The Nation Newspaper

Tag: political party

  • Can a political party challenge sponsorship, nomination of another party’s candidates?

    Can a political party challenge sponsorship, nomination of another party’s candidates?

    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

    On Friday, May 26, 2023

    Suit No: SC.CV/501/2023

    Before Their Lordships:

    JOHN INYANG OKORO

    AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

    HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU

    ADAMU JAURO

    EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM

    Justices of the Supreme Court

    Between

    Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)

    -Appellant(s)

    and

    1. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)

    2. All Progressives Congress (APC)

    3. Bola Tinubu

                     4. Shettima Kashim                                         

    – Respondents

    Leading judgment delivered by Adamu Jauro

    Citation: (2023) LPELR-60457(SC)

    FACTS

    The Appellant’s cause of action is against the action of the 1st Respondent for receiving, accepting and recognizing the 4th Respondent as a candidate eligible to contest the 2023 General Election into the office of the Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Appellant’s grouse was that the 4th Respondent had knowingly allowed himself to be nominated into more than one constituency, to wit the office of Senate representing the Borno Central Senatorial District and the office of the Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the same Electoral Cycle. The Appellant claimed that on 15th July, 2022, at about 05:13pm, the 4th Respondent withdrew his nomination for the Senate representing Borno Central Senatorial District only after he had confirmed his nomination for the office of the Vice-President.

    On the basis of the above, the Appellant approached the Federal High Court by way of an Originating Summons seeking, amongst other reliefs, an order compelling the 1st Respondent to remove from its list of nominated candidates eligible to contest the presidential election scheduled for 25th February, 2023 or thereabout or any list, ballot paper or election record, the names of the 3rd and 4th Respondents as well as the logo of the 2nd Respondent, as their presidential ticket had been contaminated and made void by statute.

    The Federal High Court considered the issue of locus standi and held that by Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), it is only an aspirant who can complain that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act and a political party guideline has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for an election. The trial Court held that there is nothing in the section that gives any political party like the Appellant locus standi to challenge the qualification of the candidate of another political party.

    The trial Court also held that the judgment in an earlier case, Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1016/2022 delivered on 30th June, 2022, constitutes a judgment estoppel in rem and applies to the case as the subject matter of the substitution and qualification of the candidate of the 2nd Respondent had already been decided and cannot be relitigated. The Court also held that the Appellant had no cause of action and that the action was an abuse of Court process. The trial Court struck out the suit.

    On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Appellant maintained that being a political party that has sponsored candidates for the 2023 general elections, it should be accorded the standing to complain and litigate the issue for the protection and vindication of its rights or interests. The Court held that Appellant failed to aver facts of participation of the 4th Respondent in any of the primaries for the office of the Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or attach or exhibit any document to show that the 4th Respondent contested or participated in the primary election for the office of the Vice-President in order to bring their grievance under Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022, that he knowingly allowed himself to be nominated into more than one constituency. The Court also held that the Appellant has no locus standi and affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court.

    Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

    The Court determined the appeal on a sole issue thus:

    “Whether upon a proper appraisal of the provisions of Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 149 of the Electoral Act 2022, the lower Courts were right to hold that by virtue of Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022, the Appellant has no locus standi to challenge the failure of the 1st Respondent (INEC) to apply the mandatory provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022 following its breach by the 4th Respondent.”

    APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION

    Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the decisions of the two lower Courts were perverse and that the Supreme Court can therefore interfere with same, citing the cases of ILA ENTERPRISES LTD. V. UMAR ALI & CO LTD (2022) LPELR – 59076 (SC), STATE V. SOLOMON (2020) LPELR – 55598 (SC). Counsel submitted that the gist of the Appellant’s case was that the provisions of the Electoral Act have not been complied with in respect of the 4th Respondent’s nomination as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent. Counsel submitted that the phrase “nomination of candidates of political parties for an election” used in Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution is wide enough to accommodate the suit filed by the Appellant. It was submitted that this case is different from being an aspirant or an internal affair of a political party, but a breach of the Electoral Act as envisaged in Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution. Counsel submitted that since the nominations had been completed before the Appellant filed its suit, the issue was no longer an internal affair of the 2nd Respondent, but had become an issue for INEC and the Appellant was thus entitled to sue. Counsel submitted that to hold that the Appellant lacks locus standi would amount to permitting the 4th Respondent to benefit from his illegality.

