The Nation Newspaper

Tag: elections

NULGE: no local govt autonomy, no re-election

The Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) has advised its members nationwide to get their voters’ card ahead of the coming general elections, and use same to vote out any government opposed to its agitation for local government autonomy.

The union said the only weapon they could wield was the voting power ahead of the elections next year.

The leadership of the union said it would not backslide on its campaign for local government autonomy in the face of intimidation and persecution by the powers that be.

The Chairman of Lagos NULGE, Comrade Ajose Afolabi Senmako, charged his colleagues not to rest on their oars.

“We in Lagos are watching them (leaders). Those with whom we entrusted our fate have disappointed us. The Speaker of Lagos State House of Assembly and the governor are seeking re-election. You must go back to your wards and ask them questions. Tell them ‘no local government autonomy, no re-election’ If we fail to do this, providence would judge us,” he said.

Senmako spoke at Shomolu Local Government, during a briefing organised by the union’s Southwest zone.

NULGE National President, Comrade Ibrahim Khali, who addressed members, noted that the essence of the briefing was to reshape the agitations and introduce new strategies.

He lamented that local governments nationwide had become a caricature on which the government experimented all forms of draconian policies.

His words: “It is our responsibility as a trade union to engage government beyond welfare issues. Do not forget that we started this agitation for local government autonomy immediately we came on board.

“As a local government, I can assure you that we have the wherewithal to deliver if granted autonomy, but some people somewhere have hijacked the system to their advantage.

“We also realised that the only group that can champion the cause for this autonomy is NULGE so, it’s either we take up this struggle or fold our arms and allow the system to die.”

March 16, 2018
APC chief sues National Assembly over 2019 elections schedule

The sequence of the 2019 elections has become the subject of a legal battle.

A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Anike Nwoga, has filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Enugu, challenging the Bill passed by the National Assembly.

The Bill changed the sequence of the 2019 elections, earlier adopted and published by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Nwoga, who is the Zonal Vice Chairman of APC in Enugu East Senatorial District, filed the suit March 2 through his lawyer, Godwin Onwusi Esq.

In his motion on notice, supported by 25-paragraph affidavit, Nwoga is praying the court for an interlocutory injunction restraining the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from assenting to the Bill pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The motion on notice was brought pursuant to orders 26 and 28 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the honourable court,

Aside the National Assembly, which was listed as the 1st defendant/respondent, others listed as 2nd to 4th defendants/respondents in the suit are INEC, the President and the Honourable Attorney General of the Federaion (AGF).

Apart from the prayer for interlocutory injunction restraining the President, 3rd defendant, from assenting to the bill, Nwoga is also praying for an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the National Assembly from overriding the President’s veto, should he decide to veto the bill pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The plaintiff pleaded for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining INEC from complying with the sequence of elections contained in the bill passed and such further orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance, pending the deterrmination of the substantive suit.

Specifically, the plaintiff, is asking the court to, among other things, determine:

*”whether the National Assembly in exercise of its lawmaking powers can make laws to compel INEC to exercise the powers to organize, undertake and supervise elections conferred on it by the constitution in a particular sequence”;

*”whether the National Assembly in exercise of her law making powers can make a law to change the sequence of elections, already adopted and published by INEC, pursuant to the powers conferred on it by the constitution”; and

*”upon the determination of the questions, to make the following orders.

“A declaration that the National Assembly cannot make laws to compel Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to exercise the powers conferred on it by the constitution to conduct election in a particular order.

“A declaration that the recent bill adopted by the two chambers of the National Assembly, which altered the sequence of the 2019 elections, already adopted and published by INEC pursuant to the powers conferred on it by the constitution, is a usurpation of the constitutional powers of INEC, hence unconstitutional.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from assenting to the bill changing the sequence of elections, already adopted and published by the 2nd defendant, when it is presented to him for assent.

“An order restraining the 2nd defendant from complying with the sequence contained in the bill or the Law, if assented to by the 2nd respondent.

“Any further or other orders or consequential Orders that the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case.

No date has been fixed for the hearing.

March 5, 2018
Elections sequence crisis: Any end in sight?

The controversy over the sequence of elections has been on the front-burner since the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released the timetable for the 2019 general elections. ONYEDI OJIABOR reports that the dust kicked up by the reordering of the timetable by the National Assembly will take some time to settle.

The crisis of election sequence tearing the political class apart may not be unexpected.

The discordant voices trailing the amendment of the Electoral Act which engendered the crisis of confidence in the polity is also not new.

What may be new is whether the controversial amendment that altered the order of elections will stay or not.

Observers say the amendment is, no doubt, one alteration of the Electoral Act that is bound to change the course of elections in the country, whichever way it goes.

It all started with the adoption of the conference report of the two chambers of the National Assembly which gave nod to change established election sequence in the country.

The amendment placed the National Assembly election first, followed by governorship and House of Assembly election. The presidential poll, which hitherto was first, was placed last in the order of elections.

The new order adopted by the Eighth National Assembly was first proposed by the Fourth National Assembly in the 2002 Electoral Bill.

It was later amended by merging the presidential and National Assembly elections.

The National Assembly conference committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill which met in Abuja insisted that the reordered sequence, which places the presidential election last, is the best for the country.

In its amendments to the 2010 Electoral Act, the House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill had included Section 25(1) into the Act by reordering the sequence of the elections to start with the National Assembly, followed by governorship and state assembly election before the presidential election.

INEC fixed presidential and National Assembly elections for Saturday, February 16, 2019 and governorship and State Assembly elections on Saturday, March 2, 2019.

The National Assembly, however, changed the arrangement, demanding that the National Assembly elections come first and the presidential poll last.

Adopting the reordered sequence as contained in the House of Representatives version of the amended Electoral Act, the Chairman of the joint committee, Senator Suleiman Nazif (Bauchi North), put it to a voice vote.

The 12-member committee unanimously answered in the affirmative to pave the way for the report to be presented to the two chambers for final ratification.

Apparently fearing a backlash, Senator Nazif promptly declared that the bill did not in any way violate any provisions of Section 76 of the 1999 Constitution which empowered INEC to fix dates and conduct elections.

To him, the provisions that empowered INEC to fix dates and to conduct elections were duplicated in the bill, just as the power that confers on the National Assembly by Section 4, sub-Section 2 of the Constitution were exercised in relation to rescheduling of elections.

Nazif said: “For the avoidance of doubt, this bill with the inclusion of Section 25(1) which makes provision for sequence of election different from the one earlier rolled out by INEC has not in any way violated any provisions of the laws governing the operations of the electoral body.”

