The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Electoral Act

  • Senate amends Electoral Act, seeks same-day elections to cut costs, reduce voter apathy

    Senate amends Electoral Act, seeks same-day elections to cut costs, reduce voter apathy

    A Bill which seeks to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to provide for same-day elections nationwide as a cost-saving measure and reduce voter apathy, scaled second reading in Senate on Thursday.

    The Bill titled: “A Bill for an Act to amend the Electoral Act, 2022 to provide for the participation of elected office holders as Statutory Delegates, provide for the schedule of election to hold on same day and reduce the period of campaign in election and for other related matters, 2025“ was sponsored by Senator Saliu Mustapha (APC – Kwara Central).

    The bill among others seeks to shorten the campaign period to ease financial burdens on political parties, candidates, and the government and allow elected political office holders (such as the President, Vice President, Governors, and legislators) to serve as ad hoc delegates during party congresses.

    Senator Mustapha in his lead debate, lamented the soaring financial burden of elections on the government, noting that the cost of general elections had skyrocketed from N1.5 billion in 1999 to N350 billion in 2023.

    “The current staggered election process is expensive and inefficient. Conducting all elections on the same day will save cost, boost voter participation, and reduce political tension,” he said.

    Read Also: ‘Only one per cent of rich Nigerians pay tax’

    Mustapha urged Nigeria to take a cue from countries like the United States, India, and Brazil, where same-day elections have led to more streamlined and cost-effective electoral processes.

    He also explained that prolonged campaigns disrupt governance and fuel unnecessary political tension, making a shorter campaign period more desirable.

    Some Senators in their contributions supported the Bill saying that consolidating elections into a single day would reduce voter fatigue, enhance credibility in the electoral process and minimise disruptions to governance caused by staggered elections.

    However, others raised concerns about the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s capacity to conduct all elections in a single day.

    Senator Adams Oshiomhole in his submission said that: “While the bill has good intentions, we must ensure that INEC is adequately prepared for the enormous task of conducting elections for all levels of government in one day.”

    He also cautioned that multiple ballot papers on a single day could cause confusion, especially among illiterate voters.

    The bill, if passed into law would represent significant electoral reforms in Nigeria by cutting election costs while deepening democracy by encouraging greater citizen participation and reducing economic losses from prolonged election cycles.

    After its passage for second reading, the Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on INEC for legislative work and to report back in four weeks.

  • Stakeholders call for amendment of Electoral Act

    Stakeholders call for amendment of Electoral Act

    • Rep: House will look into INEC guidelines

    No address the shortcomings in general elections, stakeholders have called for a further amendment to the 2022 Electoral Act.

     They argued that the appointment of Resident Electoral Commissioners (REC) and commissioners of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should not be done by the President.

     This is as the House of Representatives assured that it would look into the guidelines of INEC on the conduct of future elections.

     Executive Director, Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo called for the unbundling of INEC, adding that the constitutional arrangements where issues on the appointment of INEC chairman and National Commissioners are vested in the Executive needed to be reviewed.

     Itodo spoke at a roundtable convened to conduct a post- mortem of the General Election and to seek priority areas for reforms organised by Yiaga Africa and the Kofi Annan Foundation with the theme “Unpacking Nigeria’s 2023 general elections and prospects for electoral reform” in Abuja.

     He said the Justice Uwais Committee recommended that the president should not appoint chairman, commissioners into INEC; rather that power should be vested into another institution.

     The Yiaga Africa chief stated that this was just one way of protecting the independence of the Commission to prevent it from any form of political interference or manipulation.

     Itodo said: “You cannot have an electoral commission that is composed of persons who are appointed by the President and in some cases you have the incumbents as part of a political party or leading a political party.’’

    Read Also: What Electoral Act says on deduction of invalid votes

     “So, in line with Justice Uwais,one of the recommendations is to review the appointment process of commissioners and RECs into INEC. In fact, one of the proposals is that the President should not appoint RECs.

    “INEC when properly constituted with individuals that have impeccable character, competence and capacity should appoint its own resident electoral commissioners or directors of elections to manage elections.”

     Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, Dachung Bagos, said the National Assembly would work to review issues around what happened during the last election and to look at what could be done to enforce those laws.

     He said: “We will look at INEC’s guidelines to turn them into law, because the difference between guidelines and the law is that the guideline is what someone sits down and feels that this is the guideline.

     “However, when the guideline is now a law, it becomes mandatory to practice. So we are going to review all these issues that Nigerians have problems with.

     “Once it’s now a law, it is no longer a guideline. Nobody will be able to change it at the dying minute. So, these are issues that collectively, we are all going to look at.”

     A representative of Kofi Annan Foundation in Nigeria, Sebastian Brack said Nigeria’s successful democratic experiment is a priority.

     Brack said: “This particular roundtable is looking at how we can improve the situation for the next elections in a constructive and forward looking way.”

     Special Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mohammed Kuna, said that although elections are important, they are not enough in terms of deepening and consolidating democracy.

     Kuna said there was a need to focus also on governance issues, on issues of political accountability, on issues of conducting elections among others and the commission was noting them.

  • Kwara elections met accepted standards, say observers

    Accredited Election Observers have adjudged that the February 23 and March 3 elections in Kwara State met the accepted standards in line with the Electoral Act.

    They, therefore, urged the candidates and political parties to accept the results as true reflection of the wishes and decisions of the electorate.

    The observers added that the elections took place under a conducive and peaceful atmosphere across the entire state.

    State team leader Richard Adebayo and Secretary Olaniyan Matthew hailed the “Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) for considering it necessary to conduct the 16 local government election in the state and providing a level playing ground for all political parties”.