    Read Also; Akeredolu goes home February 23

    RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSION

    Arguing the issue, counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the role of the 1st Respondent is that of an unbiased umpire and it cannot dictate to the 2nd Respondent how to conduct its internal affairs. He also submitted that the Appellant lacks locus standi as it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the 2nd Respondent.

    Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also submitted that the Appellant lacked locus standi as its suit constituted an interference in the internal affairs of the 2nd Respondent. Counsel submitted that a political party cannot hide under Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution to interfere in the internal affairs of another political party, but only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of a political party can challenge the nomination of the party’s candidate. Reliance was placed on Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act as well as a plethora of cases, including UGWU & ORS V. PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR – 24352 (SC), EZE V. PDP & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44907 (SC), SHINKAFI & ANOR V. YARI & ORS (2016) 3 SCM 133; (2016) LPELR-26050(SC), OSAGIE V. PDP (2023) 5 NWLR (PT. 1877) 355.

    The 3rd and 4th Respondents made similar arguments as the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Additionally, the 3rd Respondent submitted that a political party can only institute an action pursuant to Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution if the action of INEC complained of is against the interest of that political party itself, not in respect of the affairs of another political party. Reliance was placed on PDP V. NGBOR & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59930 (SC).

    APPELLANT’S REPLY

    In reply, Appellant submitted that while INEC is supposed to be neutral, it cannot fold its hands and do nothing in a case such as this when the provisions of the law have been breached. Counsel also submitted that Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act is inapplicable since in the instant case the 4th Respondent was not nominated in a primary election, but was chosen by a single person rather than a political party and there are no rules/guidelines or provisions of the Electoral Act regulating his nomination as Vice Presidential candidate. Appellant submitted that there was therefore no aspirant to challenge any decision regarding his nomination.

    RESOLUTION OF THE SOLE ISSUE

    The Court begun resolving the issue by stating some trite principles of the law as regards locus standi to wit:

    a. In order to have locus standi to sue in an action, a Plaintiff must show, to the satisfaction of the Court, that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.

    b. He must show that there is a nexus between his suit and the conduct of the Defendant(s).

    c. He must show sufficient connection to, and harm or potential harm or damage from the action complained of. 

    The Court thereafter stated the tests for determining whether a person has locus to wit:

    (a) The action must be justiciable; and

    (b) There must be a dispute between the parties.

    See the cases of ANOZIA V. A.-G., LAGOS STATE (2023) 2 NWLR (PT. 1869) 545; (2022) LPELR-58534(SC), BARBUS AND CO. (NIG.) LTD. V. OKAFOR- UDEJI (2018) 11 NWLR (PT. 1630) 298; (2018) LPELR-44501(SC), B.B. APUGO & SONS LTD VS. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (PT. 1529) 206; (2016) LPELR-40598(SC).

    The Court then proceeded to consider whether the Appellant’s suit satisfied the above requirements in order for locus standi to vest in the Appellant. In so doing, the Court considered the provision of Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and held that vide the section, locus standi accrues only to an aspirant who participated in the primary election of a political party to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election. See the cases of WAZIRI V. P.D.P. (2023) 7 NWLR (PT. 1882) 57, ODUAH V. OKADIGBO (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1660) 433, MAIHAJA V. GAIDAM (2018) 4 NWLR (PT. 1610) 454, and AL-HASSAN V. ISHAKU (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1520) 230. The Court concluded that the Appellant not being a member of the 2nd Respondent or a person who participated in the nomination process leading to the emergence of the 4th Respondent, lacks locus under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act.