Chairman, House Committee on INEC, Edward Pwajok, on his own said what the House did and concurred to by the Senate was very necessary in giving credibility to the electoral process in the country.

Pwajok said: “The sequence of election provision in the bill is not targeted at anybody but aimed at further giving credibility to the electoral process by way of giving the electorate the opportunity to vote based on individual qualities of candidates vying for National Assembly seat.

“On whether it would be assented to or not by the President, as far as we are concerned, remains in the realm of conjuncture for now but if such eventually happens, we will know how to cross the bridge.”

Other members of the committee include; Senator Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central), Gilbert Nnaji (Enugu East), Abiodun Olujimi (Ekiti South), Peter Nwaoboshi (Delta North).

Before the adoption, Senate President Bukola Saraki told his colleagues to remember that they would not be senators forever.

He said: “We will come and go, but the institution will stay. We need to come up with laws that will build strong institutions.

“Let us not be personal about this. Let us behave like statesmen. We have procedures on some of these things. There are many bills we have passed. If there are issues, there are mechanisms we can use to resolve them.’’

But as events unfolded, those who thought the amendment was a done deal when the conference report was adopted may have to think again as its adoption unsettled the upper chamber.

The acrimony, bickering and internal strife could not be contained even at a closed session of the chamber.

Ten members of the chamber, led by Senator Abdullahi Adamu, stormed out of the chamber to open what appeared a Pandora’s Box of crisis.

The 10 senators left nobody in doubt about their opposition to the amendment. At a news conference, they vowed that the amendment would not stand.

To them, the alteration was targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari’s electoral success in 2019.

The other senators in Adamu’s camp are: Ovie Omo-Agege, Abu Ibrahim, Benjamin Uwajumogu, Ali Wakil, Abdullahi Gumel, Binta Masi Garba, Yahaya Abdullahi, Andrew Uchendu and Umaru Kurfi.

Omo-Agege went further to say that the dissenters who were ready to do battle to restore the old order were actually 59.

The Delta Central senator was so sure of the number of those opposed to the amendment that he asked those who may be in doubt to take the figure to “bank.”

Not to be out-played in its own game, the leadership of the senate has not folded its hands. The leadership appears set to weather the storm even if it means whipping dissenters into line.

Those tagged “senate undertakers” positioned in various key committees, are also said to be waiting on the wings to do in “recalcitrant and intractable” senators.

The recommendation of dissenting senators for investigation, observers say, has given the inclination that there might be more to the amendment than meets the eye.

Senator Omo-Agege has not only been recommended to face the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions committee for allegedly over shooting his bound.

Before Omo-Agege could face what has been described as “foreclosed investigation”, the election sequence crisis has already consumed its first casualty.

Senator Adamu, a former Nasarawa State governor, perceived as the ring leader of the “rebels in the chamber”, has been hit in a hard way.

Not only has Adamu, a ranking senator, been unceremoniously sacked as the chairman of the Northern Senators’ Forum, the Nasarawa West Senator was accused of mismanaging N70 million belonging to the forum.

The sack of Adamu and the recommendation of Omo-Agege to face investigation, some say, is just the precursor of what is to come.

Relying on a letter said to have been endorsed by 49 members of the forum, counter-signed by Senator Dino Melaye, the forum’s spokesman, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu announced Adamu’s removal as chairman of the forum for alleged “financial mismanagement and misadministration.”

Adamu, a third-time senator and an ally of President Buhari in the Senate, was replaced by Senator Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto North).

A letter addressed to the “The President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria,” detailed reasons for Adamu’s removal.

Entitled: “Announcement of removal of Senator Abdullahi Adamu as chairman, Northern Senators’ Forum” the removal read in part: “This is to inform the Senate that the majority signatories of members of the Northern Senators Forum; we have removed Senator Abdullahi Adamu as chairman of the Northern Senators Forum for financial mismanagement and misadministration.

“We announce his replacement with Senator Aliyu Wamakko immediately. Find the attached names and signatories of members.”

Melaye signed the letter on behalf of the Northern Senators Forum.”

At a news conference by the Chairman, Senate Committee on Media & Public Affairs, Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, accompanied by senators Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central) and Isah Hamman Misau (Bauchi Central), the drama of Adamu’s removal further played out.

A comical vent was added to allegation as if the alleged mismanagement of N70 million was not troubling enough.

Asked to explain the meaning of “financial mismanagement and misadministration” levelled against Adamu, Sani took the stage to throw more light on the allegation.

The Kaduna Central lawmaker said: “Abdullahi Adamu is a distinguished senator and an elder statesman. There are some things that some of my colleagues cannot say but I’m not used to holding back what is the truth.

“When we resumed as senators, when we assumed office, Senator Ahmed Lawan (Senate Leader) tendered the sum of N70 million to the Eighth Senate that is, N70 million was monies gathered by Northern Senators from the Seventh Senate. So, it was handed over to the Senators from Northern Nigeria under the Eighth Senate.

“The rumours going round whether it is true, but I believe most of the senators know is the fact, there were allegations that some monkeys raided the farm house of some of the executives in Northern Senators Forum and carted away some of these monies.

“I think this country is becoming a huge joke, first of all, it was the rodent that drove away the President; we now have snakes consuming about N36 million; and now, you have monkeys carting away N70 million from a farm house.”

Apparently to mitigate already bad situation, Sani underscored the need for Adamu to speak on the issue, saying: “I support that it is very important that the distinguished senator who is a respected elder statesman, should be around to protect and defend his integrity.”

Melaye said: “All I will just say is simple; that the decision of the majority of the Northern Senators’ Forum is that they want to have a change of leadership.

“The allegations investigated and found out to be true are that there was financial mismanagement; that monies were spent without the consent of members and members of the Executive were not contacted; and that the organisation is becoming moribund and ineffective.

“We are not doing the things that we are supposed to do and we need to inject some vibrancy into the organisation, and that many positions have been taken without consulting with the Exco and other members of the organisation.”

Initial efforts to get Adamu’s side of the story were unsuccessful.

He was said to have insisted that the time was not ripe for him to speak on the issue.

Those in Adamu’s camp were not amused by the development.

“The attack on Adamu is just the beginning. Information available to some of us is that all those who participated in the walkout to address the press on the amendment of the Electoral Act may not escape sanction one way or the other. Recall that Omo-Agege has been referred to the Ethics committee for investigation. His apology may not save him”, one of them declared.

