The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Electoral reform

  • Electoral Reform: Will Nigeria get it right?

    Electoral Reform: Will Nigeria get it right?

    Reforming the nation’s election system is one issue that has dominated electoral discourse over the years, especially after the 2007 elections. The agitation became more pronounced after the 2023 general elections and with the spate of defections by elected office holders. Many believe that reforming the system will give the nation’s electoral system some level of credibility. But not many agree that the nation will succeed in this venture even as the National Assembly seeks to amend both the constitution and the electoral act in this regards. TONY AKOWE reports.

    Ahead of the 2027 general elections, Nigerians have continued to agitate for an electoral reform that will ensure a holistic overhaul of the electoral process in the country. These reforms being sought by Nigerians goes far beyond an amendment to the Electoral Act, but giving constitutional backing to certain issues that will give credence to them in relation to the elections in the country and creating certain institutions that will assist the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in promoting electoral credibility in the country. It is on record that the current management of INEC has consistently stressed the need to unbundle the commission with a view to reducing its work load and allowing it to concentrate on purely electoral matters. Presently, the commission is constitutionally mandated to register and regulate political parties, conduct elections as well as investigate and prosecute electoral offenders.

    Not many Nigerians believe that the nation’s electoral umpire has nurtured the electoral system to a stage of maturity with great improvement in the system. but since the infamous ‘do or die’ electoral declaration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo before the 2007 general election to the admission by late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua that he was not proud of the election that brought him to power, the agitation for electoral reform by Nigerians has consistently been on the increase. That led to the setting up of the Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais Committee on Electoral Reform which made far reaching recommendations on how to repositioning and reforming the electoral process in Nigeria. Unfortunately, majority of the recommendations have not been implemented several years after.  While some of these recommendations required constitutional amendments, others require tinkering with the electoral act and both.

     For example, the recommendation for an electoral offences commission and tribunal and the recommendation on the establishment of a political party registration and regulatory commission require constitutional amendment to give them the force of law. Although the Senate passed the bill to establish the Electoral Offences Commission that will be saddled with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting electoral offenders in the 9th Assembly, the House of Representatives failed to pass the same law. At the session presided over by the then Deputy Speaker where the bill was scheduled for consideration, the House turned the report and asked its committee on Electoral Matters to correct obvious errors. The report never made it back for consideration before the expiration of the life of that Assembly. That meant that the bill had to be returned to the House and reworked. The bill sponsored by Bamidele Salam returned to the parliament as a constitutional amendment bill and form one of the 12 bills on electoral reform being considered by the 10th House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review.

    The Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Reform says any reforms in the electoral system in the country should focus on two main areas. These are the administrative and legal framework. They also argued that there is a need for the review of INEC’s regulations and guidelines, which are contained in the INEC Memorandum for Administrative Reform. Like many Nigerians, the group believes that the process of appointing the Chairman, National Commissioners, and Resident Electoral Commissioners should be reviewed, with the power taken away from the President. Rather, they want a multi-stakeholder approach to appointments into INEC, including consultations with the National Council of State, as well as traditional and religious institutions and civil society.

    They are also of the view that the criteria for appointments into INEC should be reviewed, as the current criteria of non-partisanship and unquestionable character prescribed by the Constitution have proven inadequate. They want the introduction of additional criteria such as professional skills and qualifications, health, age, and gender, saying: ‘Election administration requires individuals with diverse legal, IT, logistics, statistics, and communications skills. The appointing authority should consider the age, health status, and gender of nominees when making appointments to the commission.” This argument draw support from the House Constitution Review Committee who are seeking an amendment to the constitution to reform the processes of appointing the INEC Chairman by involving the National Judicial Council in the selection process there by enhancing the independence, credibility and transparency of the appointment process.

    On its part, PAACA said: “currently, the President holds considerable power over the appointment of INEC members, and its funding is subject to annual appropriation, leading to a perceived lack of autonomy.’ They are proposing the establishment of a broad-based selection committee with members drawn from civil society, the judiciary, and the National Assembly, including the National Judicial Council, to preside over the selection process into the Independent National Electoral Commission. They also propose a five-year single tenure for members appointed to the commission. Presently, members of the commission can serve two terms of five years each. The current system allows the President to nominate the Chairman and members of the commission, as well as Resident Electoral Commissioners”.

    Incidentally, the recommendations of the Justice Uwais Commission falls in line with the recommendations of the Political Reform Conference and the 2014 National Conference set up by former President Goodluck Jonathan. Since the 2023 general elections, there have been so many agitations, and the electoral umpire itself has held series of stakeholders meeting aimed at creating a better electoral process in the country. At one of such for with members of the National Assembly Joint Committee on Electoral Matter, the INEC Chairman spoke of the need to reduce cost of conducting elections in the country. One of the reforms being proposed by the Commission which is also contained in the bill to amend the electoral act 2022 is the provision that will eliminate by-elections in parliamentary elections. Clause 40 (1 and 2) of the bill seeking to amend the electoral act states that “where an elected member of a legislative house at any level of government resigns, dies or is otherwise unable to continue in office before the expiration of the tenure for which the member was elected, the political party under whose platform the member was elected shall have the mandate to nominate a replacement from within the party in accordance with the procedure for nomination of candidates in section 84(2). The nomination under paragraph 1 shall be made within 60 days after the seat is declared vacant by the presiding office due to resignation, death or incapacity of the member”. But Hon. Kolawole Davidson Akinlayo, the member representing Moba/Ilejemeje/Ido Osi Federal Constituency of Ekiti State in the House of Representatives is not in support of that move. He believe that the proposal by the commission for the party of the deceased lawmaker who the one that resigned to produce the replacement is not democratic. He said “that’s not proper. If INEC suggests that model, that would be tantamount to denying the people the right to choose the person they want to occupy that position because the leadership of the parties can just sit somewhere and pick a candidate. That will not reflect the feeling of the generality of that people in that area.”

    Read Also: Tinubu assures northern Christians of fairness

    Aside the position of INEC and clamour by Nigerians, the House of Representatives has also made electoral reform one of its key priority, forming one of the items on its legislative agenda.

    According to the item on the agenda, the House pledged to “carefully examine complaints and observations made by stakeholders arising from the conduct of the 2023 general elections. Specific actions to be taken by the House include amend the Electoral Act 2022 to remedy some of the gaps observed, including vague and contradicting provisions, pass an independent legislation (the Political Parties Bill) to regulate the registration, financing and functioning of political parties in Nigeria and, by so doing, allow INEC to focus on the conduct of elections; set up a mechanism for periodic reviews of electoral laws to ensure they remain relevant and in tune with global best practices”.

