The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Election sequence

  • Breaking: Appeal Court reverses judgment on election sequence dispute

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed the judgment by the Federal High Court, Abuja which voided Section 25 in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which sought to dictate the sequence of the next general elections.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in a judgment on April 25 this year, upheld a suit by Accord Party, to the effect that the National Assembly attempted to usurp the exclusive power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by seeking to dictate the sequence of elections.

    Read Also:Election sequence: Buhari, AGF back suit against NASS

    But, in a judgment on Wednesday on an appeal by the National Assembly, a five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by the court’s President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa set aside the April 25 judgment by Justice Mohammed.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in the lead judgment, said the Federal High Court was without jurisdiction to hear the suit in the first place, because it (the suit) was premature.

    The court said the provision of a Bill could not be challenged in court until it becomes an Act.

    The appellate court was also of the view the plaintiff at the lower court, Accord Party (AP) lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, because the disputed provision of the Bill did not affect its (AP’s) rights or obligations as a political party.

    The court said the “general interest” which is available to the public did not confer on Accord Party, the rights to challenge the provision of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018.

     

    Details later…

     

  • Breaking: Court voids NASS attempt to alter election sequence

    …Says only INEC can fix dates for elections

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has voided Clause 25 of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018, which seeks to reverse the sequence of the conduct of the 2019 elections earlier announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a judgment on Wednesday, held that the powers to organise, conduct and fix dates for elections resides only with INEC by virtue of Section 15(a) of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution.

    Justice Mohammed said the passage of the Bill, which seeks to alter the election time table earlier released by INEC was a breach of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.

    The judgement was on the suit by Accord Party (AP), challenging the legitimacy of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018, to which President Muhammadu Buhari declined to assent.

    Justice Mohammed answered all the questions raised the suit for determination in favour of the plaintiff and granted all the reliefs by the sought plaintiff, except 11(1) which sought to restrain President Muhammadu Buhari from asserting to the Bill.

    The judge noted that granting such prayer was no longer necessary since the President has already declined signing the Bill.

    Before determining the main suit, the judge earlier dismissed the preliminary objection filed by the National Assembly (1st defendant) in which they argued among others that the suit was not justiciable, that the plaintiff were without the requisite locus standi and that the suit was academic.

    Justice Mohammed disagreed with the 1st defendant on all the grounds raised in the preliminary objection.

    Details later….

    Read Also: Senate writes CJN over alleged frivolous order on election sequence Bill

  • Polls: Senate begins move to override Buhari’s veto

    •Panel to probe allegation of bribery

    THE Senate yesterday began the process of overriding President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto to the amendment of the Electoral Act, 2018.

    The upper chamber reintroduced the “Electoral Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill, 2018”.

    The Bill, tagged: SB 645, and sponsored by Chairman, Senate Committee on Independent National Electoral Commission, Senator Suleiman Nazif, scaled first reading seamlessly.

    It was on a day the Senate mandated its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions to investigate alleged attempts to compromise senators and House of Representatives members to abandon plans to override the President’s veto.

    A number of senators in support of the Bill insisted that it was wrong for Buhari to withhold assent to the proposed legislation.

    Others opposed to the Bill saw it as targeted at the President and vowed to scuttle it.

    Insiders said the lawmakers will pass the Bill once again as it was done before the President withheld his assent.

    The most contentious section of the Bill is the reordering of election sequence, which placed the presidential election last in the order of election in the country.

    The reintroduction of the Bill is coming at a time allegations of bribery to scuttle the override of the veto were making the rounds.

    President Buhari withheld assent to the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 2018, on the excuse that his assent would infringe on the constitutional powers of INEC.

    The President, in a letter to the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, said giving assent to the Bill would make the National Assembly appear as if it was legislating for the states on local government-related issues.

    It was not known how far the Senate can go in its determination to override the President’s veto to the Bill.

    The resolution to investigate the allegation followed a point of order by Senator Peter Nwaoboshi on the issue.

    Nwaoboshi (Delta North) told his colleagues that the media was awash on Monday about alleged move to bribe senators and House members to scuttle the plan to override the President’s veto on the Electoral Act.

    It was alleged that $50,000 had been earmarked for senators and members of the House of Representatives are expected to get $30,000 each to stop the override plot.

    The upper chamber asked the committee to report back its finding within two weeks for a decisive action to be taken.

    Nwaoboshi told his colleagues that the media report infringes on his right as a senator since he did not receive any money from anybody.