But the former governor broke his silence yesterday while addressing thousands of All Progressives Congress (APC) members and leaders from all wards in Nasarawa State who paid him a solidarity visit.

He urged aggrieved APC National Assembly members to quit the ruling party instead of plotting against President Muhammadu Buhari.

Adamu, who spoke in Keffi, berated APC senators and representatives for allegedly sitting on the fence in order to sabotage Buhari.

According to him, such lawmakers “are cutting the umbilical cord between them and their party.

Senator Ali Wakil, however could not hold back his frustration over the treatment meted to Adamu. The Bauchi State senator told the Senate in plenary that at no time did the northern senators’ forum met to resolve to sanction any of its leaders.

Wakil said told his colleagues that neither the forum’s secretary, Senator Barau Jibrin nor Melaye called for a meeting where disciplinary issues were discussed. Wakil came short of declaring the sack of Adamu null and void but ended up asking the presiding officer to take a judicial notice of what he said.

On the recommendation of Omo-Agege to face disciplinary committee, Melaye cited Order 14 of the Senate Standing Rules and prayed the chamber to refer Omo-Agege’s submission that President Buhari was that target of the amendment to the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions committee to investigate the claim.

Melaye said: “I am heavily worried. President Muhammadu Buhari is not only my party man. He is a president we all laboured to vote for. My colleague, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege addressed the media last week. He said the decision taken by this Senate is targeted at President Buhari.

“I cannot be part of any group of persons to move against the President. The allegations are weighty. I followed President Buhari to 35 states of the Federation during the campaigns.

“When I was following the President round the country, Omo-Agege was in the Labour Party. To now alleged and put the integrity of the Senate under check that the amendment was tailored towards the President is unheard of. It is in bad taste.

“I want to ask that this statement made by Omo-Agege, among other statements, be investigated by the committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions. They need to find out if our actions were targeted at the President. Another interview was granted by the same senator.”

Subjecting the prayer to a voice vote, the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, who presided over the session, said: “Melaye came under Order 14, is it the wish of the Senate that the issue be referred to the Ethics committee for investigation.”

What followed was a near unanimous ‘aye.”

In March 2017, Melaye raised a Point of Order against Mohammed Ali Ndume over alleged unsubstantiated claimed on the purchase of exotic car for the Senate President Abubakar Bukola Saraki and alleged certificate forgery by him (Melaye)

Ndume was hurriedly investigated and eventually suspended for six months. It is not clear whether the Borno South lawmaker has fully recovered from the effect suspension.

The implication of referring Omo-Agege’s comments to the Ethics Committee is to establish Omo-Agege’s claim.

It may also be instructive to ask why Omo-Agege was singled out to face the committee especially when he is not the arrowhead of the group.

However the Senator representing Katsina South, Abu Ibrahim, insisted that the amendment of the Electoral Act remained illegal, a waste of time and resources by the National Assembly.

Ibrahim recalled that an attempt to reorder the sequence of 2019 elections which INEC has already decided cannot stand.

He explained that by virtue of Section 75, 118, and item 15(a) of the 3rd schedule of the 1999 constitution, INEC is the only organ vested with powers to regulate, conduct, supervise, direct, organise and fix dates for elections in the offices of the President and his vice, governors and his deputy as well as the National and state assemblies.

Ibrahim who is the Chairman, Senate Committee on Police Affairs, believes that “the purported amendment Act is purely an encroachment on the powers granted to INEC by the 1999 constitution more especially as INEC has already taken its decision on the same issues.”

He went on: “In the haste to carry out their self-serving interest amendment on the matter, they have ignored those constitutional provision and previous court judgement by the Federal High Court and Federal Appeal Court on the same issues in 2002.

“Specifically, an Act of National Assembly passed in the House of Representative and which was concurred by the Senate on 26/2/2002, was transmitted to the President on 24/6/2002 but was eventually refused assent by the then President Olusengun Obasanjo.”

“However, on 26/9/2002, the House of Representative and Senate respectively, through a motion of veto, override the purportedly passed Act because 30 days had elapsed without the assent of the president to the bill.

“INEC was aggrieved by that development and went to Federal Court in Abuja seeking declaration whether National Assembly can enact electoral Act on matters which INEC has adequate constitutional provisions to deal with such issues.

“In its judgement, the Federal High Court held that the National Assembly Act passed by the two Houses but which was not assented to by the President was unconstitutional and illegal because it was an encroachment on the power vested in INEC by the 1999 constitution.

“National Assembly not satisfied with the Federal High Court Judgment, went to Federal Appeal Court for further determination in its ruling on 29/11/2002 delivered by Justice George Adesola Oguntade, supported by two other Judges upheld the decision of the lower High Court and declared that the Electoral Act of 2002 encroached in the power vested on INEC by the 1999 Constitution.

“Since the 2002 judgement has not yet been set aside by any superior court, the Federal High Court decision on the matter still subsists,” Ibrahim said.

In his view, “unless and until it is set aside by a superior court order, any attempt to usurp the power of INEC on matters of elections is a waste of time and resources which the President will not honour with his assent.”

The puzzles that must be unraveled are: why has it suddenly become imperative for the National Assembly to tinker with the sequence of elections? In whose interest is the reordering? Is the amendment actually targeted at President Buhari?

February 27, 2018
10 senators face sanctions over elections order

Ten senators are facing sanctions over their stand on the amendment of the Electoral Act. They may be suspended.

The controversial amendment reordered the sequence of elections.

It placed the Senate and the House of Representatives elections first, followed by governorship and House of Assembly elections and the presidential election last.

Following the adoption of the conference report on the amendment, 10 senators kicked, describing it as “unconstitutional” and “an attempt in futility”.

Yesterday, the upper chamber 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 that Omo-Agege and nine senators claimed that “reordering of the election sequence was done to target President Muhammadu Buhari, ahead of the 2019 general elections.”

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

Melaye said Senator Omo-Agege and others 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, prayed his colleagues to refer the matter to the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions committee to investigate the claims made by the 10 senators.

Melaye said: “I am heavily worried. President Muhammadu Buhari is not only my party man. He is a president we all laboured to vote for. My colleague, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, addressed the media last week. He said the decision taken by this Senate is targeted at President Buhari. I cannot be part of any group of persons to move against the President. The allegations are weighty. I followed President Buhari to 35 states of the Federation during the campaigns.

“When I was following the President round the country, Omo-Agege was in the Labour Party. To now allege and put the integrity of the Senate under check that the amendment was tailored towards the President is unheard of. It is in bad taste.