    Read also: Int’l Observers to Buhari: assent to amended Electoral Act

    They recommended that “the government and electoral management body should engage committee of civil society groups on intensive civic voter’s education, sensitisation and mobilisation ahead of every election”.

  • Tinubu: Buhari didn’t order shoot on sight

    On election postponement

    By law, we should continue to energise our people. It depends on our resources. Because the Electoral Act allows us to continue to campaign and ask us to stop campaigning only 24 hours before the actual election. And once INEC changed the election date to February 23, they have given us the opening to campaign and energise our people. If you have a garden and you don’t nourish it with water, the grass will remain dormant. We don’t want our party to remain dormant.

    This is ability of the leadership to convert adversity to opportunity and prosperity and that’s it; that’s what we must do.

    On whether the postponement will affect credibility of INEC

    It depends on how it is handled and the new process. How the process is managed? You can convert what appears like a crisis, a situation of adversity, to an opportunity and progress

    Read also: Army Chief: ballot box snatchers’ll be dealt with

    The INEC, under the law, is empowered to postpone, cancel and do whatever is necessary to ensure free and fair election.No party other INEC has this power. We can express our anger and disappointment, but no party can reverse what has been done. So, we are ready for Feb. 23.

    On President Buhari’s statement that those who disrupt the election do so at the risk to their lives…

    “ I was in that meeting; the president was just reinforcing the fact that if you you are out there snatching ballot boxes, and causing destruction, you are at risk of your own life. Whatever happens to you, no president will give an order that his own citizens be shot summarily, No! No, its okay, emotions are running high these days. Any individual including myself can be misinterpreted.

    Shoot on sight are not his words; he is a law-abiding person and he understands categorically and clearly what the rule of law is and the lives of individual citizens, he knows that he is in that office to protect. Now, let me say this: he has been fighting Boko Haram, kidnappers and all that before this election, did you hear him asking them to be shot and executed summarily?

    If he has gone through that in the last five years, please give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • How can electoral offenders be tamed?

    Vote buying and ballot snatching, among others, are offences under the Electoral Act. Yet, not many offenders have been brought to book. There are fears that the same scenario may play out in the forthcoming elections. Why? Is the law weak? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’ views.

    It is 31 days to the February 16 general election. Will it be marred by violations, or will the polls be free, fair and credible?

    Elections seem to look like do or die in Nigeria. This explains the massive deployment of policemen, soldiers and other security agents to guarantee their safe conduct.

    Yet, violations of the Electoral Act have persisted. In virtually every election, there have been incidents of ballot box snatching, voter inducement and other forms of violations of the electoral law.

    However, not many of the perpetrators were ever brought to book. Arrests were made, but not much else was heard about such cases afterwards.

    Elections lie at the heart of representative democracy and their success or otherwise is central to the success or failure of democracy.

    The benefits of winning elections, the disadvantages of losing them, and the winner-takes-all mentality often trigger desperate measures by political actors and their agents.

    Over the past few years, large-scale violations have been reported during elections, with the courts reversing several of such exercises.

    The situation underscores the need for effective prosecution of offenders to act as deterrent.

     

    Why prosecution of electoral offenders is weak

     

    According to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, the commission lacks the capacity to effectively prosecute electoral offences.

    Yakubu, who spoke at the last Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Criminal Justice Reform conference, said: “In many parts of the democratic world, including Nigeria, the Electoral Management Body is saddled with the additional duty of prosecuting election offences.

    “This means that the electoral umpire must be truly independent in both financial and administrative capacity in order to effectively and efficiently execute the functions.

    “This is surely not applicable to Nigeria where INEC is still much dependent on the executive arm of government for its budgetary allocations.

    “In order to effectively investigate and prosecute electoral offences, there is the need for capacity building, adequate funding and manpower. These are presently challenges being faced by INEC.”

    Another hurdle against the effective prosecution of electoral offences, according to him, is what he called “the abject inefficiency of the criminal investigation machinery in Nigeria”.

     

    Electoral offences

     

    The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) devotes the entire Part VII of Sections 117-132 to specific acts and or omissions, which it criminalises and punishes as election offences.

    Other provisions in the same Act also criminalise  certain acts as electoral offences. These include offences in respect of registration of voters and the compilation of voters’ register, offences against nomination of candidates, offences relating to campaign financing, election day offences and post-election offences.

    Under Section 12(2), registering in more than one registration centre or registering more than once in the same registration centre attracts a fine not exceeding N100, 000 or an imprisonment term not exceeding one year or both.

    Under Section 16 (2), holding more than one valid voters’ card attracts a fine not exceeding N100, 000.00 or an imprisonment term not exceeding one year or both.

    Section 23 (a) & (b) criminalise unlawful possession, selling or offering to sell, buying or offering to buy voters cards, which attracts a fine of N500, 000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both.

    Under Section 31, submitting a name of a candidate, who is not qualified for election and any candidate who  willfully presents  false  documents is punishable by a maximum fine of N500,000.

    Under Section 91, any candidate, who exceeds the limitation on election expenses, is also liable to fines of between N1million to N100,000 from presidential to councillorship candidates.

    On thuggery, Section 81 provides that employing any individual for the purpose of hindering the electoral process in any way contrary to Section 227 of the 1999 Constitution attracts a fine of N500, 000 for first time offenders, N700, 000.00 for subsequent offences  and N50, 000 for every day the offence continues.

    Similarly, Section 94 (1) attracts a fine of N2million or an imprisonment term of two years or both for possession of a weapon at a rally.                Printing, manufacturing or being in possession of ballot papers without authority is punishable by two years’ imprisonment without option of fine.