    The Court further considered the Appellant’s reliance on Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to contend that it was clothed with locus standi to institute the action. The argument of the Appellant in the regard is that a political party is empowered to challenge the actions of INEC where the Commission fails to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law. In resolution, the Court held that although the section empowers a political party to challenge the actions of INEC, however this does not empower a political party to poke into the affairs of another party. The Court stated that the position of the law has always been that no political party can challenge the nomination of the candidate of another political party. A political party equally lacks the locus standi to challenge the actions of INEC in relation to another political party. That Section 285(14)(c) only allows a political party to challenge the decisions and activities of INEC disqualifying its own candidate from participating in an election, or to complain that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other law have not been complied with in respect of its own candidates. See the case of PDP V. NGBOR & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59930 (SC).

    HELD

    The Court held that the appeal was grossly lacking in merit and consequently dismissed same.

    Appearances:

    MR. JOE AGI, SAN, PROF. MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN,

    with, OMOKAYODE A. DADA, ESQ. J. O. OLOTU, ESQ.                         – For Appellant(s)

    and DOUGLAS ONDOR, ESQ.                                                       

    ADEBIYI ADETOSOYE, ESQ. with him, ISAAC IDOTA, ESQ.                  – For 1st Respondent

    MR. BABATUNDE OGALA, SAN,

    with him, GBENGA BENSON, ESQ.                                                                             – For 2nd Respondent

    and JULIUS ISHOLA, ESQ.

    OMOSANYA POPOOLA, ESQ.                                                                                       – For 3rd Respondent

    OLURONKE ADEYEMI, ESQ.

    with him, THOMAS OJO, ESQ.                                                                      – For 4th Respondent

    Compiled by LawPavilion.

  • Of parties within parties

    Recent and ongoing quarrels in the open, disagreements and outright clashes between members of the same political party at  primaries at all levels would appear  to be a constant feature of the nation’s electoral chessboard. Whereas this state of things may look like a common phenomenon in virtually all the  parties, it turns out that  the bigger parties are obviously the most affected by this  general malaise. Furthermore, it is clearly the case that the more successful a party is  in electoral terms and as far as  the control of political power at any level is concerned,  the greater  the propensity for serious  in-fighting, at times very violent. The truncation of internal democracy, viz the imposition of candidates, has often been adduced for such a recurring decimal.

    Much of the in-fighting involved is ostensibly generated and effected in the name of a so-called caucus group, splinter group or factional leaders. Whereas elsewhere,  caucuses  almost like the  political parties from which they emanate, are normally based on shared ideology, a common view of politics, governance   and  society, a common societal  project and proposed programme of action , a blueprint and a possible roadmap, ,  or the canvassing of a specific policy,  the pursuit of a specific goal in the larger interest of society, it is far from being the case in our own environment.

    Most of our own caucuses, on the other hand, like their parent bodies the parties, are, these days   unlike in the past, bereft of an identifiable ideological framework.  Who did not know what an Aminu Kano stood for, or an Awo? The scrambling of ideological viewpoint and standpoint for governance purposes and in governance in favour of expediency and enlightened self-interest has meant t that what we have today  are at best coteries of  power-hungry friends, associates,  proverbial political bedmates but ideologically strange bedfellows whose  stock-in-trade,  whose motto is : power at all costs, by hook or crook, with the simple    modus operandi  : I, me, we before others, with an eye on the public till ,  hardly for the public weal.

    Our parodies of caucuses are self-serving, self-centred,  hardly conceived for the public good,  whereas elsewhere, even when caucuses evolve around certain political leaders, the issues canvassed, represented  and projected are very well known to the larger public, and take pride of place. Any wonder that  here simple democratic processes meant to lead to the  election  or nomination of   delegates, representatives, candidates, etc. are systematically thwarted  and result in do-or-die internal party exercises  like  primaries, party congresses and conventions, etc.  These are often said to be inconclusive. In the same vein the term parallel congress has today become part and parcel of the Nigerian political landscape, our political parlance, thanks and no thanks to our obdurate, intransigent political tin gods, and their nose-led hapless and at times fanatical supporters. As for election day proper, the inter-party one, the same do-or-die attitude prevails and is now projected on a larger scale with the whole area, the whole state or the whole nation mobilized by the authorities as if for a veritable battle  or in a state of war!