“I want to ask that this statement made by Omo-Agege, among other statements, be investigated by the committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions. They need to find out if our actions were targeted at the President. Another interview was granted by the same senator.”

Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, who presided, subjected the prayer to a voice vote. It was carried.

In March 2017, Melaye raised a point of order against Mohammed Ali Ndume for alleged unsubstantiated claim on the purchase of exotic cars for the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, and alleged certificate forgery by him (Melaye)

Ndume was hurriedly investigated and eventually suspended for six months.

The implication of referring Omo-Agege’s comments to the Ethics committee is that if the committee is able to establish that the claims by Omo-Agege and nine others are false, the lawmakers may be suspended.

February 21, 2018
Reordered sequence of elections: In whose interest?

Who has the power to fix the timetable for general elections? The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) believes it is empowered by the Electoral Act 2010 to do so. But, the National Assembly says it has the power to amend the Act. JOSEPH JIBUEZE, SUNNY NWANKWO and ADEKUNLE JIMOH report that tinkering with the sequence of elections already announced by the umpire may be motivated by selfish interest and not national interest.

The adoption on Tuesday by the National Assembly Conference Committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill of a reordered sequence of next year’s general elections may have set the stage for a clash between the lawmakers and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Going by the reordered sequence which reversed the timetable released on January 9 by the electoral umpire, the presidential election will no longer open the polls as proposed by INEC but be conducted as the last poll.

Analysts have predicted that the reordering of the timetable by the lawmakers will trigger an epic legal tussle that will be decided at the Supreme Court.

Releasing the commission’s guidelines and schedule of operations as well as the timetable for the 2019 elections at a news conference in Abuja, INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, said the notice of election would be out on August 17, 2018 in line with Section 30(1) of the Electoral 2010 which provides that the notice of election be made not later than 90 days before the election.

He said the conduct of party primaries including resolution of disputes arising from the primaries would take place between August 18 and October 7, 2018

Yakubu said: “The campaigns of political parties for Presidential and National Assembly elections should begin by November 18, 2018 while that of governorship and House of Assembly is December 1, 2018.”

According to the INEC chief, the last day for the submission of nomination forms by political parties for the presidential and National Assembly is December 3, 2018 while for governorship and House of Assembly is December 17.

He said the presidential and National Assembly elections are expected to hold on February 16, 2019 while the governorship and state legislative elections will hold on March 2, 2019.

Yesterday’ adoption of the reordered sequence of election by the Senate and House of Representatives came few weeks after the Green Chamber amended the Electoral Act 2010 with the inclusion of Section 25(1).

The amendment was to reorder the sequence of the elections, to commence with National Assembly, followed by the governorship and State Houses of Assembly and climaxing with the presidential.

The latest move countered the sequence announced by INEC, which put the presidential and National Assembly elections first and the governorship and states assembly second.

Chairman of Senate Committee on INEC, Suleiman Nazif, insisted that the bill did not in any way violate any provisions of Section 76 of the 1999 Constitution which empowered INEC to fix dates and conduct elections.

His words: “Empowering INEC’’ to that effect were duplicated in the bill just as powers conferred on the National Assembly by Section 4 (2) of the Constitution were exercised in relation to rescheduling of elections.

Nazif said that inclusion of Section 25(1) which changed the sequence of election different from the one earlier released by INEC had not violated any provisions of the laws governing the operations of the electoral body.

Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on INEC, Edward Pwajok, said that what the House agreed with the Senate was very necessary in giving credibility to the electoral process.

Pwajok said: “The sequence of election provision in the bill is not targeted at anybody but aimed at giving credibility to the electoral process.

“This is by giving the electorate the opportunity to vote based on qualities of candidates vying for National Assembly seat.”

Lawmakers’ veto on the card

Ruling out a logjam on the signing of the amended bill by President Muhammadu Buhari, Pwajok said that if the bill was denied assent by the President, the lawmakers, based on national interest would adopt it.

“Whether it would be assented to or not by the President, as far as we are concerned, remains in the realm of conjecture for now. But, if such eventuality happens, we will know how to cross the bridge,” he said.

A member of the Committee, Senator Dino Melaye (APC-Kogi), said that while the date for election was the prerogative of INEC, extant laws give the scheduling for such elections as the sole responsibility of the National Assembly.

Melaye said: “So, contrary to reports and comments by some Nigerians on the reordered sequence of election, National Assembly has not overlapped its boundaries.”

INEC in order to fix election dates

Senior lawyers have been reacting to the decision of the lawmakers. They said the National Assembly erred by its action.

According to them, neither the Presidency nor the National Assembly can dictate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the order in which general elections (including next year’s) should be conducted.

They argue that INEC can only act based on the Electoral Act 2010 and its guidelines without recourse to the two arms of government.

The lawyers, however, said the National Assembly can alter the elections order by an amendment order of the enabling law.

The sequence of elections has been of interest to the executive and legislative arms. The Presidency is in favour of INEC conducting the Presidential elections first. The lawmakers want theirs to come before the Presidential election.

Their positions arose from the fact that the outcome of the first poll would influence the voting pattern in subsequent polls.

Ozekhome differs

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome believes that nothing stops the National Assembly from altering the election sequence through an amendment of the Electoral Act.

He said: “What the National Assembly is not allowed to do is to change this law less than six months to any election. We still have 14 months before the election, so they can amend the law to change the order.

“But, beyond it, it is more responsible and more politically correct to put lesser elections first before the biggest election. The little masquerade first dances in the village square before the biggest of them all comes out.

“It will have a negative effect if you hold the Presidential election first before others. Others like governors or senators would want to go where the president had gone so that they would not be in opposition.

“Not only that, the person who has won the presidency can decide to muscle others and remove those they don’t want within one week.

“So, let the small elections come first, which will make the Presidential candidate to lobby, work very hard and go down to the remotest parts of Nigeria to campaign, because he cannot take anything for granted. So, I think the National Assembly is right in terms of political correctness and morality.”

It’s purely INEC’s show

But another SAN, John Baiyeshea, disagrees with Ozekhome’s position.

the The Ilorin, Kwara State-based lawyer said the attempt of the National Assembly to coerce INEC to change the order prescribed by the commission for 2019 elections is in bad taste.

His argument: “Under the Electoral Act and other enabling laws, INEC is empowered to take full charge of elections (including prescribing the order of elections).

“This is how it has been over the years. Even the 2015 elections were like that. The executive and the National Assembly respectively cannot and should not dictate to INEC how it should arrange the order of elections.