    Under Section 124 (1), anyone who directly, indirectly or through a proxy conspires, bribes or aids and abets any party to procure the return of a candidate to any elected office is liable to N500,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment.

    Section 129 (4) of the Electoral Act  criminalises the destruction or snatching of any election material. Offenders are liable to two years imprisonment.

    The Electoral Act also outlaws vote buying. Section 130 says that after the date of election has been announced, anyone who corruptly pays another to vote or refrain from voting and any person, who corruptly accepts the token to vote or refrain from voting is liable to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both.

    The Act also outlaws violence. Section 131 provides that anyone, who directly, indirectly or by proxy, threatens, uses violence, inflicts injury, abducts, restrains or impedes another to hinder them from voting or contesting an election is liable to a fine of N1milion or three years imprisonment.

     

    Prosecution challenges

     

    Some observers believe that the sanctions in the Electoral Act are not stringent enough. With many of the sections having options of fine, offenders with powerful backing and deep pockets cannot be deterred, observers said.

    According to Yakubu, many perpetrate the offences because they believe they can easily get away with it. “The law makes provision for what constitutes electoral offences and punishments thereto. However, people commit acts of violence and other electoral offences because they know that in the end they will often get away with them,” he said.

    He also blamed lack of discipline in the form, spirit and implementation of the election processes, excessive monetisation of politics, winner-takes all philosophy, the general poverty and illiteracy of citizens and the absence of clear ideological understanding of the parties which encourage fictionalisation as factors that fuel electoral offences.

    Under the accusatorial system of criminal justice being practiced in Nigeria, prosecution of offenders is an uphill task because the onus of proving the guilt of the suspect in most cases remains squarely on the prosecution till proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides for prosecution of electoral offences by INEC at the Magistrates Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Police Act also empowers the Police to prosecute offenders.

    Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the Attorney-General of the Federation to institute, undertake, take over and continue criminal proceedings against any person in any Court of Law in Nigeria other than a Court Martial in respect of any offence created by an act of the National Assembly.

    By virtue of Section 150(2) of the Electoral Act, the duty of prosecuting Election Offences is conferred on INEC legal officers or any other private legal practitioners appointed by the Commission.

    In most common law jurisdictions, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), undertakes all criminal prosecutions of conventional crimes on behalf of the state with exception of election crimes.

    However, the DPP takes direct instructions from the Attorney-General, who is a political appointee of the ruling political party.

    Analysts said there may be conflict of interest where a member of a ruling political party is being prosecuted for election related offences, which may presumably have be committed in favour of the party in power.

     

    Does INEC have the capacity

    to prosecute?

     

    Highlighting INEC’s challenges in prosecuting offenders, Yakubu said: “The practice so far has been that the Police, where satisfied that an electoral offence has been disclosed under the Electoral Act, will hand over the case file(s) to the Commission for necessary prosecution after completion of investigation since no power is vested in the Commission to investigate electoral offences.

    “The Commission’s Legal Officers or Legal Practitioners engaged by the Commission rely on the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Police in prosecuting electoral offences.

    “The lack of statutory powers of the Commission to make arrest and investigate violations has seriously impeded successful prosecution of electoral offenders.

    “The investigating police officers (IPOs) in respect of commission of electoral offences are usually posted to different states during elections and will return to their various states of postings after the conduct of elections.

    “Likewise, most of the ad hoc election personnel are usually National Youth Service Corps members, who would have passed out of the compulsory one year service period before completion of investigation and/or before the case files are transmitted by the Police to the Commission for prosecution.

    “This has led to the incomplete investigation and subsequent non prosecution of many electoral offence cases.”

    As a way out, he said  there was the need for the investigator to be properly trained in electoral matters given the dynamics of elections, the challenges of the ever growing global society and the mutation of the criminal mind.

     

    Will electoral offences commission do the magic?

     

    There have been calls for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Commission as a way of addressing the challenges to effective and efficient prosecution of electoral offences in Nigeria.

    INEC and other stakeholders had recommended for an independent body to be established to handle prosecution of electoral offences with such powers as conferred on the anti-corruption agencies to arrest, investigate and prosecute electoral offenders.

    According to the INEC chair, experience has shown that the commission “does not have the time, expertise, resources and the capacity to shoulder such a responsibility in the face of conducting elections and managing post electoral challenges”.

    The Muhammed Uwais Committee on Electoral Reform constituted by former President Umaru Musa Yar’adua in its report found that “impunity…has marred Nigeria’s electoral process to date”. It recommended serious sanctions and punishment for electoral malfeasance.

    The report said: “All offences committed within the electoral context should be prosecuted expeditiously. The prevailing atmosphere of impunity with regard to election offences should be ended by prosecuting and holding accountable those responsible for electoral offences, including those of a criminal nature.

    “This would reduce the impunity, which has marred Nigeria’s electoral process to date, and which threatens to undermine citizens’ confidence in the country’s political institutions.”

    The Uwais Report recommended that Section 174(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) should be amended so that the power of the Federal and state Attorneys-General to stifle cases and investigations does not apply to electoral offences.

    The Ken Nnamani Electoral Reform Committee also made a similar recommendation as the Uwais Committee.

    The Buhari administration reportedly sent a Bill for an Act to Establish the National Electoral Offences Commission and for Matters Connected therewith to the National Assembly in 2017.

    The objective of the Bill was to address issues relating to coordination and enforcement of all laws relating to electoral offences and adoption of measures to deal with electoral offences.

    The commission would be empowered to investigate all electoral offences, electoral corruption and violations of electoral due process in any election, as well as adopt measures including preventive and regulatory actions and techniques to prevent electoral offences, among others.