    It also planned to “amend the Electoral Act 2022 to allow diaspora voting by government officials around the world, ensure the passage of the National Electoral Offences Commission Bill to confer powers of the Commission to prosecute electoral offences, propose amendments to the Constitution on issues related to elections in Nigeria to address the appointment of Chairman and National Commissioners of the Independent National electoral Commission (INEC); creation of an Electoral Offences Commission as an independent body; and the relevance or otherwise of Resident Electoral Commissioners (REC) of INEC in the States”.

    The process of unbundling the commission does not just rely on amending the Electoral Act or creating legislation by the National Assembly. It also involves amending the relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution. For example, the Constitution must first be amended to transfer INEC’s responsibility for registering and regulating political parties and prosecuting electoral offences to other institutions, which will be established by an Act of the National Assembly, such as the proposed Political Party Registration and Regulatory Commission and the Electoral Offences Commission. The functions to be ascribed to these bodies are already conferred on INEC by the Constitution, and only a constitutional amendment can alter this if the nation is to avoid a constitutional crisis and reduce INEC’s enormous and onerous responsibilities. Relevant sections of the Constitution include paragraph 15 of the Third Schedule and Section 144.

    Some of the bills being considered by the House Committee on constitution review include a bill to alter sections 40, 81, 84, 153, 222, 225, 226,228 and the third schedule to the constitution to provide for the establishment of the Political Party Registration and Regulatory Commission in other to reduce the burden on INEC and also allow the new body take charge of the registration, supervision, regulation of the operation of all registered political parties in the country, their finances, internal democracy, party primaries, conventions and meetings and other activities of political parties. The bill to this effect is sponsored by Speaker of the House, Abbas Tajudeen. In addition, the House is also considering a bill to establish an Electoral Offences Commission with power to investigate and prosecute pre-election, Election Day and post-election crime as well as amending sections of the constitution to provide for the conduct of all elections on the same day. This, according to the House is to ensure a streamlined electoral process so as to reduce the administrative burden on INEC and ensure a more efficient and inclusive voting system for all citizens.

    The Peering Advocacy and Advancement Centre in Africa (PAACA) supports the idea of an electoral offences Commission.

    PAACA said: “presently, election-related offences are cumbersome to prosecute within the existing federal or state high courts, leading to severe delays and backlogs. While election petition tribunals exist, there is no dedicated mechanism to handle criminal electoral offences like ballot snatching or vote buying. We propose that federal and state laws should provide for special electoral courts or divisions, mandated to hear these cases within a stringent 90-day timeframe from the commencement of proceedings.”

    There are also recommendations for a review of the period of elections and the dispensing of election petitions before inauguration. The bill seeks to ensure that all election petition and appeals arising thereof are resolved before elected officials assume office. The House said the goal of this constitutional amendment is to enhance electoral transparency and legitimacy. It said “by settling pre-inauguration disputes, the bill will prevent governance disruptions and boost public trust. This measure ensures only candidates with undisputed mandates takes office. This will promote a seamless power transition and strengthens democracy”. The implication of this provision is the procedures for elections may have to be altered either in the constitution or in the electoral act. Interestingly, there is a bill, that sought to make the Appeal Court the starting point for Governorship election petition, terminating in the senate just like the Presidential election, while legislative elections start from the tribunals and ends at the Court of Appeal. Clause 135 of the electoral act amendment bill currently being considered speaks to this constitutional amendment provision. It provide that the election petition tribunal be set up 30 days before the conduct of an election and should commence sitting not later than 8 days after the elections. It also provide that an election petition be filed 21 days after the date of declaration of election result and deliver judgement within 90 days (down from 180 days in the 2022 electoral act). It also provides that appeals arising from such judgement must be filed not later than 14 days from the date of judgement, while the appeal must be dispense with not later than 60 days after filing the appeal. This also apply to pre-election matters which must however be filed with 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event being challenged. It also said that “an election tribunal or court shall not declare any person a winner of an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all stages of the election”. This tends to address situations where aspirants who lost party primaries are later declared winners of the main election because after the disqualification of the main candidate because of pre-election matters. This provision points to the fact that in such situation, the court can only order a by- election.

    One suggestion that tends to draw the support of the majority of Nigerians is the reduction in the time limit for election petitions. This is also a constitutional matter that needs to be dealt with by the Constitution Review Committee.

    Presently, the Constitution requires election petitions to be dealt with within 180 days from the date of filing such a petition. But advocates of reforms want the period reduced to 90 days, while the timeframe for the disposal of appeals on pre-election and election petitions should be reduced from 60 days to 30 days.

    Other provisions in the electoral act amendment bill that tends to support the provisions of dispensing election petition before inauguration is the provision contained in clause 27 (1&3) which provides that elections be conducted not earlier than 210 day (180 days in the 2022 electoral act) and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of the office. The Citizens’ Coalition wants the period increased from the current 90 days to the end of tenure to 240 days. This has also drawn support from several groups and political watchers who believe that holding elections earlier will give enough time for election petitions to be dispensed with. However, those who oppose this suggestion think that the Nigerian people will suffer more for such action, as governance will be abandoned early by political office holders. They argue that politicians have more often than not abandoned their responsibilities to engage in electioneering while neglecting their official duties. They also argue that those who are likely to lose such elections will abandon governance too early.

    The reforms being sought appeared to have taken into consideration, the major crisis that almost crumbled the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party over the issue of its National Secretary. The House wants a constitutional provision that will compel party leaders seeking to contest elective government position to first resign their position before embarking on such mission. Senator Samuel Anyanwu’s foray into the governorship election in Imo State left the party in a serious battle that lasted several months. The House is saying that resigning before contesting elective government position will ensure that no official holds both party and elective office at the same time. The implication of this, however, is that the political parties may have to amend their constitution to accommodate this provision as no party constitution can override a national law.

    It is also proposing the participation of independent candidates in the nation’s electoral process. Such persons would not have to join any political party. But given the spate of defection of candidates, especially after losing party primaries, the proposed law is seeking to ensure that you must not be a member of any of the registered political parties one year before the date set for the election. Checks by The Nation revealed that while independent candidates actively participate in elections in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, they have not made any significant impact on elections over the years. For example, about 2 percent of the total number of candidates contesting national election in the US, 10 percent in the UK, 14 percent in France and about 2.5 percent in Germany. No independent candidate won election in Germany between 2024 and 2025, while only about 2 percent of those who contested in the US and the UK won seat in parliament, with the figure higher in France with about 3 percent. If this provision sails through, it will amend sections 7, 65, 106, 131,177, 221 and 228 of the 1999 constitution.