“I understand the National Assembly is hurriedly making efforts to amend the Electoral Act to get the INEC to do their bidding. This seems to be a panicky measure based purely on perceived fear of losing election that is behind that move, which is rather selfish and not any genuine love for the citizens of Nigeria.”

Former Lagos Branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Martin Ogunleye, said INEC has been constitutionally empowered to act independent of executive and the National Assembly.

“The term ‘independent’ in the name of INEC supposes that the commission ought to be independent of and from external influence. Neither the executive nor the legislature ought to interfere in the time-table.”

Lagos lawyer and President, Crusade for Justice, Richard Nwankwo, said that based on the Electoral Act as amended, the power to determine the sequence of an election is vested in INEC.

However, he said the lawmakers reserve the right to amend the Electoral Act which would leave INEC with no choice.

National Assembly taking undue advantage

Nwankwo said: “If the National Assembly tinkers with the enabling law and provides the sequence of election, then INEC’s hands would be tied, even though people would look at it as the lawmakers taking undue advantage of their position.

“But, that does not detract from National Assembly’s powers to make such laws. Whether it is morally or politically right is not the issue. What is the issue is whether the National Assembly has the power to tinker with the law, and that is beyond contention.”

Another Lagos lawyer Tope Alabi said neither the Presidency of the National Assembly can impose anything on INEC except through the Electoral Act’s amendment.

He said: “Deciding the order in which elections are to hold are within the prerogative of INEC. The commission has the discretion and powers to decide how to conduct any elections so long as they are free and fair. The law gives INEC such powers, and that law has not been amended.”

A lawyer and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate for Abia Central Senatorial District in 2015 general election, Ahamdi Nweke said: “INEC timetable is the one that’s legitimate now. The other one is still a legislative proposal. It has not been put into law by the President. You know the political implication of the House of Representatives timetable.

He said: “They want to use it to make sure that whoever is the President doesn’t have any influence on who’ll be governors in the states and senators.

It’s self-serving

“One thing the legislature wants to cure is the undemocratic way by which presidents can assist, especially their own political parties, in imposing candidates who in their view, will be more favorable for them.

“In a democratic setting, I think the selection of governor should be devoid of any external influence. It should be entirely the role of the electorates.

“If the National Assembly election comes first, the governorship election comes next; the thing this move will cure is that, there will be true democracy in selecting who’ll be the President.

“People will not be afraid that they wouldn’t support them or been put under any pressure to support an unpopular president if they feel that their own interests will be tied to it. It will enhance internal democracy. And cure imposition of leaders.”

An Aba lawyer, Donatus Ikpeogu, who described the moves by the lawmakers as self-serving said: “Going by the constitution of the country, the National Assembly has the power to make laws for the good of the country.

“The Constitution empowers INEC to fix dates for election. The two aren’t the same. One is about order of election and dates of election. I think the National Assembly can legislate on the order of election since our constitution is silent on it. The Constitution empowers INEC on dates of election, but silent on the order of election.

“The National Assembly can fill the gap since the constitution is silent. But to me, what the National Assembly is doing is self-serving. They are just selfish.

“I’ve not seen anything bad with the former order of doing election in the country. All they want to do is to preserve their own interests. It’s normally done National Assembly and President, governorship and House of Assembly.

“That’s how it’s normally done, but this time around, they said National Assembly first, Governorship and House of Assembly and then presidential.

“Why did they now separate that of the President and the National Assembly? If what they are doing is not self-serving, they should have left it together if actually they are doing it for good governance purpose for the country.

“I don’t think there’s anything fantastic about it. We’ve been doing in the other way and they’ve been organising it. In the time of Shagari, the Presidential and National Assembly used to come last. It was after sometime that the order was rearranged.

“As far as I’m concerned, there’s no benefit there. The National Assembly just did it so that when they are elected, they’ll now determine who’ll be the President.

“There are other amendments that must be made. Like now, giving a legacy to the adoption of the Electronic Card Reader (ECR), you know as much as I know that most of the cases that people lost in the court were because the ECR was not specifically mentioned in the electoral act.

“If now, that they can amend that section, saying that the card reader can be used at least during accreditation and then leaving the issue of voters register, I think it will solve most of the problems we encountered will be corrected. Another area is that INEC is deleting the idea of electronic transfer of results.

“That’s one thing that Humphrey Nwosu proffered. And that election coordinated by Nwosu was adjudged to be the best in Africa. If they can implement these majors like pure electronic method of voting which includes card reader and electronic transfer of results, things will be better.”

February 8, 2018
Reps, order of elections and 2019

IF the order of elections in Nigeria is judged to be connected with electoral outcomes, it is a subject of research that may take a few more years, perhaps even decades, to conclusively establish. What is, however, clear is that more than anything else, sitting governments in Nigeria, with the possible exception of the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, often force those outcomes, regardless of the order of elections. It is therefore a little hard to explain why the House of Representatives two Tuesdays ago chose to tinker, through an amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), with the order of elections less than three weeks after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced both the order of elections and the timetable for the 2019 general elections. The only guess probably hazardable is that the National Assembly, recognising that it had since 2015 thoroughly angered the presidency and struck a bold and fatefully independent course of action seemingly at odds with the ruling party’s interests, is seeking to protect itself from hostile pre-election measures from a government many fear has remained vindictive.

The electoral umpire had in March last year first announced the election dates to commence from February 16, 2019. That announcement was reiterated on January 9 when INEC again indicated that the elections would commence in February with the presidential and National Assembly polls, and followed by the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls. The new timetable and order of elections seemed a foregone conclusion until the House of Representatives began work on the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). According to the lower legislative chamber, the order of elections will follow a different trajectory from the INEC’s arrangement. In their opinion, the 2019 elections will start with the National Assembly, progress to the governorship and state Houses of Assembly, and then end with the presidential poll. As far as the Reps are concerned, the election will be bunched into three parcels, instead of INEC’s two.

The electoral umpire has shown its displeasure with the timing of the amendment, not necessarily the amendment itself. It however promised that it would not violate the law. So far, the presidency has kept discretely quiet on the matter. It is, of course, interested in the order of elections, and will doubtless show keener than normal interest in how the first two sets of elections play out, considering the fact that bandwagons cannot be totally ruled out in elections. If the Muhammadu Buhari government has apprehensions as to the order of elections and its possible consequences for the ruling party’s fortunes, it has been clever in disguising it. After all, there is nothing to indicate that the feared bandwagon effect can be ruled out of the amended Electoral Act which the Senate is likely to identify with. Overall, it appears the National Assembly is distrustful of the presidency, mortified by growing public disapproval of the president’s policies and appointments, and is therefore eager both to establish its own independence and to take control of its fate. Whether that gamble will pay off remains to be seen.