    He prayed the Senate to get to the root of the matter with a view to unearthing the faces behind the bribery allegation.

    Senator Mao Ohuabunwa, who supported the motion, noted that he has been inundated with phone calls from his constituents over the allegation.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki agreed that the allegations should be investigated.

    Saraki described the allegation as a big dent on the image of the National Assembly.

    Nwaoboshi was asked to lay a copy of one of the publications.

     

     

     

     

  • Election sequence: Senate probes bribery allegation

    The Senate on Tuesday mandated its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions to investigate alleged attempts to compromise senators and House of Representatives members to abandon plans to override President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the 2018 Electoral Act amendment.

    The resolution to investigate the allegation followed a point of order raised by Senator Peter Nwaoboshi on the issue.

    Nwaoboshi (Delta North) told his colleagues that the media was awash with reports on Monday about alleged move to bribe senators and House members to scuttle the plan to override the President’s veto on the Electoral Act.

    It was alleged that $50,000 had been earmarked for senators, while members of the House of Representatives, are expected to get $30,000 each to stop the override plot.

    The upper chamber asked the committee to report back its finding within two weeks for a decisive action on the matter.

    Nwaoboshi told his colleagues that media report infringes on his right as a senator since he did not receive any money from anybody.

    He prayed the Senate to get to the root of the matter with a view to unearthing the faces behind the bribery allegation.

    Nwaoboshi said: “My constituents have been calling me through phone calls and emails. They are asking me to share the $50,000 I received as bribe with them to scuttle plans by the Senate to override the veto of the President.

    “I know that as a person, I have not received such money. Many of my colleagues too did not receive any money. I am sure nobody received the bribe they are alleging. This allegation infringes on my right as a senator and I think we have to get to the root of this issue.”

    Senator Mao Ohuabunwa, who supported the motion, noted that he has been inundated with phone calls from his constituents over the allegation.

    Ohuabunwa insisted that if allegation was not cleared Nigerians will believe and tag them as thieves.

     

     

  • Court rules on election sequence April 25

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed April 25 for judgment in the suit filed by Accord Party (AP) challenging the attempt by the National Assembly to reorder the 2019 general election schedule earlier released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed gave the date after entertaining arguments from parties on whether or not the NASS possessed the powers to alter the schedule of election released by INEC.

    While the NASS represented by Joseph Daudu (SAN) urged the court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the suit, the plaintiff, represented by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) and INEC, represented by Femi Falana (SAN), urged the court to grant the plaintiff’s reliefs.

     

     

  • Election sequence and NASS veto threat

    My writing to both chambers of the National Assembly to express his reservations about the Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill, President Muhammadu Buhari has, effectively vetoed the bill. Consequently, the National Assembly is now left to override the veto by two-thirds of its members at separate sittings.

    There is no doubt that the nation is about to witness another executive-legislature face-off in constitution reviews, amendments of Acts of Parliament and law-making process where the executive arm of government feels its interest is threatened by the spirit and the letter of the proposed laws or amendments. To be sure, the National Assembly has performed its constitutional function in the circumstance to the dissatisfaction of the incumbent head of the executive arm.

    Historically, if the National Assembly, under Bukola Saraki’s chairmanship, pursues the override option and goes ahead successfully, it would be the second time that the National Assembly would override presidential veto in the nation’s Fourth Republic.  The first was on June 7, 2000 when the National Assembly, under the chair of Anyim Pius Anyim, overrode President Olusegun Obasanjo’s veto of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Establishment Bill.

    In terms of aggregative national interest, the reservations expressed by Obasanjo were in apple-pie order.  It was difficult to understand how the objections he raised could have been in furtherance of his personal or pecuniary interest, although his objections were mainly on the proposed funding components of the NDDC.

    While the National Assembly proposed that 15 percent of federal government’s monthly statutory allocations be contributed to the funding of the commission, Obasanjo wanted it reduced to 10 percent. He also wanted the three percent annual budget of all oil and gas companies operating in the Niger Delta region proposed by the National Assembly as the companies’ funding contribution to the commission reduced to 1.5 percent.

    Whereas, Obasanjo wanted member states of the NDDC to contribute 10 percent of their derivation funds to funding the commission, the National Assembly dropped that proposal. When the totality of these proposals was subjected to critical scrutiny for underlying interests, neither Obasanjo nor the National Assembly could be essentially indicted.