    Other reforms being suggested by Nigerians, which appear to have the backing of INEC and the National Assembly, include the issue of diaspora voting and early voting for Nigerians engaged in essential duties during elections, as well as the creation of special seats for women. It also includes compulsory electronic transmission of results, which would require the strengthening of the Electoral Act to make electronic transmission of results mandatory, including the upload of polling unit-level results and results sheets used at different levels of collation. But this suggestion has not taken into consideration the technological advancement of the country, which is likely to leave this option open to manipulation. In some developed countries where election results are transmitted electronically, voting has often been conducted through electronic voting. The question has been how to ensure that this option remains workable in rural areas.

  • Implement Uwais Report on Electoral Reform to immortalise Ex-CJN, Usman urges FG

    Implement Uwais Report on Electoral Reform to immortalise Ex-CJN, Usman urges FG

    The acting National Chairman of Labour Party, Sen. Nenadi Usman, has urged the Federal Government to immortalise the late former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mohammed Uwais.

    Usman, in a statement issued yesterday in Abuja, said to honour the memory of the deceased, government should implement the recommendations of the Mohammed Uwais Report on Electoral Reform.

    She stated that the report encapsulated the late jurist’s deep commitment to democratic excellence and national progress.

    Usman described Uwais’ death as a deep loss to his family and the country in general.

    “His principled and visionary leadership as Chief Justice of Nigeria not only advanced the cause of justice but also set a benchmark for generations of legal minds to follow.

    Read Also: Zulum, Shehu urge FG to fast-track Alau Dam project to avert looming disaster

    “It is with profound grief that I received the news of the passing of Honourable Justice Mohammed Uwais, an exceptional jurist, a revered elder statesman and a shining beacon of integrity in Nigeria’s judicial history.

    “Justice Uwais’ enduring legacy is profoundly etched in the annals of our nation’s jurisprudence.

    “His transition is a monumental loss, not only to his beloved family and the legal community, but to Nigeria as a whole – a country he served with uncommon dedication and grace throughout his distinguished career.

    “On behalf of the entire Labour Party family, I extend our heartfelt condolences to his family, colleagues and indeed the entire nation.

    “May Almighty Allah (SWT) forgive his shortcomings, grant him Aljannatul Firdaus and comfort those he left behind,” she said.

  • Electoral reforms: Falana seeks implementation of Uwais, Lemu, Nnamani’s report

    Lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has urged the civil societies to join forces and mount pressure on the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Reforms Panels headed by Retired Justice Mohammed Uwais, Sheik Ahmed Lemu and Dr. Ken Nnamani for the country to have  flawless elections in future.

    He stated that the postponement of last Saturday’s elections by the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) on account of logistical or operational reasons cannot be justified under the Electoral Act or the Constitution and would have been prevented if the reports, “with far reaching electoral reforms”, have been implemented.  

    Falana stated this in a statement issued in Lagos on Sunday titled: “Time to revisit reports of Uwais, Lemu and Nnamabi panels”.

    “By virtue of section 26 of the Electoral Act, an election may be postponed if a serious breach of peace or violence is likely to occur or on account of natural disaster or other emergencies. To prevent any abuse of power the reasons for postponement of any election must be cogent and verifiable”, he maintained.

    He said the panels, set up by the Yaradua, Jonathan and Buhari regimes respectively, had recommended the unbundling of INEC for effective performance.

    Read also: Poll Shift: INEC to decide on resumption of campaign

    He contended that the postponement of the 2019 general election would not have occured if the federal government  had unbundled the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) and ensured the practice of internal democracy in the political parties.

    He accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People Democratic Party (PDP) of failing to commit themselves to electoral reforms and for forgetting that the late President Umoru Yaradua had admitted that the 2007 general election  which produced his regime was highly flawed.

    Since general elections had been postponed on two previous occasions due to lack of adequate preparations, he argued that INEC ought to have prevented the shifting of the 2019 general election.

    He said INEC and the political parties contributed to the postponement of the elections which he described as “a national shame and embarrassment”.

    “Owing to the decision of political leaders to select and impose candidates on their parties in utter violation of section 87 of the Electoral Act  many aggrieved candidates rushed to court for legal redress.

    “Consequently, not less than 600 pre-election cases were filed and are pending in the various courts while not less 40 orders have directed INEC to accept the names of candidates who won the primaries but were shortchanged.  The resort to litigation due to the impunity of majority of political parties contributed to the unwarranted delay in the preparations of INEC for the general elections”, he argued.

    He said both the APC and PDP, apart from INEC, should apologise to Nigerians for their deliberate refusal to implement the electoral reforms recommended by the two panels.

    He stated for instance “as INEC lacks the capacity to prosecute electoral offenders, an electoral offences commission/ tribunal was recommended for the enforcement of laws to address all forms of electoral offences and consequently stem the incidence of electoral violence.

    “Even the panels had recommended that the posts of the chairman and other members of the INEC be advertised in order to make them independent of the executive. But in a bid to sustain the status quo of electoral fraud, these recommendations and others have been rejected by the PDP and APC-led federal government”, he said.

    He said INEC,  having shifted the general election by seven days is wrong to ban political parties and their candidates from further campaigning for votes.

    He advised the commission to reverse the limitation of campaign imposed on the political parties immediately.

    He noted: “INEC has not paid attention to  Section 99 of the Electoral Act which provides that the period of campaigning in public by political parties shall end 24 hours before polling day. Since elections have been shifted, the period of campaign has also shifted and will end 24 hours to the new polling day”.

    He also advised INEC to comply with all valid and subsisting court orders with respect to the candidates sponsored by political parties for the general elections to avoid the courts annulling some of the elections in future on grounds of exclusion of qualified candidates.