The target of the amendments is obviously not INEC. The electoral umpire must, therefore, do everything in its power to navigate the treacherous rapids of the 2019 polls triggered in part by the gale ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s ‘special statement’ unleashed against President Muhammadu Buhari last week. The former president had denounced President Buhari for incompetence and dismissed most of his policies as clannish and nepotistic. He summed up his intervention by advising the president not to seek a second term, an advice no one is certain the laconic and aloof president will take. Though the amendment to the of Assembly elections on January 9, then moved through National Assembly polls on February 20, and then lumbered to a halt with the presidential poll on February 27. Though it was clear who the Abdulsalami Abubakar government’s preferred candidate was, there was nothing to indicate that the order of elections was engineered to bring about that outcome; or indeed, even if that was the purpose, that it could have delivered the desired outcome forcefully. There were of course allegations that the polls were fiddled with, but the courts disagreed with the public suppositions, and ruled in favour of the winner, Olusegun Obasanjo.

By 2007, when Dr Obasanjo’s second term was coming to an end, the electoral umpire, probably profiting from experience or because it was simply determined to be more efficient, had tweaked the order of elections by scheduling the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls to begin first, as was the case in 1999, on April 14, while the presidential and National Assembly polls were bunched together to be held the same day on April 21 contrary to what prevailed in 1999. Again, if there was a nefarious intent to the order of elections, it was not immediately discernible from the eventual outcome of the polls. What was clear, however, was that the Obasanjo presidency was unprepared to leave anything to chance. It not only forcefully and undemocratically streamlined the number of aspirants, it enthroned candidates in some states, and then eventually foisted a presidential ticket of its own choosing on the then ruling party. Worse, it blatantly subverted the principles of openness and transparency by ensuring a particular electoral outcome that shocked the country and dismayed the rest of the world.

The 2011 elections were, however, much better. Though the order of elections was again split into three, as was the case in 1999, the arrangement was a little bizarre and did not seem designed to serve any particular purpose. It began with the parliamentary election on April 9, coursed through to the presidential poll on April 16, and then ended with the third layer of governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls on April 26. Allegations of electoral shenanigans were not as deafening as in 2007. By 2015, after a particularly contentious postponement of the polls, the order of elections was again tweaked amidst uproarious controversy and allegations of electoral chicanery designed to gift the Goodluck Jonathan presidency an unmerited ‘second term’. It began with the presidential and National Assembly polls, and ended with the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls. Other than the usual allegation of preparing the ground for a bandwagon effect, little or no other meaning was read into the order of elections. In the end, partly because of the country’s changed political dynamics, and Dr Jonathan’s surprisingly civilised disposition to the concept of democracy, the elections were fairly credible and the outcome unquestionably a mirror of popular discontent, regardless of the grumblings of some of the losers.

All the frenzied tweaks that took place between 1999 and 2015 were a far cry from the leisurely pace adopted for the 1979 elections which put the senatorial poll first for July 7 of that year, followed by the House of Representatives poll held on July 14, governorship poll on July 28, and presidential poll on August 11. There did not seem to be any cold electoral calculation behind that scheduling, but it was no less controversial, and the electoral outcomes were even more negatively impactful. Apart from fouling the wells of justice as evident by the enunciation and adoption of very controversial juridic principles in resolving the litigations that flowed from the 1979 presidential poll, the democratic experiment of that time was itself doomed by the irresponsible projection of many questionable measures by an undisciplined political class.

There must be an end to the tweaking of the order of elections. The uncertainties and instability that flow from the numerous tweaks are sometimes befuddling and simply too destabilising to the polity to engender the growth of democracy so earnestly desired by a majority of Nigerians. Nigeria’s political elite, if they can act responsibly and above partisanship, must structure the country in such a disciplined and intelligent way that the order of elections will have no influence whatsoever on the outcomes of the elections. Otherwise, defeated parties will always accuse the winners and possibly the government that backs them of acting consistently mala fide.

February 3, 2018
2019: INEC assures EU, development partners of credible elections

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has assured the European Union (EU) and other development partners of the commission’s readiness to conduct a more credible elections come 2019.

The commission therefore sort the support of international partners INEC welcomes the in the areas of voter education and sensitisation; training and capacity-building for Commission staff, officials of political parties and security agencies; the promotion of inclusivity with particular reference to women, youths, persons with disabilities and the internally displaced as well as election conflict mitigation.

Yakubu spoke yesterday in Abuja during the launch of the European Union Support to Democratic Governance in Nigeria (EU-SDGN) project.

The EU-SDGN support programme, which was conceived under the National Indicative Programme 2014 – 2020 and funded through the 11thEuropean Development Fund (11th EDF), is aimed at consolidating democracy in Nigeria.

INEC Chairman Prof. Mahmood Yakubu said the electoral body would continue to ensure the consolidation of electoral processes as well as the integrity and credibility of electoral outcomes based on the will of the people and the rule of law.

He said: “Once again, let me reassure the EU delegation to Nigeria that we will spare no effort in improving the credibility of our elections and the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria. INEC will continue to welcome international election observation missions. The commission considers the deployment of such missions as an important means of enhancing public confidence and trust in the electoral process. We have already released the timetable and schedule of activities for the 2019 General Elections. We hope that interested international election observation missions can commence early planning for the deployment of observers. The Commission is ready to facilitate the process in accordance with our guidelines.

“Today’s project launch is unique. I wish to express our appreciation to the European Union delegation to Nigeria for the formulation of the SDGN project and it is my expectation that the implementing partners will continue to work in synergy to deliver the envisaged support to all targeted beneficiaries in order to further strengthen democratic institutions and the electoral process in Nigeria. We are all the more excited because the EU-SDGN Project being launched today is expected to be implemented from 2017-2022 which coincides with the implementation timeframe of our Strategic Plan and Strategic Plan of Action 2017-2021.”

February 2, 2018
ADP bans Nigerians above 60 from contesting presidential, governorship elections

The Chairman of Board of Trustees (BOT) of the Action Democratic Party (ADP), Alani Bankole, has said that the party will not allow anybody above the age of 60 to contest election to the offices of the President and state governors.

Bankole told newsmen at the party’s secretariat in Abuja that the party will not give its ticket to Nigerians above the age of 60, while the national and state assemblies will be open to people of all ages as allowed by the constitution.