    In other climes, in democratic settings and societies governed by the rule of law, broad cleavages, tendencies and divides into the so-called left or right, centre left or centre right allow parties and their  caucuses, their leaders and arrowheads to be easily recognizable by their leaning, politically, to one side or the other of the divide. Even the outsiders can be classified: extreme left, far right, populist, etc. The British divide of Brexit, as opposed to Remain, is a recent and current case of caucuses at work, from within and outside parliament. Hence it is clear that caucuses also serve as pressure groups for the realization of specific political and community, regional or national objectives, and not only for electoral purposes only. In this respect, kudos to our own Charlie Boy and his latest intervention initiative, Our Mumu Don Do, and of course the  Oby Ezekwesili –led BBOG. But they belong to the worId outside parliament, if not outside politics per se.  Theirs is a case of NGO actors and pushers, playing the role which many of our politicians should play, no matter their political leaning.

    What we find here in our country is the building of caucuses essentially around personalities, with allegiance based on clannish, ethnic, religious and geographical calculations and sensibilities, for electoral purposes and the distribution of the spoils of office, with ideology, issues of societal programme, governance and ethical values very much taking the back seat. Such personalities eventually become godfathers, tin gods and political middlemen at relevant levels, with links with the bigger, higher level godfathers, who may or may not be candidates at elections. And if some of these leaders eventually get elected into public office, they and their entourage ipso facto become veritable godfathers, sources of patronage: from the lowest echelon at LGA level, the councillor, and then the local government chairman,  to the highest office in the land, not forgetting the governors, veritable masters of the game of  patronage and political domination, with the almighty security vote into the kitty, and the temptation  to impose candidates in their area of  influence.

    The intensity of the in-fighting between caucuses of parties with no veritable ideological positioning is such that we can talk of parties within parties. The ease with which political leaders , elected representatives at the National Assembly and downwards cross carpet,  change parties with impunity is a result of  today’s  prevailing political culture devoid of ideology and high  intrinsic values. What is more disheartening, however, is the absence of a deterring public opinion. Recent examples confirm the above.

    The long drawn out battle between the Ali Momodu-Sheriff faction of the PDP and the Makarfi-led faction until a final judicial adjudication settled matters is a case in point. And still within the same party, the outcome of the party’s last convention late last year and the issue of lists put up for electoral purposes is another. Hardly did neutrals and outside observers hear of issues concerning proposals for governance, how to move the country forward, from different caucus axes, caucus leaders or ordinary members. Instead, it would appear that what mattered first and foremost was determining from where elected persons came from, should come from. In the process, we saw that the south-west group, their main caucus, who felt dealt in, ill-treated, to put it mildly, threatened to pull out of the party. But what for us is of interest is that if  serious dissension there was, if there was disaffection, it was not in the name of any intrinsic values but rather the insistence on whose turn it was to become the party chairman.

    In the APC the strains and tensions experienced since the party’s arrival in power are such that caucuses within the party have virtually been elevated to the level of actual political parties within the party. The level of loyalty and allegiance enjoyed by the National Assembly leadership from its  membership and not necessarily by the party leadership  could  have been put to better use, we believe,  and be more effective and productive if accompanied by  strict  legislative adherence to the implementation of the manifesto on which the party was elected to power in 2015. With the benefit of hindsight, can one in all honesty say that the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have behaved as if they belong to a party called APC, the party on whose platform they were elected into the legislature? Do they in fact belong to the APC parliamentary caucus in the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively? If not, what caucus do they belong to? The defiance and the open refusal to toe the party line on the election of some of its key leaders at the inception of the 8th National Assembly, through resort to caucuses that included non-APC members is not just  a case of  anti-party disposition but also clearly a case of  parties operating within parties. Even if it could be argued in fairness to them  that  they rose to their  leadership positions only with the support of forces outside their party, APC, against the directive  of their party, it would only help to buttress and confirm the case that our caucuses are not based on ideology, intrinsic values, just like the parties that produced them, and  that they are merely power-seeking  and power-grabbing contraptions  which even their foremost leaders may dump the next minute out of self-interest, as has happened in the past and is happening even as we write!

     

    • Prof. Simpson writes from Lagos.
  • 2019: Saraki’s aide resigns to chair political party

    2019: Saraki’s aide resigns to chair political party

    Ahead of the 2019 election, Special Assistant to the Senate President on Youth and students matters Ikenga Ugochinyere has resigned his appointment.