  • AGF: Buhari worried over anti-graft, electoral reform, proceeds of crime bills

    AGF: Buhari worried over anti-graft, electoral reform, proceeds of crime bills

    The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami yesterday briefed President Muhammadu Buhari on the fight against corruption and Electoral reform bill.
    Speaking with reporters at the State House, Malami said his meeting with the President was a routine. According to him, the President expressed concern over the delay in the passage of the anti-corruption and electoral reform bills by the National Assembly.
    He said: “It relates to general issues – the issues that have to do with anti-corruption – Mr. President is worried that anti-corruption bills that are pending before the National Assembly overtime, there has not been any expeditious determination on the passage of the bills and indeed, the asset management agency was also part of the discussion.
    “Mr. President is worried that the assets that have been gathered over time by the agencies of government and that are responsible for the fight against corruption are scattered all over the place and embedded in the Proceeds of Crime Bill is Asset Management Agency, put in place by the presidency for the purpose of the management of the associated assets that are recovered.
    “So, Mr. President is indeed worried and the discussions bothered on how best we can handle it. There are limited issues that relate to the parastatals under the Ministry of Justice.
    “As you are aware, this afternoon, the Electoral Reform Committee that has been put in place has submitted its report to my office. I equally briefed Mr. President on that and in addition to the report, there are bills that have been presented for the consideration of the Federal Executive Council as they relate to amendment to the electoral process.
    “The whole essence of the meeting was to seek the view of Mr. President and the direction as to what to do next as it relates to the Electoral Reform Committee report that has been submitted and to consider routine processes under the Ministry of Justice.”
    He also disclosed that the Presidential Investigative Panel headed by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo may submit its report today.
    The AGF said: “Well, you know the presidential committee that is investigating the NIA and the Secretary to the Government of the Federation is supposed to make submission by tomorrow.
    “So, it is pre-emptive now to discuss anything considering the fact that one the committee is under the chairmanship of the Vice President who is supposed to brief the president in that respect and two the schedule for the committee’s assignment has not elapsed.
    “So, it will be pre-emptive to speak about the committee because the time fixed for the assignment has not elapsed and against the background of the fact that it is the chairman of the committee that should brief the president.” he added

  • Between Uwais and Nnamani on electoral reform

    Between Uwais and Nnamani on electoral reform

    A new 24-man committee headed by former Senate President Ken Nnamani has been saddled with the task of reforming Nigeria’s electoral laws. A statement by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, says that  “The committee is expected to review the electoral environment, laws, and experiences from recent elections conducted in Nigeria and make recommendations to strengthen and achieve the conduct of free and fair elections…” Dr Nnamani himself gave an indication of what he thought his assignment would be. “I think my basic assignment will be to ensure that we improve on the electoral institutions in this country just as the name implies,” he says. “However, the outcome of that panel will still end up at the National Assembly.”  Other members of the committee include Dr. Mamman Lawal of Bayero University, Kano, (secretary), Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN, Dr. Clement Nwankwo, and a representative of the  Federal Ministry of Justice, among many others.

    In August 2007, ex-president Umaru Yar’Adua also set up a similar 22-man committee headed by Justice Muhammadu Uwais  (CJN, 1995-2006) to undertake a review of the electoral system and suggest ways of reforming it. It concluded its job in December 2008, having asked for an extension of the initial one-year deadline on account of the massive number of memoranda it received. The report was thorough, exhaustive and frequently cited by stakeholders as an appropriate and adequate response to the electoral malaise that undermines the stability and development of Nigeria’s political system. In fact in 2010, ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, whose electoral altruism is increasingly coming into sharper relief, forwarded the report to the National Assembly for action. The legislature chose to dither.

    Dr Nnamani undoubtedly has the intellect, firmness and integrity to undertake the assignment given him and his committee, especially considering his rich and illustrious legislative background and experience; but Justice Uwais also had a rich and enviable resume to carry out the task assigned him and his equally high-profile committee. So far, however, neither President Muhammadu Buhari, who approved the setting up of the new committee, nor the Justice minister, who implemented the decision, has explained why a new committee is needed when the government has not as much as glanced at the 2008 Uwais report.

    The Buhari presidency exists and thrives on the strange paradigm that its predecessors did little or nothing worth anyone continuing with or even regarding, and that if any milestones were nevertheless reached, then they were not worth sustaining or building upon. To President Buhari, Dr Jonathan’s national conference report is a waste of time he would not dignify with the most perfunctory of glances. He astonishingly admitted he had not looked at it, and did not plan to, and much more, was minded to consign it to the dustbin. Why he chooses to approach the weighty responsibility of presiding over the affairs of 180 million Nigerians with that kind of bewildering cursoriness and prejudice is hard to understand. Regardless of the criticisms he has attracted on the national conference matter, the president continues to stand his ground. Having appeared to get away with ignoring the huge work done by Dr Jonathan’s national conference, he has now extended the same attitude to the 2008 Uwais electoral reform committee whose report he has obviously not perused at all. From all indications, he will not look at it.

    It is even doubtful whether the Justice minister has looked at the Uwais report. Perhaps no one in the Buhari presidency has checked the files to see what had been done before they assumed office last year. Or perhaps they are not interested. This may account for why on so many matters the government has been slow and hesitant. Rather than build on many of the foundations they met, not all of which were disused or shaky, they have preferred to build new ones, often grudgingly and bad-temperedly. The terms of reference to guide Dr Nnamani’s committee, not to say the objectives of the electoral reform, are virtually the same with that of Justice Uwais’ panel. Perhaps the only concrete difference is the size of the two committees, with Justice Uwais’ being 22 and Dr Nnamani’s being 24. Given the exhaustiveness of the Uwais report, it is hard to see what new grounds Dr Nanamni’s committee would break. There will of course be chronological and political updates, and to some extent differences in priorities and language and concepts; but beyond that, there will be little else.

    Many commentators have taken exception to the new task of saddling another committee with reforming the electoral system when the previous one undertaken by the Justice Uwais committee still remains very relevant and comprehensive. Ex-president Yar’Adua would almost certainly have implemented the report had he lived through his first and possibly second terms. Despite the bad publicity curried by the cabal that hijacked power when he became incapacitated by illness, the late president was an altruistic, forward-looking and enlightened politician. Dr Jonathan followed in his predecessor’s footsteps by forwarding the report unedited to the National Assembly. But by setting up a new electoral reform committee rather than examining the unimplemented Uwais report, President Buhari seems bent on wasting time and money. There is really nothing else, or at least little else, to say on electoral reform that the Justice Uwais committee left unsaid.

    A brief review of the Uwais report, which many analysts campaigned stridently and vigorously during the Jonathan presidency to be implemented, shows that little or nothing is omitted. Some of the areas covered in the 254-page main report (Volume 1 of a six-volume report) include an executive summary; review of Nigeria’s history with general elections; legal framework for electoral reform, role of institutions, agencies and stakeholders in shaping the quality and credibility of elections; review of electoral systems relevant to Nigeria’s experience; sanitising Nigeria’s electoral system; and general recommendations. The executive summary is a succinct excursion through the Uwais committee’s eight terms of reference. For those too lazy to commit themselves to exhaustive reading, Chapter Two’s executive summary would satisfy their superficial curiosity. It identifies most of the electoral problems and challenges confronting the country, and proffers comprehensive, sensible and implementable solutions to stabilise  the system.