    But this cannot be said of the current face-off, which centres significantly on the reordering of the sequence of elections as reflected in section 25 of the Electoral Act as amended.  This is because this provision affects whether positively or negatively, the political interests of the president and the federal legislators.  Understandably, INEC, being an agency of the executive arm, even though it is claiming to be independent, has acted in cahoots with the Presidency to decide the sequence of elections in 2019.

    The commission, in a bid to foist a fait accompli on the nation and perhaps to blackmail the National Assembly, decided to hurriedly fix and release the dates and sequence of elections for the next 35 years or thereabouts, specifically from 2019 to 2055. This is sui generis and curious administrative projection in the annals of public administration in Nigeria. The electoral body choreographed that gambit amid moves by the National Assembly to whittle down its administrative and discretionary powers which it had used to functionally deal with ordering the poll sequence in the purest form of exercise of delegated powers.

    With my little knowledge of elementary government and administrative law, there are limitations to the exercise of delegated powers which are the kinds that the INEC, as a so-called independent agency of the executive arm of government, exercises in conduct of elections within the strictest construction and understanding of the provisions of the extant Electoral Act passed by the National Assembly.

    No one is in doubt as to the fact that there is power separation among the three arms of government.  And, in order to curtail the excesses of one arm in the discharge of its function, there is in-built principle of checks and balances.  What the National Assembly has done with respect to the amendment of the Electoral Act is to check the excesses and near monstrosity of INEC in the discharge of its delegated administrative power with respect to conduct of elections.

    National Assembly has not tinkered with the general time-table that the INEC has drawn up. What it has simply done by its amendment is to reorder the sequence of election for the observance and necessary administrative action by the commission, still within the time table.  In the national interest, nothing could be said to be wrong on the face of the initial ordering by INEC and the subsequent reordering by the National Assembly.

    But in the individual interests of the political actors, a whole lot is perceivably wrong.  For Buhari to reject the well-considered proposal of the National Assembly that shifted the presidential election to the last in the poll sequence is nothing but resorting to bully tactics.  In any case, that is unfortunately indicative of a synergy between the Presidency and the INEC to possibly force the INEC’s original poll sequence on the nation.

    The federal legislators, apparently, do not want the bandwagon effects of the outcome of the presidential election of one man to affect the subsequent election of many others; and, therefore, the polls should end with the presidential election.

    Why does Buhari want the presidential and National Assembly election to start first? Perhaps two reasons could be adduced. That he probably does not want to spend his personal or federal government’s money on election mobilization, comfortable and assured that National Assembly candidates contesting on the APC platform would be the ones to spend their money to mobilise for votes for the party.

    Second, that if the presidential election is a stand-alone process that comes up last, there is no guarantee that the elected members of the APC would be committed to his electoral battle.

    This is the intersection where the federal lawmakers must show audacity to override Buhari’s veto.  They must push through the imperativeness of the reordered election sequence in the overall national interest. The presidential election should be held last. Who says the sequence of elections must follow the pattern of 2015 or 2011 general elections?  The sequence is not cast in stone.

    National consciousness and consensus should be built around the presidential election coming last in the sequence.  Apart from the presidential election, which has the entire nation as the constituency of the candidates, every other election is local to the extent that it is delimited or delineated by state boundaries for governorship election; state constituencies for House of Assembly elections; federal constituencies for House of Representatives elections; and senatorial zones for elections to the upper chamber of the National Assembly.

    The time for political pragmatism that does not confer undue electoral advantages on anyone, especially a sitting president, is now.

     

    • Ojeifo sent this piece via ojwonderngr@yahoo.com 

  • Election sequence: Court stops Senate, Reps

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the National Assembly and other parties to a suit challenging the legitimacy of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 taking any steps in relation to the Bill pending the next hearing in the case.

    The Bill, which seeks to alter the sequence of election as earlier announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as it relates to the 2019 general elections , was rejected by President Muhammadu Buhari. His letter declining assent was read at the National Assembly on Tuesday.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling yesterday, ordered parties in the suit not to take steps that could affect the res (subject) of the suit.

    Justice Mohammed’s ruling followed an oral application by plaintiff’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who urged the court to make a preservative order to protect the res when it became obvious that his client’s motion was not ripe for hearing and the lawyer representing the National Assembly would not give an undertaking.

    Yesterday, Olanipekun informed the court about his client’s pending motion for interlocutory injunction for a restraining order against the National Assembly.

