Last week’s declaration of All Progressives Congress, APC, governorship candidate in Adamawa State, Aisha Dahiru, popularly known as Binani, as governor-elect by the state Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, Hudy Ari, against the stipulations of the law, has heightened concerns over the conduct of RECs and its implications on the electoral process.

Ari, who had no power under the Electoral Act 2022 as amended to do so, had gone ahead to declare the APC standard-bearer winner of the governorship election when the collation of results was still ongoing, creating tension in the polity.

The action had set in place what could have been a dangerous political stalemate, crisis and precedent until the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, invalidated it.

Section 25 of the Act empowered only the Returning Officer to declare the winner of an election at the state collation centre.

Law

Specifically, the law says :” The results of all the elections shall be announced by the: Presiding Officer at the Polling Unit; Ward Collation Officer at the registration area or Ward Collation Centre; Local Government or Area Council Collation Officer at the Local Government or Area Council Collation Centre; and State Collation Officer at the State Collation Centre.”

Since what happened in Adamawa didn’t only contravene the law, but also usurped the powers of the Returning Officer, there are worries over its symbolism in the country.

This is irrespective of INEC’s nullification of the action and the subsequent suspension of the REC, who is believed not to be ignorant of the position of the law as regards the declaration of results.

In the buildup to the general elections, Sunday Vanguard had, in a report titled: Tension over RECs, BVAs, Seven Other Issues, observed that neutrality of RECs was an issue of worry.

The alarm was premised on two factors: One was the suspected affiliation of some commissioners with interested parties. There was also the issue of capacity as some were found to be supervising elections for the first time.

“There are worries about some of its Resident Electoral Commissioners, RECs, who were accused of having affinities with parties. Questions have also been raised about some National Commissioners, who would be superintending over elections for the first time,” this paper observed in the report.

In 2008, the Justice Muhammadu Uwais Electoral Reforms Report shared a similar sentiment about the managers of Nigeria’s elections.

It observed: “The independence and impartiality of the country’s election management bodies, that is, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, State Independent Electoral Commissions, SIECs, and other institutions involved in election matters, have been questioned by the generality of Nigerians who submitted memoranda and made presentations during the public hearings of the Committee. INEC and SIECs have generally been adjudged as operating as appendages of the ruling party and the executive arms of government. This perception stems mainly from the mode of appointment of key officials of the EMBs and their funding which rests exclusively with the executive branch of government. The same perception of partiality, ineffectiveness and inefficiency affects the other institutions, especially the security agencies, critical for credible elections.”

To a large extent, what is now known as the failed ‘Adamawa coup’ has confirmed the fears highlighted in that report.

The development, which stands in a class of its own at a time INEC was accused of not playing by its rules during the presidential election, has once again brought to the fore the need to reform the Commission.

Since the first post-military rule election in 1999, calls for electoral reforms have followed the aftermath of every general election.

Controversy

This has majorly been precipitated by an unbroken cycle of controversial elections believed to have been caused by disregard for rules, weak institutions, infirm legal frameworks, poor political culture and excessive use of money among others.

For instance, in the report of the Uwais Electoral Reforms Panel submitted to President Umaru Yar’Adua, it was observed that outcomes of Nigerian elections have consistently degenerated.

“The 85-year-old history of Nigeria’s elections shows a progressive degeneration of outcomes. Thus, the 2007 elections are believed to be the worst since the first elections were held in 1922. The compelling need to embark on electoral reforms is thus obvious,” it stated.

Of the electoral reforms initiated since 1999, election stakeholders believe the Uwais Panel on Electoral Reforms stood out given its wide-reaching findings and recommendations.

It is believed that the events that necessitated the inauguration of the panel by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua in 2007, share many similarities with the conduct of the 2023 polls: They were as controversial as the conduct of the last exercise.

And the uproar that followed at the time was as deafening as the current outrage over the last elections’ outcome, forcing the President to constitute a 22-man panel headed by retired Justice Muhammadu Uwais.

With membership drawn from critical sectors including the media, academia, judiciary, and civil society, the committee went round the country, gathering opinions on how to improve the electoral framework.

The outcome of the 16-month exercise was a 297-page document titled: Report of the Electoral Reform Committee.

To date, its recommendations are adjudged the best proposals to ensure Nigerian elections no longer have credibility issues.

Some key excerpts gleaned from recommendations submitted to President Yar’Adua in December 2008, read:

Re-organisation of INEC

“INEC should be re-organized and re-positioned to ensure its independence and professionalism in the conduct of elections in the country.

“The 1999 Constitution should be amended to ensure that INEC becomes truly independent, non-partisan, impartial, professional, transparent, and reliable as an institution and in the performance of its constitutional functions. INEC should consist of: a board that formulates broad electoral policy and direction for the Commission; and a professional/technical election management team to handle the actual conduct of elections.

Funding of INEC

‘’Section 84 of the 1999 Constitution should be amended by adding subsection (8) to read as follows: The election expenditure and the recurrent expenditure of the Independent National Electoral Commissioners offices (in addition to salaries and allowances of the Chairman and members mentioned in subsection 4 of this section) shall be first charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.”