    In particular, Chapter Two, among other things, looks at the role of institutions and stakeholders in shaping the electoral process; the role of the judiciary; and the Independent National Electoral Commission, subdivided into the reorganisation of INEC, composition of INEC board, etc. A more detailed treatment of the subject is, however, offered in Chapter Five. The question, indeed, is what else the Nnamani committee will be looking at when the subject is the same and the Uwais panellists are also of high quality. Former INEC chairman, Attahiru Jega, was in fact a member of the Uwais committee. So, too, were a host of intellectuals, judges, security chiefs etc. What the Nnamani committee seems designed to accomplish is a needless and wasteful repetition.

    If President Buhari truly wants to reform the electoral system, and if he is really the frugal leader he is cracked up to be, and if indeed he has no ulterior motive to execute, then he should first call for the Uwais report and examine it to see whether it does not adequately represent his worldview on the subject and much more. He has no reason whatsoever to authorise a new electoral reform committee in an era of financial squeeze when a completed one is already in government hands. He has a duty to the country to look at the Uwais report. More importantly, he also has a duty to go beyond electoral reform to look at the report of the national conference completed under Dr Jonathan. He has no excuse not to, for the country under him cries even much more for restructuring than electoral reform.

  • Electoral reform: How far will Buhari go?

    Electoral reform: How far will Buhari go?

    President Muhammadu Buhari has been under pressure to revisit the Uwais panel report on electoral reforms, following a series of inconclusive elections. The result is the setting up of the Nnamani Electoral Reform Committee to review the situation and chart the way forward. Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI examines the priority areas that can help the administration to build on the successes of the immediate past administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan in that regard. 

    ONE of the greatest legacies bequeathed to Nigeria by the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan were the credible elections of 2011 and 2015. Nevertheless, the right to vote and be voted for in Nigeria remains beset with a number of problems. The setting up of the Electoral Reform Committee headed by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani is President Muhammadu Buhari’s response to the challenges. According to Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, the committee is expected to review electoral environment, laws and experiences from recent elections and make recommendations to strengthen and achieve the conduct of free and fair elections.

    The Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Mahmood Yakubu, said the commission was greatly constrained by the resurgence of violence that had attended elections in recent times. According to Yakubu, INEC could do little or nothing to stop the spectre violence during elections, since it does not have control over security agencies.

    Past experiences suggest that the obstacles to genuine electoral reforms are deeply ingrained in Nigeria’s political culture. These, according to experts, are embedded in the winner-takes-it-all attitude of Nigerian politicians, which is informed by the prevalent culture of using public office as an avenue to amass wealth.

    According to the former United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Thomas Pickering, the struggle to achieve credible elections in Nigeria is two-sided: “First is how to design and ensure an efficient, effective, and politically non-partisan election management body; and second is on how to re-orient the country’s political culture, so that the political elite and general public will show a genuine commitment to the rules and regulations governing the electoral process in Nigeria, in order to ensure free, fair, credible, and competitive elections.” Thus, a ruling party championing electoral reform is expected to purge itself of bias, if it wants to pursue national interest.

    Against this background, President Muhammadu Buhari can only make a difference in this regard if he could look beyond the short term gains of exploiting the incumbency factor and break with the tradition of partisanship that has been the major obstacle in the past. As already indicated, some of the key areas for reforms revolve round the independence and capacity of INEC to conduct free and fair elections without being encumbered. Among other things, this relates to appointment of officials and budget autonomy. Other areas due for reforms include: campaign funding regulations, electronic voting, Diaspora voting, punishment for electoral offenders and guidelines to endorse internal democracy within political parties.

    Observers say the Justice Mohammed Uwais panel report remains the benchmark for further reforms in the electoral act. A coalition of human rights organisations, under the umbrella of Consensus Peoples Rights Foundation (CPRF), recently called on President Buhari to revisit the recommendations of the Uwais panel as a basis to create a new election management body in the country.

    The Convener of the foundation, Mr. Ayo Opadokun, at the group’s maiden colloquium in Lagos to mark the 23rd anniversary of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election, said the recommendations are sufficiently intellectual and technically credible and positive enough to help Nigeria conduct elections that can meet with international best practices, if enacted into law.

    Opadokun, who is also the Convener of Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reform (CODER), a body formed to campaign vigorously for the enactment and adoption of the Uwais recommendations, said the call was imperative because, “since Professor Attahiru Jega, the immediate past chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) left office after the 2015 general elections, all that we hear now is inconclusive elections.”

    He added: “This unfortunate development is because the Nigerian state has rejected the highly credible and comprehensive recommendations of the Justice Muhammed Uwais electoral reform panel.”

    The Uwais panel had recommended, among other things, that the head of the electoral commission be appointed by the judiciary, rather than the President. It had recommended that the appointment of the INEC Chairman be advertised and coordinated by the National Judicial Commission (NJC), which was expected to forward the name of the nominee to the Senate for ratification.

    But, that recommendation was rejected by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, who raised another panel to review the Uwais committee’s recommendations. The commission, which submitted its report to the late Yar’Adua on December 11, 2008, had also recommended the establishment of an electoral offences commission to prosecute electoral offenders, but this was equally rejected.

    When Yar’Adua forwarded a modified version of the Uwais report to the National Assembly in 2009, it drew considerable criticism, because many observers felt that previous elections had been deeply flawed and that far-reaching reforms were required. In March 2010, the then Acting President Jonathan forwarded an unedited version of the report to the National Assembly for approval, by implication saying that the recommendations should be implemented in their entirety before the 2011 general elections. Perhaps, the most controversial recommendation was the power to appoint INEC chairman. Before Jonathan resubmitted the report, the Senate Committee on Constitutional Review had rejected the recommendation to transfer this power to the judiciary, arguing that letting the judiciary appoint the INEC chairman violated the principle of separation of powers, since the judiciary was responsible for hearing the cases arising from elections.

    How far will President Buhari go with the current attempt to reform the electoral process? Civil society activist and President of Nigeria Voters Assembly, Comrade Mashood Erubami, is of the view that setting up a new electoral reform panel, as the Buhari administration has just done, may not be the best idea; because the recommendations in the Uwais panel report remains the way forward for any reform in this regard.