    National Assembly’s lawyer Chinelo Ogbozor, objected to the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that it was not ripe for hearing.

    Ogbozor urged the court to adjourn the case as she was only served on Monday and needed time to respond to the application.

    Olanipekun then prayed the court to direct Ogbozor to give an undertaking that her client would not take any step in relation to the Bill pending the hearing of the plaintiff’s interlocutory motion for injunction.

    Again, Ogbozor objected. She declined to give any undertaking and insisted that her client could not be put under any such pressure since they were still within time required by law to respond to the motion.

    Olanipekun then made the oral application, urging the court to “make a preservative order to preserve the res of the matter” pending the next adjourned date.

    He expressed concern that there could be constitutional crisis should the National Assembly decide to invoke its powers under Section 58(5) of the Constitution to override the President’s withholding of assent.

    Responding, Ogbozor contended that granting the plaintiff’s oral application would amount to denying her client a fair hearing.

    She insisted that her client was still within time to respond to the same prayer as being sought in the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction.

    Ogbozor argued that granting the plaintiff’s prayer would amount to undue interference with an arm of government.

    The second respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), was not represented by any lawyer.

    Lawyer to the third rd respondent – Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) – Taminu Inuwa, said he had no objection to Olanipekun’s oral application.

    In his ruling, Justice Mohammed agreed that the National Assembly was entitled to respond to the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction.

    The judge said: “Apparently the motion on notice cannot be heard today because the 1st defendant still needs time to respond to the application.

    “The court should ordinarily adjourn the case. But, however, the plaintiff  has referred us to the provisions of section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution which stirs apprehension if the 1st defendant decides to move its powers provided in section 58(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,” he noted.

    Justice Mohammed said the President having withheld his assent and the Constitution having not provided the time frame within which the National Assembly might override the President’s veto, it implied that the National Assembly could take the step anytime.

    He said: “What if the court adjourns the matter for the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction and the 1st defendant decides to convene tomorrow (Thursday) and pass the Bill by two-thirds majority, what will the plaintiff be coming back to do in respect of this matter?”

    The judge said the National Assembly would not suffer any prejudice if it was restrained from taking steps on the bill on the before the next adjourned date.

    He added: “It is hereby directed that parties shall maintain status quo ante bellum at least between now and the next adjourned date.”

    The judge equally ordered that hearing notice be served on the AGF  for the next hearing date.

    He adjourned to March 20 for the hearing of the motion for the interlocutory injunction.

    By the suit, AP wants among others, a declaration that the amendment to the Electoral Act 2010 (introducing a new Clause 25) just passed by the National Assembly which prescribes the sequence/order in which the general elections of President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a state, membership of the Senate, the House of Representives, and the House of Assembly of each state of the federation should take place is in conflict or has interfered or curtailed the power, right and discretion of the Independent National Electoral Commission generally and in particular, in respect of the schedule or sequence of the 2019 general elections.”

    It is also praying for an order setting aside Clause 25 of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018.

    The plaintiff also wants an order of perpetual injunction restraining the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria represented by the AGF from assenting to the bill, and another “restraining the 1st defendant  (National Assembly) from passing into law by a two-thirds majority, or any majority at all, the said bill as already passed by it”.

  • Updated: Buhari declines assent to amendment to Electoral Act bill

    The controversy trailing the amendment of the Electoral Act which reordered election sequence in the country took another dimension Tuesday.

    President Muhammadu Buhari declined assent to the amendment citing probable infringement of the Constitution.

    The two chambers of the National Assembly on February 14, 2018 adopted the conference report of Electoral Act amendment which altered the sequence of elections in the country.

    Essentially, the amendment slated the National Assembly election first in the order of elections, followed by the Governorship and State House of Assembly Election.

    The amendment placed Presidential election last in the sequence of elections.

    Following its passage, some senators led by Senator Abdullahi Adamu, stormed out of the chamber to fault the amendment.

    The group of nine senators also claimed that President Buhari was that target of the amendment and vowed that it would not stand.

    Some commentators have also risen to fault the amendment and threatened to charge it in court.

    President Buhari in a letter dated 3rd March 2018 addressed to the Senate President,  Abubakar Bukola Saraki, told the lawmakers why he declined to assent to the bill.

    The Presidential letter entitled “PRESIDENTIAL DECISION TO WITHHOLD ASSENT TO THE ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2018,” was read by Saraki on the floor of the upper chamber yesterday.