    Ugochinyere in a one page letter to the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, said that his resignation was to enable him serve as the national chairman of his newly formed political party.

    He did not however give the identity of his new political party , but said he decided to quit his job “because the legal and political implication of his new status , national chairman of a new party does not allow him to continue to serve as an aide to the Senate President.

    The letter dated October 3, 2017letter read “Sequel to the recent issuance of certificate of registration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)to my newly formed political party and my emergence as the national chairman , I wish to tender my resignation as your Special Assistant on Youths and students matters .

    Read Also: 2019: Ebonyi APC drums support for Buhari

    “This is because of the legal and political implication new status as a result of which I cannot be able to discharge my function to you Sir ” The Imo state born youth leader however expressed gratitude to the Senate president for given the opportunity serve in that capacity .

    “Our over two years official relationship I count as the most amazing moment in my public service life . His Excellency confidence and believe in the innovative spirit of the young people is indeed legendary .

    “He built a bridge between the old and the young and have been working hard to help return the country to the part of national unity.”

  • Dokpesi, Iwuanyanwu , others form party

    Dokpesi, Iwuanyanwu , others form party

    Makarfi group linked to new political party

    •‘We have nothing to do with APDA’

    A new political party, Advanced Peoples Democratic Alliance (APDA), was unveiled yesterday, ahead of the pending Supreme Court’s judgment on the leadership tussle in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The party was linked to the Ahmed Makarfi faction of the PDP.

    Apparently unsure of the direction of the judgment in the struggle between him and the court-backed PDP National Chairman, Ali Modu Sheriff, the new party is seen as a preemptive move by the Makarfi camp.

    The two warring factions are awaiting a date from the Supreme Court for a final judgment on a cross appeal filed by the Makarfi camp seeking to remove Sheriff as national chairman.

    The APDA, which said its national convention would hold in November, was unveiled at the Reiz Continental Hotel, Abuja with proxies as its interim national officers.

    Chairman of DAAR Communication Chief Raymond Dokpesi and former national chairman of Labour Party Chief Dan Iwuanyanwu attended the ceremony.

    Dokpesi chose to remain inconspicuous at the venue by mixing with the crowd. Iwuanyanwu played an active role at the ceremony. Iwuanyanwu had dumped the Labour Party a few months ago.

    The new party featured Alhaji Shittu Mohammed as chairman; Mr. Fijabi Adebo as Deputy National Chairman (South) and Alhaji Mahe Dange, Deputy National Chairman (North).

    But in a swift reaction, the Makarfi camp denied sponsoring the APDA.

    In a statement yesterday by its spokesman, Prince Dayo Adeyeye, the faction denied any links with the new party.

    The statement said: “In the last few hours, we have received numerous calls from our party members, concerned citizens and well-wishers on our association or otherwise with the Advance Peoples Democratic Alliance (APDA), which was unveiled today in Abuja.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, we reiterate once again that we are not in any way associated with the new party in any form or guise. The APDA is neither an offshoot of the PDP nor its alter ego as some are speculating.

    “This statement is made purely to set the records straight and to avoid unnecessary innuendos, speculations and ambiguity that may threaten the continued unity and solidarity of our party members.

    “We thank millions of well-meaning Nigerians for their concern and commitment to the defence of our nascent democracy. In the end, this democracy cannot survive without a strong and vibrant opposition”.

    In an interview with The Nation in Abuja on April 27, Makarfi had said should his faction lose the case to Sheriff at the Supreme Court, it would spell the death knell for the PDP

    Makarfi said: “If it happens that way, PDP would die. But those who would be working to kill PDP that way, I assure you they would end up being confronted with a bigger political force than the PDP itself.

    “Because politics is about people, there is no way, let me speak here for the North that I know so well; there is no way in the North with Sheriff at the helm of affairs of PDP that voters would on their own go and vote PDP. There is no way.

    “We have just seen it in a recent election in Delta State that they have turned their back against PDP because of Sheriff. And it may be so in many states of the southern part of this country.”