    He said: “A full implementation of the Uwais report is the best step that can be taken, as against setting up a new reform committee. That will save the huge resources spent on the Uwais electoral reforms committee and the concerns and interest generated by the outcome and the recommendations of the committee will not end as a waste.”

    Nevertheless, he believes electoral reforms alone may not be the magic wand that will correct the mistakes of the past. He said the country should focus on the implementation of strategies that would conform to international best practices. He added: “We do not want another reform effort that will be jettisoned by the National Assembly, as we witnessed in the case of the Mohammed Uwais Electoral Reforms Committee. What we need in Nigeria now is to develop a new system of norms and institution for conducting credible elections, by creating an environment that would discourage rigging and violence.

    “Governments in the past have not been sincere to allow INEC to enjoy full freedom. This is the context under which INEC organised previous elections. Most governments in the past did not submit to free elections which could make them to handover to their opponents; they will rather do all in their power, including disregarding the laws, to subvert the electoral process.

    “From our experience as professional Election Observers, it has become obvious that electoral reform is not sufficient to bring about credible, free, fair and non-violent elections, unless the stakeholders play their roles in accordance with the Electoral Act and the guidelines provided by the INEC. Series of legal and institutional reforms that were arrived at through summits, colloquiums, workshops, conferences and seminars, have not changed anything; instead we continue to record failed elections up to this present era of inconclusive elections.”

    The civil society activist said the series of inconclusive elections witnessed in recent times is not because the past reforms were inadequate. He said: “It is because the implementation of such reforms was flawed. Evidence has shown that security agencies do not live up to expectations during elections. This is why we often witness incidents of violence, ballot box snatching and stuffing of ballot boxes.

    “The youths, for instance, are not usually vigilant at registration and polling centres and due to their apathy, indifference and ambivalence, double registration, wholesale rigging, during election and multiple registrations have been allowed unchecked. The performance of media professionals depend on the side of the divide they find themselves. In fact, the slant of their reports would depend on the ownership character and where their owners or founders belong.”

    Former presidential candidate and Chairman of the United Progressive Party (UPP), Chief Chekwas Okorie, said one important provision that the new electoral reform panel ought to consider is electronic voting system. He said: “As it is, the Permanent Voter’s Card (PVC) is electronic; the voters’ register is electronically generated, so not much work would be needed in that regard. We don’t need a new legislation; all we need to do is to expunge Section 52 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which specifically states that the use of electronic voting machine for the time being is prohibited.”

    Okorie said the system could be configured in such a way that Nigerians can use their mobile phones to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice and that only illiterates who may not be able to use their mobile phones in the manner that would be prescribed by INEC that would need to go to the polling centre to do it manually. As a result, he said there would be no need to restrict movement, ground the economy to a halt and deploy security personnel all over the country.

    He added: “It will reduce all the violence associated with our elections. It will also lead to increased participation in our elections. From experience, turnout for elections in Nigeria do not exceed 50 per cent of registered voters. But, with electronic voting, we can record as high as 80 per cent participation; that is when you can say that the people have spoken.”

    On the chances of introducing such innovation at this point in time, Okorie said it was the former ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that did not have the political will to do it, because it was afraid of opposition. He said given President Buhari’s experience in the two previous presidential elections he contested, before the 2015 contest, that he would be favourably disposed to the idea. He said INEC could use the Anambra governorship election late next year to test-run the system before the 2019 general elections.

    Erubami agrees with Okorie that INEC should in furtherance of its adoption electronic processes in its elections halt all manual voting in 2019 and conduct future elections with modern technology, to make the process more transparent and ensure that the votes of the people count.

    The corollary to the above, according to experts, is that Diaspora voting is feasible under the current dispensation. Diaspora voting was not considered feasible in the past, because there was no political will to introduce such innovation.

    On independent candidacy, the civil society activist believes the country is ripe for candidates to contest elections in their names, to break the monopoly of political parties as the only platform for sponsoring candidates.

    He said INEC should also be re-shaped and reconstituted by authentic representatives of organised private sector, faith-based groups, civil society, professionals, political parties, youth, women and persons with disabilities, as a more transparent, credible and an open system of appointment of the chairman of the electoral commission.

  • Electoral reform: An unfinished business

    Electoral reform: An unfinished business

    Fourteen years after the restoration of civil rule, free and fair election remains a dream in Nigeria. AUGUSTINE AVWODE and LEKE SALAUDEEN examine the factors militating against this important pillar of democracy.

    Nigeria will hold the next general elections in the first quarter of 2015. But, before then, the governorship elections will hold in Anambra, Ekiti and Osun states.

    Ahead of the proposed polls, the confidence of the electorate is shaking. Many Nigerians are anxious and angry. Their anger stems from the fact that 36 governors who, by all standards, should be the epitome of what is noble and honourable, failed to hold a free and fair Governors Forum election. The fiasco brought to the fore, almost instantly, the danger that lies ahead.

    The electoral laws also appear confusing. Recently, the Supreme Court faulted Section 285(5)(b) of the constitution, which states that “an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition.”

    Expressing frustration at the constitutional provision, which makes it mandatory for election tribunals to dispose petitions within 180 days, the court noted that many aggrieved politicians had lost their petitions on this technical ground. The apex court, therefore, maintained that the only way to ensure that litigants’ fair hearing was not violated is for the constitution to be amended.

    Justice Mahmoud Mohammed, was delivering judgment in an interlocutory appeal filed by the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)’s governorship candidate in Ondo State, Mr Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, (SAN).

    Akeredolu was challenging the striking out of some paragraphs of his petition against the election of Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo State. Akeredolu appealed to the Supreme Court after the election tribunal had struck out some paragraphs of his petition. The Court of Appeal in Akure allowed his appeal in part, a situation that forced him to file another appeal at the Supreme Court, while Mimiko filed a cross-appeal.

    But Justice Mohammed said, since Akeredolu’s appeal was caught by the provisions of Section 285(5)(b) of the Constitution, it would amount to embarking on an academic exercise to determine the merits of the appeal after the tribunal had already delivered its final judgment.

    The two events have inadvertently turned the search light on the electoral process. The question is: What hope for the ballot?