    It read in part, “Pursuant to Section 58(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), I hereby convey to the Senate, my decision, on 3rd March 2018, to decline Presidential Assent to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2018 recently passed by the National Assembly.

    “Some of my reasons include the following:

    “A.The amendment to the sequence of elections in Section 25 of the principal act, may infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed discretion of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to organize, undertake and supervise elections provided in Section 15(A) of the third statue to the Constitution;

    “B.The amend to Section 138 of the principal act to delete two crucial grounds upon which an election may be challenged by candidates, unduly limits the rights of candidates in elections to a free and fair electoral review process;

    “C. The amendment to Section 152(3)-(5) of the Principal Act may raise Constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly to legislate over local government elections.

    “Please accept Distinguished Senators, the assurances of my highest consideration.”

    Saraki read the letter after a brief closed session where the issue of the rejection of the bill might have featured.

    It is not yet clear the next line of action of the lawmakers. An insider hinted that “we will override the president if we feel strongly over the bill.”

    He added, “I can tell you that the issue is not over.

    Read Also: Electoral Act amendment will die natural death, says Senator

  • Election sequence: Omo-Agege begs Senate over ‘offensive’ comments

    In what appeared like a volt-face, the Senator representing Delta Central, Ovie Omo-Agege, on Wednesday tendered an unreserved apology to the Senate over alleged “offensive” comments against the upper legislative chamber.

    Omo-Agege in a subdued voice owned up that he overshot his bounds by claiming at a media briefing that the amended Electoral Act which reordered the election sequence in the country was targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The Senate had on Tuesday referred the matter to its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions for investigation following the adoption of a motion by Senator Dino Melaye (Kogi West) on the matter.

    Melaye prayed the Senate to refer the matter to the committee for investigation, claiming that Omo-Agege’s comments impinged on the integrity of the Senate.

    The Kogi West senator also said Omo-Agege misled and incited Nigerians against the Senate by making unsubstantiated comments on the election sequence.

    Omo-Agege said:” Yesterday (Tuesday), I was not here (Senate chamber). My colleague and my brother, Senator Dino Melaye, brought a motion under Privileges which is in Order14 & 15 of the Senate Standing Rules.

    “Mr. President, I rose as a consequent on the debate on the sequence of elections in the Electoral Act amendment which was passed last week Wednesday.

    “In the course of that debate and subsequent upon that, I addressed the media at the Press Centre.

    “I made certain remarks during that interview which my attention has been drawn to. The comments are offensive, not just to Senator Dino Melaye, but to the entire Senate.

    “I rise to apologise to the leadership and the entire Senate for those remarks. I take back whatever I said. Thank you Mr. President.”

    Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who presided over the plenary commended Omo-Agege for being courageous to apologise for what he said.

    Ekweremadu said: “He came under Order 53. In my view, it takes a lot of courage to do this. It takes a lot of courage to say I am sorry.”

     

  • 10 senators may be sanctioned over comments on election sequence

    10 senators may be sanctioned over comments on election sequence

    The Senate hammer may fall on 10 senators over their position on the amendment of the Electoral Act.

    The controversial amendment of the Electoral Act led to changes in the election sequence in the country.

    In the new arrangement, the Senate and House of Representatives elections will take place first, followed by governorship and House of Assembly polls.

    The presidential election will come last.

    Following the adoption of conference report on the amendment, 10 senators rejected the changes, describing it as unconstitutional and exercise in futility.

    The upper chamber on Tuesday mandated its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, to investigate alleged unsubstantiated comments credited to Senator Ovie Omo-Agege (Delta Central) and nine others on the issue.

    The Senate said the 10 senators claimed that “reordering of the election sequence targeted President Muhammadu Buhari ahead of the 2019 general election.

    The nine other senators are – Abdullahi Adamu, Abu Ibrahim, Benjamin Uwajumogu, Ali Wakil, Abdullahi Gumel, Binta Masi Garba, Yahaya Abdullahi, Andrew Uchendu and Umaru Kurfi.

    The Senate decision to probe the senators’ conduct followed the adoption of a motion by Senator Dino Melaye (Kogi West) on the issue.

    Melaye said the 10 senators misled Nigerians by claiming that the target of the amendment was President Buhari.

    The Kogi West senator, who cited Order 14 of the Senate Standing Rules, urged his colleagues to refer the matter to the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee to investigate the claims made by senators.