  • For the ideal political party

    At this point in the quest for a stable and development-oriented democratic dispensation in Nigeria we must confront the demons haunting the process with a strong determination to move forward without recurring hitches. Since democracy has proved to be sustainable and progressive enough to be the most acceptable system of government across the world, our problems with the system must be peculiar to us.

    In fact, our latest failure to derive the dividends associated with democracy, particularly the delivery of good governance driven by the expressed aspirations of the majority of citizens, has exposed the culpability of practitioners and the institutions beyond any doubts.

    The most pressing problems negating our democratic endeavours can be narrowed down to the entrenchment of human weaknesses into the implementation of democratic processes. Politicians have demonstrated an inherent incapability to rise above sentiments of ethnicity, religion and winner-takes-all in navigating the democratic course, notwithstanding their oath of office and the legitimate democratic rights of the electorate. It is therefore hardly surprising that the political parties are only different in name but indistinguishable in the conduct of their affairs and adherence to any ideological principles.

    The APC which achieved a remarkable election victorythat evicted the ruling party from the corridors of power and took control of the government was deplorably incapable of managing its triumph to galvanize the polity for what could have been a popular revolution for national renaissance and reform.

    The euphoric bandwagon of “progressive alliance” on which the politicians rode to power collapsed into a cacophony of contending interests as soon as the reins of power got into their hands. It was now each ally for itself in the scramble for the crumbs. Meanwhile, the beleaguered executives pander to the incumbency of the Presidency rather than anchoring the unity of the party and building the common structure the emergency alliance sorely needs.

    On the other hand, the PDP whose defeat symbolized everything wrong with our version of party politics, disintegrated further in a feud over control of its enviable and incomparable nation-wide structure. Uncompromising egos and irreconcilable vested interests worked against a political solution and pushed the dispute to the law courts where lawyers and judges took turns to deepen the divides.

    With that, hopes that a defeated ruling party would transform into a formidable opposition to check the excesses of a cabal-controlled APC faded away, leaving Nigerians in a limbo of zero-party democracy that could threaten the fast approaching 2019 elections.

    In such a desperate situation, there is no practical alternative to the formation of new parties but the challenge is to avoid an old-wine-new-bottle syndrome that can only accelerate a return to square one. Any party formation process that is driven by the personality cult culture of Nigerian politics is dead on arrival

    Ditto for the money-bag stake-holding casino model, where the highest bidder “owns” the party. For any party to be truly new in the context of avoiding the ills of the past and ensuring a genuine redirection of our democracy towards the promised land, the formation process must focus on introducing constitutional control into broad-based mass membership platforms.

    Among the important provisions that a new generation of parties must stipulate in their constitution is a firm formula for distribution of appointments in the party and the government.

    Specifically, the ideal new party must be futuristic by affirmative action in favour of youths, women and the disabled who have for too long been marginalized despite their strategic significance in the electioneering process. The future belongs to youths but this can only be meaningful if they are given the right to participate in the leadership of the political process as a means of preparing them adequately for tomorrow’s responsibilities. The cause of women and the disabled is best pursued and protected by being adequately represented.

    Another issue that must not be left to the discretion of party leaders but categorically incorporated into the party constitution is the adoption of direct primaries for all nomination/election processes. For the avoidance of doubt the membership of everyone should count in determining nominees and candidatures as the best guarantee of popular participation and inculcation of sense of belonging among party members. An end must be brought to the hijacking of decision-making and nomination for appointments and elective offices by party leaders, caucuses and godfathers to the detriment of internal democracy in the parties.

    No less critical is the issue of party funding. If money bags are to be kept at bay effectively, their domination of party finances and consequent overriding influence on party decisions can best be curbed by prioritizing payment of registration and membership dues as a major financial resource of the party. Members who pay their fees and dues are more confident and concerned about their membership rights and influence on the affairs of the party than “rented” crowds. Government funding should also stop.

    These are by no means the only issues that should get top priority in the constitution of new parties but they represent the most promising features to look out for in determining the extent of departure from the ills of the past and the prospects for moving Nigeria out of the woods of a doomed democracy we find ourselves today.

     

    • Gwazuwang, public affairs analyst writes from Abuja.