    A ray of hope

    The late President Umaru Yar’Adua gave Nigerians a flicker of hope in 2007. In his inaugural speech, he shocked his party members, when he openly admitted that the election, which produced him, was flawed. He immediately promised electoral reforms to correct the anomaly in the system. Three months after coming into office, the late Yar’Adua inaugurated a 22-member Electoral Reforms Committee (ERC) headed by the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Muhammadu Uwais. The ERC was to specifically “examine the entire electoral process with a view to ensuring that we raise the quality and standard of our general elections and thereby deepen democracy”.

    The members of the committee include former Foreign Affairs Minister Prof Bolaji Akinyemi, Alhaji Ahmadu Kurfi, Chief Olisa Agbakoba, Sheikh Ahmed Lemu, Prof Grace Alele-Williams, Bishop Matthew Kukah, Chief Festus Okoye and the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Attahiru Jega. It initially had 12 months to submit its report, but it could not meet the deadline line. Therefore, the committee applied for an extension, which was granted.

    In a bid to do a thorough job, the committee got 1,466 memoranda from the members of the public. It also held public hearings in two major cities in each of the six geo-political zones and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). There are 907 presentations. Justice Uwais and his team did a job that could have changed the face of electoral contest for the better in the country. The report of the committee came in six volumes and contained three draft bills. The first bill was for the amendment of the 1999 Constitution; the second was for the amendment of the Electoral Act 2006 and the third was for the establishment of the Electoral Offences Commission.

    Uwais said: “The Committee is firmly convinced that the acceptance and implementation of the recommendations contained in this report will significantly restore credibility in the electoral process and usher in an era of free, fair and credible election in the country”. But, four and a half years after the Uwais committee report, the search for free and credible election continues. with smaller neighbouring countries successfully conducting general elections, the need for Nigeria to enthrone the best practices in the conduct of elections has become more compelling.

    Obstacles to reforms

    Analysts have maintained that, had

    the political elite not hijacked the re-

    port of the Justice Uwais report, the electoral process would have been sanitised. In December 2012, Uwais gave an insight into why the report never achieved the objectives.

    Speaking during a dialogue on the review of the Electoral Law and Process organised by the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), he observed that, instead of fully implementing the recommendations of his committee, the Federal Government opted to “pick and choose.”

    The jurist lamented that the recommendations of ERC were scuttled by political interests. He observed: “As we know, the bill that was produced by the National Assembly, though reflected on some of the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Committee, but not all the recommendations of the committee. As far as the Electoral Reform Committee was concerned, the recommendations were intended to be in tandem with one another.

    “If you want to make a good job of it, you cannot just pick and choose a few. Unfortunately, although I am not blaming the National Assembly, party interest came in. Well, the 2010 Electoral Act was produced; it was put in practice in the 2011 elections.

    “You are in the field. So, you are in the position to point out the shortcomings of the Act, but I know from the legal point of view, some provisions, like the one that electoral petition should be completed by the tribunals within 180 days, created some problems.

    After the Uwais Committee’s

    report had been reviewed by

    another committee, which produced a white paper on it, the Federal Government, set up another three-man panel to review the white paper. The committee was headed by the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mike Aondoakaa. It had the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Alhaji Yayale Ahmed, and the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Head of Service of the Federation, Dr. Hakeem Ahmed, as members.

    The ERC report that had enjoyed wide applause and commendation was considerably watered down by the Aondoakaa panel. For instance, contrary to the ERC’s recommendation, the three-man review committee recommended that the chairman of the INEC should continue to be appointed based on the recommendation of the President and confirmation by the National Assembly.

    The Uwais-led ERC had recommended that the appointment of the INEC chairman be advertised and coordinated by the National Judicial Commission (NJC), which will forward the name of the nominee to the Senate for ratification.

    The committee, it was learnt, had insisted that it would not be in the interest of the executive to allow an issue as important as the appointment of the INEC chairman to slip off its control, hence, the decision to jettison the electoral committee’s recommendation.

    It was one recommendation that would have guaranteed the neutrality and non-partisanship of the chief electoral officer in the country.

    Besides, the three-man committee not only threw out the recommendation for the establishment of an Election Offences Commission to try election offenders, but equally threw out the recommendation for the conclusion of all court cases relating to the election before the swearing in of winners.

    It recommended that all election-related legal battles should be disposed off within six months maximum, including trials for four months and appeal for two months.

    The review committee did not disagree with the nine-man ministerial white paper drafting committee, which had Minister of Defence, Alhaji Shettima Mustapha as chairman, on independent candidacy. However, introduced a clause, which will compel independent candidates to deposit certain amount of money to be determined by INEC and which would be refunded, if they win a specified percentage of the votes cast.

    Truly independent INEC

    The general belief is that a free and credible election begins with an unbiased, non-partisan head of INEC. That was why the Uwais Committee recommended that the process of appointing a new INEC boss should commence with the National Judicial Council (NJC) advertising, interviewing and short-listing three persons and recommending same to the executive who would in turn select one of the nominees and forward same to the Senate for further screening and confirmation. The Federal Executive Council rejected the proposal on the excuse that the appointment of the head of the electoral body was, originally, an executive function and argued that transferring this power to the judicial arm of government would violate the principles of separation of powers.

    The Head of the Department of Political Science, Lagos State University, Professor Abubakar Momoh, said the independence of the electoral body would go a long way in boosting its credibility and enhancing its acceptance in the eyes of the electorate.

    Momoh identified two issues that are germane to the independence of any electoral commission. These are the manner of appointment of the members of the commission and the source of funding to ensure its independence. He said that the nomination to electoral body should be taken away from the Presidency, the onus being placed upon a non-political body such as the one that the nominates Supreme Court Judges.

    Momoh said that the recommendation of the Uwais panel that the appointment should be made competitive by advertising the position would attract people of integrity and credibility who would not be subservient to the executive in the discharge of their constitutional responsibilities.

    He noted that the method of appointing electoral chairman varies from one country to the other.

    “In some countries, according to him, the President nominates, the parliament approves; there are countries where the President has the power to hire and fire; in other countries, the position is advertised and people apply and they are subjected to screening (written and oral test) to ensure only credible people are appointed. “Given our previous experience with the electoral body in this country, I think the best way to insulate the electoral chairman and commissioners from executive influence and guarantee free and fair elections is to adopt the latter as recommended by the Uwais panel”, he added.

    Momoh added that the electoral body could be induced by the executive under the present arrangement whereby there is no financial autonomy for the commission.

    “The electoral commissioners see the executive as their benefactor and would be willing to do their biddings. The adoption of this method would guarantee the independence of the INEC and sanitise the composition of the electoral body such that only people of proven integrity, that would bear no allegiance to any political party or interest, would emerge.”