He said, “What l know is that anybody above the age of 60 would not get the ticket of this party both at the governorship level and Presidential level. For the National Assembly you can be one million years.”

Bankole said that the ADP was established to rescue the country saying “We are sure we are going to do it if you youth of these days, would stop being lazy and come out forceful and take what belongs to you. People call you leaders of tomorrow, the question is when would that tomorrow come.

“Most leaders of this country who have performed credibly became head of state before the age of 40, yet most of you are still being called leaders of tomorrow. So, what we have decided to do in ADP is to mobilize youths whom we believe should have better ideas; whom we believe are still strong physical and mental enough to change things for better in this country and that is all we are doing.”

Speaking during the inauguration yesterday in Abuja, National Chairman of the party Engr. Yabaji Sani, said the committee was put together “to serve as vehicle to reach the unreached or reluctant to embark on decisive measures to rescue Nigeria.

“Our economy is in the doldrums, education has virtually collapsed, insecurity has become pervasive with several of our country men and women, mowed down daily by criminal elements.

“Obviously, we cannot keep silent in the face of evil and daunting challenges. ADP has stepped in to change the narrative. We are determined to rebuild Nigeria into an egalitarian nation where tribe and religion will never be factors that determine a citizen level of attainment.”

Chairman of the committee, Senator Roland Obie, hit at the government for not having the interest of the Nigerian people at heart, saying “the APC government has no compassion and when the head of a government has no compassion, God leaves the place.”

January 27, 2018
Our fear over growing insecurity, 2019 elections, civil society groups

A group of civil society organisations yesterday expressed fear over growing insecurity in the country and preparations for the next general elections.

They noted that while the nation was increasingly drifting towards unrestrained criminality, including kidnapping and killings, the electoral umpire seemed unprepared for the 2019 elections.

The over 70 organisations, under the aegis of Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room (NCSSR), urged the National Assembly not to carry through its plan to alter the election time table already released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

NCSSR’s coordinator Clement Nwankwo observed at a news conference yesterday that the nation “appears to be descending into chaos before our very eyes and the government’s inability to confront the challenges and provide security for our people is becoming very alarming and frightening.

“Citizens are seriously losing faith in the ability of security agencies to protect their lives and secure their properties. Never before has the effectiveness and competence of our security agencies been questioned this much as we have today.

“Besides, the incapacity and incompetence of the security services is the other major concern that the security services have failed to apply evenness, balance or fairness in the manner in which they carry out their work,” Nwankwo said.

Nwankwo, who is also the Executive Director, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), expressed worry that the National Assembly was yet to effect the necessary changes to the legal and constitutional framework for the conduct of the next general elections.

He argued that the National Assembly’s plan to alter the schedule of election as announced by INEC was an interference with the constitutional guaranteed independence of the electoral commission to direct the conduct of elections.

Nwanko urged the President to ensure that INEC was adequately constituted, including filling all existing vacancies before the 2019 elections.

He said: “South-East is the only zone in the country that does not have full representation in INEC. We still have a vacancy for the South-East existing in INEC. And then, you have about nine Resident Electoral Commission vacancies.

“The Situation Room calls on President Buhari to live up to his responsibility of securing lives and property of Nigerians, revamp the national security apparatus, including reconstituting the leadership of the security agencies to reflect the diversity and national character of the country and ensuring that persons who head the security services have clear understanding of modern national security operations.

“President Buhari also needs to begin to hold his appointed officials to account by punishing the incompetence and high failure levels prevalent among his appointed public,” Nwankwo said.

January 25, 2018
The problem with our elections, by Durotoye

Famous motivational speaker and business strategist Fela Durotoye is very passionate about Nigeria. He believes the only time the country has had leaders was briefly after independence and that her democratic process is flawed, because it produces rulers, rather than leaders. In this interview with Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI, Durotoye traces the root of the problem and explains what can be done to change the vicious cycle of poor leadership in 2019 and beyond.

You’ve been involved in leadership trainings for some time. What’s your idea of leadership?

I believe that leadership is an ability to create and deliver a desired outcome. When you consider that for most times the desired outcome is always positive, then you can also say that a leader is anyone who has the ability to make people, places and things better. If you look at leadership from that context, you will realize that it is different from management. This because management requires authority, it requires a position and it requires an appointment, an office and a title. But leadership does not require such attributes. A leader is anyone – no matter the level, age or occupation — who has the ability to make people, places and things better. The greatest skill a leader must have is the ability to solve problems, inspire people, galvanise the people to decide on what they want to be, where they want to go and to get them focused on it.

Most Nigerians don’t look at leadership the way you have defined it…

I agree. As a matter of fact, most people we see as leaders are actually rulers; they are not leaders. Rulers are different from leaders, because rulers are people who usually require a position, authority and they usually regard everyone whom they relate with as subjects. Many times rulers typically believe that they are better than their subjects. Their job is not to make the lives of their subjects better; their job is to make their own live better. Rulers have subjects and leaders have followers. A follower is not less than a leader; a follower is anyone whose commitment, permission, endorsement and support are required by a leader to be able to actualize the vision he carries in his heart. This is what makes the relationship between a leader and a follower very special, because a leader is not greater than a follower. In many instances, a follower may be even someone who is older than the leader, richer than the leader and better positioned than the leader. Rulers by their nature enslave their subjects, but leaders on the other hand, enlighten their followers. Rulers typically impoverish their subjects, while leaders improve the lives of their followers. Rulers diminish their subjects, while leaders develop their followers. You will realize that when you are under a ruler, your live becomes bitter, but when you are under a leader, your live becomes better.

In your view, what is responsible for the present state of affairs?

In a way, what has happened to us and the society we have created is a result of the culture of rulership we have had over the years; in fact, I would say centuries. We started with traditional rulers and that wasn’t what I believe God designed for us. I believe God wanted us to have royal fathers, but instead we had traditional rulers. From there, we had colonial rulers or colonial masters. Again, they didn’t come to make our lives better; they came to take from what had — our resources. Immediately after colonial rule, we had a brief stint of true leadership; all across Africa, we saw the rise of people like Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta. These are men who really had a desire to emancipate their people and to improve the lot of their people. But, not long after independence, we witnessed all over Africa, the emergence of military rule. So, you see, we’ve gotten back to rulership. We were under military rule for over four decades and thereafter we witnessed something very interesting: military rulers everywhere began to drop their khaki uniforms for civilian garments. It is still the same set of people in a different setting. In fact, it is not by accident that most of the democratic institutions or parties that military rulers used to gain power are called ruling parties.