    Yakubu believes that the Electoral Offences Commission is the ultimate solution. “The creation of the National Electoral Offences Commission conferred with powers to arrest, investigate and prosecute all election offenders will go a long way in reducing the spate of brazen impunity with which electoral offences are committed in this country,” he said.

     

    Lawyers’ views

     

    A Senior Advocate of  Nigeria (SAN), Mr Rotimi Jacobs, believed that INEC should be empowered to investigate electoral offences.

    Speaking while facilitating a session at training for INEC legal officers and police officers in Lagos, the frontline prosecutor said allowing the police to investigate electoral offences while restricting INEC to prosecution would not achieve much.

    Jacobs explained that dealing with electoral offences successfully required tight co-ordination from the process of investigation to prosecution.

    “We cannot really achieve much if the only thing INEC does is to prosecute electoral offences and lacks the power to investigate cases.

    “We cannot do much when the police is saddled with investigation and INEC takes care of prosecution.

    “Successful prosecution of electoral offences will require that INEC is the prosecuting and the investigative agency.

    “Giving the agency the power to also investigate would ensure better co-ordination needed to address the problem,’’ he said.

    Jacobs suggested that INEC could be empowered by the  law to set up its department for the purpose of investigating electoral offences.

    He said with this, the commission would be able to handle cases from the beginning to the last day in court.

    Country representative for the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) Udo Jude Ilo  and Enough is Enough Nigeria (EiE) executive director, Yemi Adamolekun noted that even as Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2010 grants INEC the authority to prosecute electoral offences, the commission lacks the capacity and resources to fulfill this mandate.

    According to them, despite its best efforts, INEC has only been able to prosecute successfully a handful of cases since 2015.

    They recall that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had documented a list of individuals indicted for electoral malpractices in the course of election tribunal proceedings. The list was said to have been submitted to the Attorney-General of the Federation, but no further action was taken.

    According to the lawyers, the structures of accountability and law enforcement in Nigeria are often under the control of politicians, who exercise undue influence on the actions of those agencies. This, they said, makes any form of accountability difficult.

    To these legal experts, politicians understand that they are unlikely to face consequences for tampering with the electoral process, thereby undermining the elections’ legitimacy and fairness.

    “Furthermore, electoral impunity is a major trigger for violence and instability in the region. Election-related violence led to the deaths of over eight hundred people in 2011, according to Human Rights Watch, and in the 2015 elections more than 50 Nigerians were killed in the run up to the election, according to the NHRC.

    “Given the weakness of Nigeria’s electoral and judicial institutions, the political class has little incentive to play by the rules.

    “Therefore, the success of Nigeria’s elections will hinge partly on tough love from international election observers and foreign governments.

    “The United States in particular can help avert a crisis by supporting a framework for electoral accountability that encourages respect for the rule of law. This framework must include punitive measures.

    “Within this context, the United States should consider targeted sanctions and travel bans against individuals, who abuse their office or who undermine the electoral process through their supporters.

    “In instances where such actions trigger mass violence, the observer missions and foreign governments should demand accountability.

    “Observers and international NGOs will also need to support local civil society as they document infractions in the electoral process, support community mandate protection initiatives, and provide technical and political support to INEC to allow it to hold the political class accountable,” Ilo and Adamolekun suggested.

  • Controversy over 2018 Electoral Act

    President Muhammadu Buhari and the National Assembly may be preparing for a showdown over the contentious 2018 Electoral Act. The president has declined assent and the legislature is threatening to override his veto. What is the way out of the faceoff? Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the arguments for and against the Bill.

    The 2018 Electoral Act Bill has deepened the gulf between President Muhammadu Buhari and the National Assembly. Both arms of government are building on their records of mutual suspicion and antagonism. Will the president rescind his decision to refuse assent to the bill, following pressures mounted on him by critical stakeholders, or maintain his stand to the end? Will the Senate veto the president’s decision or seek dialogue with the Presidency over the contentious issues?

    The president is empowered by the 1999 Constitution to refuse assent. But, ordinarily, the power should be exercised in the national interest. President Buhari has exercised his veto power four times, to the consternation of the legislators. Also, the National Assembly is at liberty to override his veto. But, the move, although largely legal, should not be devoid of legitimacy. Will the parliament get the required two-third majority to accomplish that?

    The Bill has become a major bone of contention, owing to the 2019 calculations. The controversy over the refusal of assent has polarised the country. Since President Buhari and the leadership of the National Assembly belong to rival political parties, many All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftains tend to view the logjam through partisan lenses.

    The proposed amendment, according to the National Assembly, is expected to improve the conduct of elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). While the president is not against the amendment, he has counselled that its implementation should commence after next year’s elections. Information and Culture Minister Alhaji Lai Mohammed explained that President Buhari withheld assent to avoid likely confusion that may be consequent on the timeframe for its implementation.

    “I am declining assent to the Bill principally because I am concerned that passing the nee electoral bill this far into the electoral process for the 2019 general elections, which commenced under the 2015 Electoral Act, could create some uncertainties about the applicable legislation to govern the process,” said the president.

    He added: “Any real or apparent change to the rule this close to the election may provide an opportunity for disruption and confusion in respect of which law governs the electoral process.”

    Echoing his boss, President Buhari’s Senior Special Assistant on National Assembly Matters Senator Etim Enang alluded to an Economic Community of West of West African Countries (ECOWAS) protocol, which forbids constitutional amendment in member-countries six month to elections. Recalling that former President Olusegun Obasanjo ratified it, he said President Buhari is bound by it.