    INEC chairman’s

    appointment

    Momoh noted that the

    present system that em-

    powers the President to appoint the INEC commissioners make members of the commission to be partisan because the President would likely appoint those who have sympathy for his party. “Definitely, the appointment of electoral commissioners is not based on merit. There are some merits in what the Uwais panel recommended. If the position is advertised and handled by a neutral body, it would ensure that INEC would be free of partisan members, people with criminal records or those who have sympathy for one party or the other.

    “There will be no petition against members after the inauguration of the commission, since their names would be made public before they are finally appointed. That has always being the problem. There will be no problem of public embarrassment for the appointees.

    “In the first instance, people of merit would apply. There would be no question of people accepting appointment reluctantly. There will be willingness to serve and commitment to serve. The process will ensure fairness, non-partisanship, strict adherence to the rules as laid down in the constitution and the electoral law. The Chairman and electoral commissioners would be free of doing the bidding of the person that appoints them.

    He urged the Presidency to reconsider its decision to reverse the recommendation of the Uwais Panel on the appointment of INEC chairman.

    According to Justice Uwais at the presentation of the committee’s report in 2009, the recommendation of the panel was premised on the fact that, over the years, the influential position of the INEC Chairman has been an obstacle to the conduct of free and fair elections in the country. The Chairman as the head of the commission is often seen as doing the bidding of the President, which means that elections have sometimes not reflected the wishes of the electorate.

    Funding

    To break the tradition of the electoral umpire going cap in hand to the executive to ask for funds to perform its duties, it was recommended by the Uwais Panel that the INEC should be place on first line charge so that it can enjoy financial autonomy. It also advocated that an effective financial management and control system be put in place with a request that the INEC’s financial accounts should be thoroughly audited by a private audit firm to deter and detect financial misconduct.

    Momoh said: “The present arrangement whereby INEC has to approach the executive for its financial needs makes the commission looks like an appendage of the party in power. The absence of independent funding can make the members to compromise their position”.

    Independent candidacy

    Many people may want to contest

    elections and not find any of the

    parties suitable. Thus, the Uwais committee recommended that the independent candidacy should be allowed. But, Momoh faulted the suggestion.

    “I am not against it for the fact that our political parties are fragile, not institutionalised and lack ideologies. It is where political parties have been institutionalised and political ideologies are known that independent candidates emerge without causing structural damages to the political structure. Independent candidacy serves as an alternative to what is on ground.

    “In Nigeria, some politicians dump their parties once they failed to win primaries for elective office and cross to other parties. If you allow independent candidates, such politicians would float a parallel structure because they have the resources. If an independent candidate wins, he is not accountable to anyone.”

    But Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN) disagreed. He said that the independent candidacy should be encouraged. “This will enable other persons whose qualifications and motivation are more altruistic and who may be acceptable to the electorate, if allowed to stand for election, to have access to the electoral process as against regular party candidates whose only qualification is their personal relationship with the party machinery or the ability to oil the same machinery” he said.

    The lawyer therefore, suggested that the relevant provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act be amended to allow independent candidacy. He said the provision should prevent abuses and mass proliferation of candidates by recommending that the opportunity for independent candidacy may require candidate’s nomination by a substantial portion of the registered voters within the constituency in lieu of political party framework.

    Time constraint

    However, the issue of time constraint, which many lawyers have complained about, was hailed by Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN). He said the 180 days time-frame for electoral litigation is sufficient to dispose of cases by election petition tribunals.

    Ngige said setting a time limit would ensure that the real winner is declared and assume office unlike where wrong candidates were declared winners and stayed in office for two or three years before the victory was reversed by the court.

    “Where a wrong person was declared by the electoral body and the tribunal ordered a fresh election, the election can still hold within six months. Remember what happened in Ekiti and Osun states where INEC declared Segun Oni and Olagunsoye Oyinlola as the winners of governorship elections in their respective states. It took almost three years before the Appeal Court ruled that their opponents Kayode Fayemi and Rauf Aregbesola; were validly elected. So, those who were supposed not to occupy the office as governors were there for three years.

    “The advantage of settling electoral dispute before the swearing-in of the winner is that it would not allow either the governor or the President to use his office to manipulate electoral process.

    “Remember the case of Justice Ayo Salami. He disagreed with the then Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Alloy Katsina-Ala, over the handling of the Sokoto governorship election. If the issue had been resolved before Goodluck Jonathan was sworn-in, it would not have been possible for Jonathan to remove Justice Salami from office.”

    Akintola said the litigation on election petition can be done within one month, if the INEC makes available all necessary documents to the parties involved in the case promptly.

    “To me, six months is too long. If the INEC releases materials to the petitioner on request, nothing stops the tribunal from completing its hearing within a month. See what happened in Kenya, the petition on presidential election was decided within one month.

    “It is possible here in Nigeria. INEC should oblige the petitioner by providing all documents demanded for the prosecution of the case. Lack of access to INEC materials allows election petitions to drag on for months. Tribunals resort to frequent adjournments thereby prolonging the hearing. Failure of the INEC to accede to lawyers, request made it impossible for them to offload documents as required by the tribunal’s proceeding. You can’t offload the documents that you don’t have.

    “This will help put an end to impunity. How can we continue to allow individuals whose elections are being contested at the tribunals and courts to assume office and use public resources to fight off the challenges for nearly as long as they want?And to make matters worse, the challenger is left out in the cold, paying all his or her legal fees. This is unfair and unjust, and it must stop”, he added.

    Some lawyers have argued that time limit constituted a major constraint in the speedy adjudication of election petitions. Chief G.O.K. Ajayi (SAN) who handled the Awolowo case in 1979 and Olu Falae’s petition in 1999 complained that he was not given enough time to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts.

    A lawyer, Chief Mike Ahamba had heaped much of the blames for the Gen. Mohammadu Buhari predicament in 2007 and 2011 on the tribunal. He said that the tribunal discouraged him from presenting witnesses in a bid to gain time, only for the judges to turn round to blame him in their judgments.

    The struggle continues

    Meanwhile, the struggle for credible election continues. In the recent past, phrases like ‘one man, one vote’; ‘our votes must count’ and ‘we will defend our votes’ have been made popular, in a bid to emphasis the importance of credible election. That it is dear to the hearts of Nigerians is beyond doubt. But whether the political elite will ensure that efforts are genuinely made to entrench the culture of free and fair election is left for the imagination. For now, the issue of electoral reforms in Nigeria remains an unfinished business.