There have been mixed reactions over the reordering of election sequence by the National Assembly, with the veto of the Electoral Act by the president already generating criticisms and applause. As a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Speaker of the House of Assembly, where do you stand on this situation?
INEC is the constitutional body with the responsibility to conduct elections, which are expected to be free, fair, credible in its processes and outcomes. It is described by its establishing instrument to be independent. It is funded by a first line charge on the consolidated revenue fund of the federation. All these are to ensure that it is insulated from any external intrusion, influence or interference. And owing to the fact that successful scheduled elections are a key factor of the democratic environment and regime, all stakeholders expect that INEC will do its tasks independently.
So, the tussle between the National Assembly and the president to structure, restructure or destructure the sequence of election amounts to an undue interference with the electoral processes for the following reasons. One, INEC it is that has ownership of the electoral provisions, infrastructure and budget, and will be held accountable for the outcome of elections. It should be at the driver’s seat, to propose changes in its law and the provisions, including the sequence of electoral calendar. The president and the National Assembly are interested parties to elections – they get in or out of office only by elections. Neither can be independent on issues of electoral provisions. Their tussle is an attempt to be judges in their own causes.
But the National Assembly has explained that it carried out the reordering in order to avoid a bandwagon electoral success, as was experienced in 2015. Don’t you think this will be in the interest of the country?
You will agree that the perception of the public is to the effect that each of the conflicting arms of government is trying to structure the law to favour/influence the process in its own perceived interest. The National Assembly has given its explanations but the president has also alluded to the need to keep the sacrosanctity of constitutional provisions as the reason for the veto. The truth is while one arm is attempting to influence the system to create a “band-wagon effect” in electoral outcomes, the other is trying to prevent it and each arm has an ulterior motive.
What do you see to the supremacy tussle that is brewing between the two arms, as the National Assembly prepares to override the president’s veto on bills?
The executive and legislative arms are expected to cooperate on important legislations such as the Electoral Act. They should work through their personnel and committees to attain best practices outcomes, utilising international standards, and collaborations with agencies with similar mandates. They must not get to the point of “fight to finish” in determining the law that governs our electoral processes.
The proposed amendments do not relate only to electoral sequencing, there are other provisions like electronic voting and so on, which the president’s refusal to give assent will throw away. But the National Assembly’s veto will also ensure that lawmakers have electoral advantage if their sequencing is allowed. So, the overall democratic interest of Nigeria should be the bottom line here. A fair, durable electoral law will serve Nigeria in the now, outlive the present players and ensure an enduring electoral architecture for future elections. This is only possible where the lawmakers and the president allow these considerations to override their immediate electoral interest and agenda.
INEC recently spoke of its plan to destroy unclaimed Permanent Voter Cards, do you think this is right? And what happens when the owners of those cards are ready to claim?
INEC’s threat to destroy 7.5 million unclaimed PVC, which is about 20 per cent of registered voters, is a huge problem. INEC cannot destroy national electoral assets which PVCs are. It is a threat to free and fair elections; it is disenfranchisement of eligible voters. INEC should aim to improve its processes and not take the easier route out of problems by threatening to destroy these PVCs. The commission should update and upgrade its information gathering parameters that enable it to reach registered voters via bulk SMS, emails and so on, which are cost-effective.
If you look at it, this is the highest number of unclaimed PVCs since 1999 out of an estimated 100 million eligible voters. In 2015, millions could not collect PVC before elections and the same scenario is playing out out. What INEC should do is to interrogate why voters cannot reach their voters cards and not threaten the citizenry with destruction of their PVCs in March 2018 so close to another cycle of elections. In the South-West, for instance, people have written to INEC, letters to editors of Newspapers, comments on Radio/TV and direct complaints to INEC offices and centres to complain. The public grievances include crowed collection centres, with long queues at collection centres, long wait and inefficient processes. Others complain of late arrival of INEC agents who do not come before 8 a.m. and close before 5 p.m. So, INEC is under constitutional duties to deliver on its mandates funded from first line charge of expenditure. It is not doing Nigerians a favour, but doing a constitutional duty.
In its last effort at reviewing the 1999 constitution, the National Assembly attempted to grant autonomy to local governments but there are already feelers that the State Houses of Assembly will shoot it down. As a former Speaker of the House of Assembly and foremost chairman of the Conference of Speakers, what is your take on local government autonomy and how can the Houses of Assembly be convinced to support it?
The local government system is a level of government like the state and federal government, which are created by the constitution. Each is expected to exist and function pari passu with other levels of government. But for some reasons: which include the irresponsible conduct of some former local government administrations in failure to pay their staff salaries, the takeover of local governments by state governors and so on, we have come to a point that there is a struggle to liberate the third tier of government. Go round the country, you will see how governors have refused to allow democracy take effect at the grassroots. They refuse to conduct local government elections and they appoint caretaker chairmen in place of elected chairmen. This conduct of the state governors is a breach of their oath of office to uphold the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in that they undermine the provision that relates to the independence of the local governments as a level of government. But they are not alone in this breach; state legislators are similarly in breach of their oath of office in undermining the status of local government as a level of government.
My take is that in this season of constitutional amendments, the National Assembly should take away the provision that requires the state Houses to vote and agree to the autonomy of local governments. They should also legislate to make the existence of local governments named in the schedule to the constitution, automatic, with or without any state House of Assembly’s consent. Finally, they should legislate to make disbursement and access to allocation from the Federation Account possible only to elected local councils chairmen and not to caretaker chairmen.
Until the National Assembly begins to exercise direct jurisdiction on local governments where the leadership is not elected and their funds through any of its Committees and also reform the electoral law to make election into the councils a responsibility of INEC rather than State Electoral Commission, which are all prone to manipulation by state governors, we cannot get things right.
‘Third Force’ can’t stop PDP in 2019 ―Adebutu
It is the era of Third Force, with more than three parties and organisations claiming to be the Third Force, you are seeking to be governor on the platform of the AD, so which force is your party?
Political parties are vehicles in our constitutional democracy through which a candidate may be elected into political office. They are also vehicles through which the voter, the electorate, may make a choice of the candidate s(he) desire to give the mandate to occupy office. The constitution makes it mandatory for candidates to seek political office only on the platform of political parties. It is, therefore, important for the candidate and voters to pay close attention to these vehicles that will undertake a four-year electoral, and office/power cycle. If a vehicle is big, colourful, but has on board arrogant, ignorant, abusive, aggressive, drunken and even violent travellers; if the vehicle is big, but instead of petrol, its passengers pour into its fuel tank, vegetable oil, sand and water, that vehicle cannot go very far. So, candidates and voters should pay attention to the electoral vehicle they wish to board, and whose candidates they wish to vote into office. It is not enough that a force is being created, which they call Third Force but is it a force to recreate our painful political past, or a force of the same set of players that created our present sorry state of affairs? Electors should look for parties and candidates with convincing force of competence, character, and track record of untainted past services to society and I can tell you that the AD stands for excellent political pedigree, personal and organisational discipline and good quality candidacy processes across board. That is the force of its attraction.