    Rejecting the presidential veto, PDP lawmakers are threatening fire and brimstone. “We will do our best to override his assent,” said Biodun Olujimi, a senator from Ekiti Central District, who added: “This is because 70 percent of the INEC budget has to do with the funding of card readers and other equipment needed for the election.”

    An APC lawmaker, Senator Kabiru Marafa, disagreed.  He chided the opposition for its jittery over the use of card readers, adding that it underscored an ulterior motive. He predicted that the move to override the president’s assent will fail. Marafa’s argument is that getting the two-third majority will be a herculean task. Besides, he expressed concern over INEC’s capability to start implementing the new provisions. In his view, the electoral agency may not be able to cope with new responsibilities and conditions imposed by the amendment. “INEC, at the moment, has a lot of issues to contend with. Why should we overburden them with new amendments that would make its work more cumbersome? Why can’t we wait till after the 2019 elections before we introduce new electoral laws?” he queried.

    The legislative/executive faceoff notwithstanding, a cloud of uncertainty is not hovering over next year’s elections. The electoral agency has ruled out any legal lacuna, if the implementation of the amendment is postponed. INEC Chairman Prof. Mahmud Yakubu said the body can organise credible elections, based on the 2010 Electoral Act. His media aide, Rotimi Oyekanmi, cited time constraints, saying: “It would have been impossible, for instance, to implement 100 per cent electronic voting because of the time frame. “The commission is not bothered and will not be distracted by the hue and cry over certain issues and decisions taken by the president and the National Assembly. The commission is focused on organising the 2019 elections using the extant laws, using the laws that are valid as at today,” Yakubu stressed.

    Presenting the report on the review of the bill, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on INEC, Suleiman Nazif, said the man objectives of the bill was to provide for the use of technological devises for the conduct of elections, to provide a timeline for the submission of candidates’ list, identify the criteria for substitution of candidates, and address the problems related to omission of candidates’ names and logo of political parties.

    There are six critical items or issues revolving around the bill, which make it significantly different from 2010 Electoral Act. These are the formalisation of the legal basis for the use of card readers, electronic transmission of results, time-frame for submission of candidates’ list, limit of campaign expenses, cross referencing errors, electoral sequence and complaints about the time-frame for implementation.

    The core proposal is the smart card readers. It is novel to the extent that it is accorded a legal backing. Although it was used by INEC in 2015 poll, the Supreme Court disputed its legal basis, pointing out that it is not in the electoral law. The card readers were used along with incident forms. But, faulting the method, former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) recalled that it enabled non-accredited persons to vote, thereby questioning the credibility of elections.

    Section 49 (1) of the 2018 Act states: “A person intending to vote in an election shall present himself with his voter’s card to a Presiding Officer for accreditation at the polling unit in the constituency in which his name registered. In subsection (2), it is stated that “the Presiding Officer shall use a Smart Card Reader or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission.”

    However, the card readers were not insulated from technical failure that often increased anxiety during voting. Thus, in anticipation of failure that may occur, subsection (3) states that “where a Smart Card Reader deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a fresh Smart Card Reader is not deployed, the election in that unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours.”

    Also, Clause 14 is proposed to amend Section 49(4) of the Act that deals with the failure of a card reader. According to the proposed amendment, “where a smart card reader deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any polling unit and a fresh card reader is not deployed three hours before the close of the election in that unit, the election shall not hold, but be rescheduled and conducted within 24 hours thereafter, provided that where the total possible votes from all the affected card readers in the unit or units does not affect the overall result in the constituency or election concerned, the commission shall notwithstanding the fact that a fresh card reader is not deployed as stipulated, announce the final results and declare a winner.”

    Votes do not count until they are counted and declared as counted. Indeed, counting of votes and forms have always generated controversy. This may be due to the limitations of the existing law. Section63(1, 2, 3 and 4) of the 2010 Act, states that “the Presiding Officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the Commission as the case may be.

    “The form shall be signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and counter-signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.

    “The Presiding Officer shall give to the Polling Agent s and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided in Subsection 2 of this section.

    “The Presiding Officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.”

    Section 65, which deals with post-election procedure and collation of election results, also states that “after the recording of the result of the election, the Presiding Officer shall announce the result and deliver same and election materials under security to such persons as may be prescribed by the Commission.”

    To many stakeholders, a major dark side of the 2010 Act is the absence of the electronic transmission of election results from polling units. Manual transmission, apart from slowing down the collation process, has not been found to be totally fraud-free as records are susceptible to manipulation between polling units and collation centres. Hailing the 2018 Act for addressing the vital omission, Agbakoba noted that “electronic transmission will remove rigging and enhance the credibility of vote count.”

    But, skeptics have also expressed reservations about the proposed method. Fears are rife that the computer can still be manipulated by unscrupulous electoral officers eager to do the bidding of desperate candidates.

    According to the 2010 Act, “every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the election.

    But, Clause 24 amends Section 87(13) of the 2010 Act, which deals with the deadline for the primary. It states that “the dates of the primaries shall not be earlier than 150 days and not later than 90 days before the date of the election to the elective offices.”

    Nazif explained that the same section stipulates a specific period within which party primaries are required to be held since the unintended consequences left the electoral commission with only nine days to collate and compile lists of candidates and political parties for the various elections. “This is because the earlier Electoral Act Amendment Bill did not properly amend Sections 31, 33 and 85 of the principal Act that stipulates time for submission of lists of candidates for elections,” he added.

    On the death of a candidate, Section 36(1) of the 2010 Act states: “If after the time for the delivery of nomination paper and before the commencement of the poll, a nominated candidate dies, the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or the Resident Electoral Commissioner  shall being satisfied of the fact of the death, countermand the poll in which the deceased candidate was to participate and the Commission shall appoint some other convenient date for the election, within 14 days.”