What do you think of the present level of leadership in Nigeria?

We can only judge leadership by the results. This is very simple, we always ask year in, year out, is our life better? If our lives are better, then we are under leadership. But if our lives are worse or things are bitter for us, then we are under rulership. I don’t think it is about just the president or the governors, it is about the quality of people in positions of authority whose responsibilities it is to take decisions for the people. These include people in positions of authority at the local government level, the state level and the federal level, particularly the executive and the legislature. To be honest, the reality is staring us in the face. It means we are under rulership and we must understand that the reason we are under rulership us because there are power blocs within the major political parties who have arrogated to themselves the right to continue to lord it over the people, by deciding who should go and serve the people and who should not. Take a look at our executives and legislature at federal, state and local government levels, do you feel that you are being served or do you think you are being subdued?

Does it have something to do with the manner leaders are recruited; most times people who are not prepared for leadership are foisted on the country?

Leaders are not recruited; leaders volunteer. As long as we continue to call rulers leaders, they will continue to think that we who are their subjects are their followers and that’s not true. We’re not followers; we are subjects. We have been enslaved, we have been subdued, oppressed and depressed for so many years; generation after generation. We must understand this; the people who are ruling us are not leaders. Until we get the terminology right, we will never find emancipation for ourselves. So, if you are referring to how the people that rule us are recruited, then I would say you are right. Most of the people who are placed over us do not have our interests at heart, because their allegiance is to the people who positioned them there. Why do we have this category of people? Very simple, because the people who seek the power to continue to rule us are the ones who diminish democracy within the political party system. Therefore, they use the power of selectocracy to determine who gets the opportunity to run for elective positions and who does not. The problem is that they will never put your brightest and your best people there, because if they put a leader there, that leader will win the heart of the people and the power brokers will lose the power. So, what they do typically is to put someone that does not have the capacity to inspire the people; someone that does not have any vision for the people; who does not have a heart for the people; and who will not do anything when he gets there. At the end of the day, that person will be completely loyal to the power brokers and not the people. This is because he will realize that without the power brokers he would not have gotten there in the first place.

How do we get out of this vicious cycle?

There are two things we can do about it. One, we can get a critical mass of enlightened people who will join the existing parties as members and they will demand a change in the constitution and the framework of the internal processes of governance. That means that the parties themselves must change the way they are running their internal democracy. The point is, the only way we can go about this is to set up new political parties and those new political parties must be parties that are set up by people who do not want to run for elective positions. They should also have the courage to declare that their political parties are platforms for the emergence of the brightest and the best. Then, there must be a transparent internal democratic process, where every member of the party has a vote, like it is done in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. As you know, Barack Obama was not the favourite of the Democratic establishment; Hilary Clinton was. But, because every member of the Democratic Party has one vote, they went and voted for the person they wanted. That was how Barack Obama emerged. The same thing happened to Donald Trump in the Republican Party during the last election.

Can the trend of vote-buying during primary and general election be attributed to poverty?

Apparently, poverty is not the real problem. I am not denying the role of poverty, but I want to say two quick things about poverty. Number one, poverty is a designed outcome, a deliberate outcome that the ruling political power base use to keep people hungry, so that they can continue to give them peanuts to win their votes. Poverty will continue to ravage Nigerians and Africans, because the cost of elections is always tied to how poor the people are. If you improve the life of the people and you want to buy their votes next time, it will become too expensive. So, deliberately, elected and appointed officials who owe allegiance to the power brokers must keep the people impoverished, so that they can keep the cost of the next election low. So, as long as I keep you in poverty, I can always buy your vote.

But it is interesting that the people that are induced to vote are fewer than those that actually vote. I will give you statistics. In 2015, 98 million people were considered to be above the age of 18; 68 million of them obtained voters card and only 28 million votes were cast during the election – I said 28 million votes, not 28 million voters. This means that 40 million people refused to get involved; even though they know that they stand to get some financial gratification if they do so. That tells you that majority of Nigerians are not bought by the ruling class. So, what is the problem? Why did they refuse to vote? This is because they are inspired by any of the candidates that the ruling class has chosen for them. So, I’m not denying the fact that poverty is a factor; what I’m saying is that poverty is not the reason why we get bad governance. The real reason why we get bad governance is because those who will not collect money to vote do not vote. So, the only way we can see a difference in our lives beyond 2019 is when people who usually refuse to vote go out there and vote conscientiously for a new Nigeria and the future of their children.

What is the implication of the absence of civic education and history in our school curriculum?

The absence of these things in our school curriculum is to ensure that a new generation does not become enlightened enough to challenge the status quo. Every country that wants the lives of the next generation to be better ensures that they teach the children the mistakes of the past, so that the children can learn from it and take decisions to avert such mistakes. Only those who wish to keep the next generation in the dark will refuse to teach and empower the children. The truth is that the ruling class does not want to educate the next generation, because every time you educate someone you enlighten them and in turn empower them. That is why they send their children to the best schools abroad, but their subjects would go through the worst educational system. In the same vein, the ruling class also tries to stifle entrepreneurship and make it impossible for people to do business and succeed. One of the reasons why we are unable to have an enabling environment for business is because it is not in the interest of the ruling class. The moment businesses thrive, businessmen can use their profit to empower other people to challenge the ruling class.

Do you see this trend continuing in the next 10 or 20 years?

No, I don’t. I believe the end of rulership has come. This is because this new generation is the most empowered generation that has ever lived in Nigeria. It is a generation that has been empowered by information, by communication and by technology. Based on those three things, we are seeing that new generation is coming up that is able to have access quickly to information; that is able to share same through social media; and their voices are being heard across various continents. They are using technology to do things and solve problems, like we’ve never witnessed before. This is a generation that does not require a lot of money to be able to make a difference. There is no generation that has arisen in Nigeria that is as empowered, as motivated and as daring as the present generation.

I believe 2019 is going to be a pleasant surprise to the whole world. Please, mark my words. Every Nigerian above the age of 18 should ensure they acquire their voter’s card. They should decide not to be a bystander in 2019. They must silence every voice that says that their votes would not count. If votes did not count in 2015, former President Goodluck Jonathan would still be there today. So, don’t let anyone lie to you that votes don’t count. If you are not willing to suffer for two days – one day to get your voters card and another day to go out and vote — then you will have to endure the suffering for four years. We need good people at every level of governance; not just at the presidency or the governorship, but at all levels, including the local government, as well as the legislature.

December 15, 2017