of the country’s wobbly democracy.

The NASS should accord priority to adopting some key recommendations of the Uwais panel. There is an urgent need to institutionalise an electoral offences commission to deal with infractions related to the conduct of elections, and stem electoral malpractices that have blighted Nigeria’s democracy.

The way forward, ultimately, is for the proposed electoral law to emplace a reduction of the time spent in pre- and post-election litigation and ensure that all matters related to elections are diligently concluded in court before the swearing-in of the winners into office, by allowing for enough time between the end of elections and inauguration.

Buhari and the NASS should realise that the Electoral Act is critical in entrenching e-voting and e-transmission of results to reduce human interface in the process and enhance the integrity of elections.

In Ghana where democracy is growing deeper roots, it is the electoral commission, and not the executive or the parliament that is responsible for proposing amendments to the electoral law. This is a better route. In Nigeria, it is the opposite: the lawmakers and their cohorts preside over electoral amendments. Repeatedly, they do this often to serve their self-interests. To save the day, all the pranks by the political class over the Electoral Bill should end now.

•PHOTO: The President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.); President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila... before the joint session of the National Assembly on Thursday. Photo: @buharisallau

Update news