    The amendment may have been informed by the crisis arising from the death of the Kogi State APC governorship candidate for 2014 poll, Prince Abubakar Audu, whose running mate, James Faleke, was not allowed to replace him as candidate in the supplementary election and a former aspirant, Yahaya Bello, was drafted into the race.

    The section is amended by inserting, after sub-section 2, new sub-sections 3, which states that “if after the commencement of polls and before the announcement of the final result and declaration of a winner, a nominated candidate dies; (a) the Commission shall be satisfied of the fact of the death, suspend the election for a period not exceeding 21 days; (b) the political party whose candidate died may, if it intends to continue to continue to participate in the election, conduct a fresh primary within seven days of the death of its candidate and submit a new candidate to the Commission to replace the dead candidate; and (c) subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, the Commission shall continue with the election, announce the final result and declare a winner.”

    The Bill has met a roadblock. The flexing of muscles between the presidency and the National Assembly continues. A PDP lawmaker indicated last week that the PDP caucus was reaching out to aggrieved APC lawmakers who lost the battle for re-nomination to join the resistance to the presidential action.

    The APC leadership is monitoring its members, a source said. “The National Working Committee of our party will meet in few days to assess the situation and get our National Assembly caucus to speak with one voice on the Bill,” he said.

     

  • Much ado over Electoral Act

    Opposition is jittery, says Fed Govt
    Override Buhari’s veto, Agbakoba tells
    National Assembly

    The row over President Muhammadu Buhari’s refusal to sign the Electoral  Law Amendment Bill  deepened yesterday,

    The government said the opposition was jittery over the matter; former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) urged the National Assembly to override the President’s veto.

    Senator Joseph Waku also backed an override of the veto, but Nasarawa State Governor Tanko Al-Makura said the President acted in good faith.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said it would have been implementing the law if the President had signed it.

    At a briefing in Abuja, Information and Culture Minister Alhaji Lai Mohammed  said Buhari did not sign the Bill because  he wants the best for Nigeria.”

    According to him, there is no substance in the complaints over timing or otherwise on  when the  President should react to a bill.

    Besides, he  accused the opposition of being behind fake news to derail the 2019 elections.

    The Minister said: “On the issue of the bill, our President has already communicated to the National Assembly on why he is not signing that bill. And I think if I remember, one of the reasons why he will not sign it now is that signing that bill at this point in time would create confusion and will not make for clarity.

    “I don’t think I want to say more than this. We are actually waiting for the response of the National Assembly on this matter. We also pointed to certain errors which we felt the National Assembly should look into and we await further reaction from the  National Assembly..

    “There’s actually no reason for the President not to sign the Electoral Bill, if he is not convinced that signing it would only jeopardise free and fair election. His refusal to sign is simply because he wants the best for Nigeria.

    He picked holes in the opposition’s claim  that Buhari declined to sign the bill as part of a plan to rig the elections.

    “The opposition is jittery. Already, they have rejected the outcome of the elections. They’ve asked the INEC chairman to resign, they’ve asked the present Inspector General of Police (IG) to resign. They are just preparing excuses for their eventual loss.

    “There is absolutely no substance in the timing or otherwise on the President reacting to the bill because you need to study very carefully, consult very widely before you assent to a bill or before you respond to a proposed bill.”

    The President and his team, Muhammed said, had always been painstaking in studying bills passed by the National Assembly before signing them into law.

    He said: “It is a credit to Mr. President that he would even take the comments of the relevant ministers when a bill like this is being proposed. An electoral bill is so crucial to the life of a nation that time and effort must not be spared in assuring we do the right thing.

    “In drafting, what you think is just common mistakes and errors could make a whole lot of difference.

    “If you put ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ it may change the entire character of the legislation. I remember in my Law School days, during drafting attention is put on every word. But the main reason I hold on to as to why the President said he is not going to sign this bill is that it will create uncertainty in the Electoral Act.

    ” Yes there has been a lot of reactions from all, but I think the President has the prerogative to look at the bill, consult with all the authorities, and make known his views to the National assembly. Yes, there should be a lot of cordiality between the NASS and the Federal Government.”

    He said the President was only sticking to the principle of separation of powers.

    “But at the same time, each arm should guard very jealously its independence and its mandate. And I think this is exactly what the President has done in this matter,” he said.

    On the implications of not signing the bill, Mohammed urged the nation to await the of the National Assembly’s decision.

    He said:  “I think the constitution is very clear on this matter. The President has returned the Bill to the National Assembly; I think we should just wait for development from the National Assembly. I think it is too premature now to start testing what is going to happen.”

    Asked what the government will do if the National Assembly overrides the President’s veto, the Minister said: “Let’s wait for that to happen.”

    The opposition he alleged, was sponsoring fake news  because it has run out of ideas on how to prosecute the 2019 polls.

    The minister  said: Going back to the issue of fake news, I think the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the opposition today is fake news. We also have it on good authority that the opposition has hired technology companies to actually turn out fake news to look probable but all being fake news.

    “One said that I said that the President could no longer speak and understand fully his  Fulfulde  because of the surgery he underwent in London that affected his ability to speak the language. “Another version of the fake news on the same table as those who manufactured the clone theory. It is absolutely false, untrue.

    “What bothers me is that it isn’t going to stop. And in the days and weeks ahead leading up to the 2019 elections we will hear more incredulous fake news. And this is simply because the opposition has run out of ideas.

    “They know that they cannot debate issues and have resorted to fabricating fake news.  As a matter of fact, we have it on good authority that it is the only weapon left in their arsenal and they will use it devastatingly.