Composition of INEC Board

“The membership of the Board of INEC should consist of the following: A Chairman – who must be a person of unquestionable integrity; a Deputy Chairman – who must be a person of unquestionable integrity. However, the Chairman and Deputy must not be of the same gender; six persons of unquestionable integrity, two of whom must be women and 1 of whom must come from each of the six geo-political zones of the Federation; one nominee of Civil Society Organizations working in the area of elections and accredited by the proposed Political Parties Registration and Regulatory Commission; The National Judicial Council shall advertise all the positions, spelling out requisite qualifications.

Tenure of office

“The tenure of office of the members of INEC’s Board should be five years subject to renewal for another five years. At the national level INEC’s management team should consist of professional/technical/operational officers as follows: Secretary, Departmental Directors

At the State level, the State Independence Electoral Commission ,SIECs, should be re-organized and incorporated within the structure of the INEC to form a single election management body for the country. The state level Secretariat of INEC should therefore consist of 37 Directors of Elections, one for each State and the FCT, appointed by INEC, trained and posted to states.

Security of Tenure of INEC Chairman and members

“The Chairman and members of the Board of INEC may only be removed by the Senate on the recommendation of the National Judicial Commission (NJC) by two-thirds majority of the Senate which shall include at least 10 members of the minority parties in

the Senate. Section 155 of the 1999 Constitution should be amended to provide

that the tenure of office of the Chairman and members of the Board of INEC shall be five years from the date of appointment, renewable only once.

“The process of renewal of the appointment of members of the Board of INEC shall be by the Senate on the recommendation of the NJC.

Conclusion of election disputes before swearing-in

“There is need to produce rules and procedures that enhance speedy disposal of election petitions. The law should shift the burden of proof from the petitioners to INEC to show that disputed elections were indeed free and fair and complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Rules of evidence should be formulated to achieve substantive justice rather than mere observance of technicalities.

“Elections to the office of President and Governors should be held at least six months before the expiration of their terms. A maximum of four months should be devoted to hearing petitions by the tribunals and another two months for hearing appeals by the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. No executive should be sworn in before the conclusion of the cases against him/her. In the case of legislators, no one should be sworn in before the determination of the case against him/her. INEC should have no right of appeal.

Curbing violence

“There is the need to deal with incidents as well as the root causes of violence related to elections. Quite often, attention is focused on incidences without a longer-term view of how to address the root causes of the problem. For example, only sustainable, systemic reform measures can provide employment and curtail the profound phenomenon of youth unemployment, which feeds into, and fan violence related to elections.

There is a need to effectively regulate the behaviour and actions of contestants, voters, officials, etc in the entire electoral process and to carefully frame rules and regulations covering all aspects of the electoral process. No stone should be left unturned in this regard. There is a need to effectively police the election process and enforce rules and regulations by assigning well-trained, impartial and honest law enforcement and security agents and agencies to help police and secure the electoral process.

Prosecution of Electoral Offences

“Amend Section 174 (c) of the 1999 Constitution such that the constitutional power of nolle prosequi vested in the Attorney-General of the Federation or of a state does not apply to electoral offences.

“Amend the Electoral Act 2006 to establish an Electoral Offences Commission to perform the following functions: enforcement and administration of the provisions of the Electoral Act; investigation of all electoral frauds and related offences. Coordination, enforcement and prosecution of all electoral offences; enforcement of the provisions of the Electoral Act

Date for elections

“Amend Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2006 to take away from INEC the power to fix dates for elections. Also, amend the Constitution to fix dates for elections which should hold at least six months before the date of swearing-in to provide adequate time for concluding all election petitions before swearing in of elected candidates.

“The presidential and gubernatorial elections should take place in the first week of November of the election year; Friday, Saturday and Sunday excluded in deference to the religious sensibilities of Muslims, Seventh-Day Adventists and Christians respectively.

The elected chief executives should be sworn-in in May of the following year, an interval of six months to allow for the disposal of election petitions arising from the elections.

“National and State Assembly elections should take place in the second week of November and should be held two years after presidential and gubernatorial elections.”

Convinced that it had delivered a roadmap to credible elections, the panel concluded thus: “The Committee is convinced that the recommendations contained in this report are necessary and sufficient to improve the quality of our elections. To this extent, the Committee recommends that there should be urgency on the part of the President, the National Assembly, Governors, State Assemblies and others in effecting the constitutional, statutory, administrative and institutional changes required to achieve the desired effect.”

Unfortunately, the report, which was expected to herald a new era in election management, was hardly implemented by the Yar’Adua administration.

Ironically, successive administrations acknowledged the need for electoral reforms, but ignored the findings and recommendations, leading to questions on whether the government is truly serious about credible elections.

The consensus today is that the consequences of ignoring the report undermine the electoral process as witnessed in the conduct of the 2023 polls. (Sunday Vanguard)

Update news