    “My charge to the media is that they should not always accept these fake news without questioning. I think there are some basic checks that the media should undertake. If it is said that he made a statement, where did he make the statement? When did he make it?

    “Is there any video or audio proof that he did? Unfortunately we are in an era of very serious epidemic and that epidemic today is fake news.

    “I am glad that as far back as 2017 we raised this alarm. In fact, we dedicated a whole national council on information summit to address this issue. And on the 11th of July, I became so concerned that we launched a national campaign against fake news, as if we knew it was going to be the single most potent weapon in the arsenal of the opposition. Clearly we should expect more of this in the days and weeks ahead.”

    “Override Buhari’s veto”

     

    In a December 10 letter addressed to Senate President Bukola Saraki and Speaker Yakubu Dogara, Agbakoba said the President’s reason  for not signing the bill were not tenable.

    The letter, copied all National Assembly members, is entitled: “Overriding the Presidential decline to assent  to 2018 Electoral Act.”

    Agbakoba said the major amendment to the 2018 Electoral Act related to electronic technology for the conduct of next year’s elections.

    He said in order to remove the constraints that will impact the credibility of future elections, the Electoral Act 2010 was amended by the 2018 Bill, to formalise the legal basis of the smart cards which were  already in use for elections by INEC anyway.

    The letter reads: “The decision of the President to withhold Assent in respect of a bill to enact a law to amend the Electoral Act makes no sense.

    “The final draft bill considered by the National Assembly was agreed with the President, precisely to avoid challenges, such as now occurred.

    “The President states that part of the reasons he has withheld assent is to avoid confusion as to the applicable legal framework for the 2019 elections and the administrative capacity of INEC to cope with the new Electoral Act, as it is all too close to the 2019 elections.

    “Distinguished and Honourable members will recall that the major amendment to the 2018 Electoral Act relates to electronic technology for the conduct of the 2019 elections.

    “The 2015 elections were partly conducted by INEC, using smart cards (card readers) but the Supreme Court held that smart cards are not allowed, not been included in the Electoral Act 2010.

    “The 2015 elections were also partly conducted by INEC using incident forms; in effect smart cards and incident forms were both used to conduct 2015 elections.

    “Distinguished and Honourable members of the National Assembly will recall that there was a lot of controversy about the use of incident forms as it enabled non-accredited persons to vote, questioning the credibility of the elections.

    “In order to remove constraints that will impact the credibility of future elections, such as 2019, the Electoral Act 2010, was amended by the 2018 Bill, to formalise the legal basis of the smart cards which were already in use for elections by INEC anyway.

    “It will be recalled that the Supreme Court declared use of smart cards as contrary to the Electoral Act 2010, so the 2018 amendment is intended to give INEC a legal basis to use smart cards and electronic technology.

    “The 2018 Bill also introduced the extremely important procedure of transmitting results of votes from polling units by electronic means.

    “Electronic transmission will remove rigging and enhance the credibility of the vote count.

    “INEC says it is familiar with the amendments contained in the 2018 Electoral Bill.

    “INEC has used smart cards at all elections from 2015. INEC has submitted an election budget which provides for smart cards and transmission equipment.

    “The President claims that part of the reasons for withholding assent is that INEC will not have enough time to become familiar with the 2018 Bill and that a new Act will generate confusion.

    “This is simply incorrect and flies in the face of INEC’s announcement that it will not use incident forms or manual voting in 2019 elections.

    “In other words, INEC is ready to deploy electronic technology for 2019 elections, and only requires that the Electoral Act provides a legal framework.

    “The 2018 Amendments will help to improve the credibility of our elections and also give legal basis for INEC to deploy electronic technology in 2019 elections, following doubts cast by the Supreme Court about the legality of the use of card readers because it was not provided in the old Electoral Act of 2010.

    “Distinguished and Honourable members of the National Assembly, are please please urged to override Mr. President and enact 2018 Electoral Act.”

    Waku, the Pro-Chancellor and governing council Chairman of the Federal University of Technonology, Akure, called for an override  of the veto so that the bill would become law and provide a road map towards credible, transparent, free and fair conduct of the forthcoming elections.

    “The National assembly has the constitutional backing to override the powers of a sitting president who is refusing to sign an important law except it is telling Nigerians that it lacks the two third majority for that action”, he said.

    Waku said Benue people would resist any move to rig next year’s general elections, adding that gone are the days when  ballot boxes snatching was the norm.

     

    President ‘acted in good faith’

     

    Al-Makura said the would always do what is right and not be swayed by sentiments.

    Speaking with reporters after submitting the report of his reconciliation committee to the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole in Abuja, Al-Makura said President believed in social justice, adding that he (Buhari) declined to sign the bill in good faith.

    He said: “I believe he is best placed than anybody in this country to determine what is good for every individual in this country. Reason being, he is the only person in the political arena that has gotten the mandate across the 36 states of the federation, he is the  person that is constitutionally placed to determine what is best for the people of this country.

    “If you look at his pedigree and how he has come along since his first attempt in 1983, he is somebody with the heart of the common man. He is the person with the mien and disposition that doesn’t discriminate against helpless Nigerians.

    “I believe in his values, given his ethos, given his pedigree. His reason for declining to sign the Electoral Act bill sent to him is in good faith and Nigerians should consider it as such.”

    Senate Committee on Local Content Chairman Senator Solomon Adeola APC, Lagos West), rejected the clamour to override  the President’s veto.

    According to him, those making the call did not have the interest of Nigeria and the safety and sanctity  of the 2019 election at heart.

    Adeola said he would oppose  such move in the Senate, which  reconvenes tomorrow, because  ” it is counterproductive at this late hour to the crucial 2019 elections beginning in February next year”.

    “As a senator and a Nigerian, I cannot be part of any move to override the President’s veto on the Electoral Bill. The President clearly stated his reasons for the veto and I think they are cogent enough to be accepted by all in the national interest. And good enough the President is not totally foreclosing the need to amend the Act as he clearly stated that such process can take place after the 2019 Elections in the 9th National Assembly,” he said.

    Read also: CBN, EFCC to punish forex policy violators

    Our stand, by INEC

     

    Chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman Rotimi Oyekanmi said that commission could still conduct the forthcoming  elections under the expert law.

    He said: “As far as the commission is concerned, there is no legal lacuna. If the President had assented to the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the commission would have proceeded with only the aspects that can be implemented before the 2019 general elections. It would have been impossible, for instance, to implement 100 percent electronic voting because of the time frame.”

    He said INEC conducted a free, fair and transparent election with the 2010 Electoral law in 2015 and the result has continued to receive accolade within and outside the country.

    “But now that the President has refused assent, the commission will conduct the general elections based on the 2010 Electoral Law (as amended). Remember, the much applauded 2015 general elections were conducted under the existing electoral law. The upcoming polls will also be conducted in the same manner. To be sure, the commission long ago began preparations for the elections based on the existing law and it was the legal document we relied on to issue the Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2019 General Elections back in January this year. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about. All INEC requires is for all political parties taking part in the elections to play according to the rules and everything will be fine,” he said.

    Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) President Rev. Samson Ayokunle urged the executive and legislature to close ranksover  the issue.

    He said: “The executive and need to work together. When there is a crisis between them like this what they need to do is to put themselves together as partners in progress.

    “There should be mutual understanding between them because they cannot afford to play with the future of Nigerians in the 2019 elections. Everything that should be done must be done to make sure that the 2019 election are free and fair.”

     

     

     

     

  • Electoral Act: Olawepo-Hashim accuses PDP, APC of playing pranks

    Peoples Trust (PT) presidential candidate Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim yesterday accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of playing pranks due to their hypocritical commitment to the proposed Electoral Act.

    He accused both parties of playing politics with the nation’s stability with their handling of constitutional issues.

    Olawepo-Hashim, whose party has been described as the third force, said the PDP and APC presidential candidates are obsessed with immediate partisan gains, instead of acting as statesmen.

    He spoke with reporters in Lagos on the president’s refusal assent to the amendment bill, which he recalled, was passed by the PDP-controlled National Assembly.

    Olawepo-Hashim said: “The President is conducting himself like a typical Nigerian politician of the era of political decline, rather than behaving as a patriot that I have always thought he is. By his actions, he is simply saying let me benefit from the process for my 2019 bid. You can push for the new law in 2023 when I will not be contesting.”

    The PT flag bearer noted that the PDP-led legislature had ample time to correct the perceived lacuna in the electoral act, which they had created in the first instance, but chose to distract the polity.

    He added: “In the task of nation building, political leaders sometimes have to rise above the fray and take decisions in the national interest, even when it does not seem to benefit from it. Some of us did this before. In 2000, when some of our colleagues wanted to change our two-year tenure to four years, I led the opposition to this, even though I would have been a beneficiary of that exercise as a National Executive Committee (NEC) member.”

    Olawepo-Hashim urged the electorate not to be discouraged from participating in next year’s polls.

    He said: “Since what I can call the “garrison” election in Osun State and the unfortunate refusal of assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, the APC has been trying to spread fear in the hearts of would-be voters that their votes will not count.”

  • Electoral Act: Lawan backs Buhari on refusal of assent

    Senate Leader Ahmad Lawan says there is nothing to worry about in President Muhammadu Buhari’s decision to withhold assent on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018.

    Lawan told the News Agency of Nigeria(NAN) in Abuja that the Electoral Act (2010) was good enough for the conduct of the 2019 general elections.

    He said the President’s decision should not be misinterpreted, adding that it was done in the interest of the country. “That the President declined assent to the bill was no big deal,” he said.

    “We can still use the Electoral Act, 2010, that was used in 2015 general elections.

    “This is to allay the fears of the citizens, who might think that the 2019 elections would not be well conducted without the amendment.

    “What we need to do is to look at the few lapses, especially in terms of administration which does not need any legal backing.

    “INEC conducted a very good election in 2015 with the existing act.

    “So, I believe that we can use that and nobody should start thinking that the elections will not be free and fair.

    “The 2015 elections were free, fair and transparent. All over the world, we were commended for conducting such a credible election.

    “It is not like the current act is so defective that we cannot use it,” he said.

    The leader said the bill could be worked on, to be used in elections beyond 2019.

    He pointed out: “If we cannot use the current amendments in 2019, who says we cannot use it in the 2023 elections and elections in between 2019 and 2023.

    “So, national interest is of utmost importance and not the noise being made by some people. So, there is no reason for worry or agitation.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • PDP urges Buhari to sign amended Electoral Act

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State has called on President Muhammadu Buhari to sign the amended Electoral Act into law.

    Its Chairman, Chief Dan Orbih, addressed reporters in Okada after he received a honorary doctorate degree in Political Science from the Igbinedion University, Okada.

    Orbih said the President should sign the bill to give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) time to meet the specific provisions of the law.

    The party chair wondered how issues about the card reader would be resolved should the President not sign the bill.

    He decried the huge number of uncollected Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs).

    “These are not good signs for the elections. I am disturbed by the silence of Nigerians over the continued delay by President Buhari in signing the Electoral Act, as amended and passed by the National Assembly. The issue is which law would INEC recourse to in conducting the election.”