Looming Threats To The 2019 General Elections And Nigeria’S Democracy
By Abiodun Ajijola
National Coordinator,
With eighteen (18) days left to the General Elections it is pertinent that all stakeholders ensure they put in their best efforts to ensure that the elections are free, fair and credible. However as the elections approach it is important that every attempt to scuttle the elections must be resisted by every well meaning Nigerian and election stakeholder. It is important to make a trajectory of some of the key activities that have occurred in the past few months so as to understand if there are any current threats to the 2019 Nigerian General Elections.
FAKE NEWS
First is the barrage of fake news. Every political season has a level of politicking and story-telling which is generally accepted to be part of the electoral process (especially the campaigning season). However when the gimmicks of actors in the political process are intentionally misleading it becomes a cause for concern because misleading the electorate is akin to creating crisis in the country. It is also quite unfortunate that a lot of the false information has been directed at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Clearly the kegiatan here is to discredit the nation’s electoral body in order to cast a shadow on the legitimacy of the forthcoming elections ever before they hold. One of the most widely circulated stories was the accusation that INEC was registering minors in Kano. This took over social media and became a source of national discourse. However INEC set up a committee to investigate the issue and eventually came out to debunk the claims. Click here to access the report:
It is quite ironical that after the tamat figures for the 2017/2018 CVR results were released, the Southern States had amongst the highest increases in new registrations. The North Central was highest with 36.84% closely followed by the South East with 31.13% and South South with 27.66%.
For those saying INEC did not do well in the voter registration it is important to realize that the CVR figures jumped by over 44% from the registrations preceding the 2015 General elections. In addition, Lagos overtook Kano to become the most populated state in Nigeria in terms of voting population. For those claiming that INEC wants to rig in favour of the incumbent government, it’s important to state that a comprehensive rigging plan would commence from the voter registration. However the region that most favours the incumbent (North West) recorded the lowest increase in voter registration (14.4%). Considering that this region gave the incumbent the bulk of its votes in 2015, it would make no sense to not attempt to pump up the registration figures in this zone if INEC was truly working to rig for the incumbent. Once again this shows that the allegations are baseless and targeted purely at undermining the credibility of INEC and consequently the entire electoral process.
Another example of intentional falsehood propagation is the article titled: SHOCKER: ‘13.5m Nigerians’ voted manually in 2015 presidential poll — and APC got most of those votes (available at https://www.thecable.ng/shocker-13-5m-nigerians-voted-without-pvc-in-2015). The above mentioned article makes a bold case that 13.5m Nigerians voted manually in 2015 and that this largely favoured the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nigeria’s ruling party. The main argument put forward is that the states which were won by the APC had the highest number of PVC only accreditations which it refers to as manual accreditations. The following paragraph is lifted directly from the said article. “Out of this number, 10,184,720 votes are from states won by Buhari and 3,351,591 votes came from states won by Jonathan, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, representing 75 percent and 25 percent of accredited voters respectively.” This simplistic approach gives an impression that one party overwhelmingly benefitted from manual accreditation over others. However after taking a look and assessing the data to see if this assertion is factual, accurate and representative of the actual situation, it was found to be completely false. The article refers to 13.5 million voters manually accredited in 2015 however the truth is that 8,103,011 voters were accredited manually. Looking at the data further it is clear that following the argument of the mentioned article the six of the top ten states that were involved in manual accreditation were won by the PDP, Nigeria’s current main opposition party. In addition there were a total of 5,389,648 accredited by voters in states won by the PDP is equivalent to 66.5% while a total of 2,713,363 voters were accredited in states won by the APC which translates to 33.5% of the total manual accreditations. It can be seen that this is clearly opposite to what the article in question intended to pass across. Click here to read the full analysis: https://ina-electionobserversos.blogspot.com/search?q=re-shocker-135m-nigerians-voted. Clearly fake news is designed to build up wrong perceptions, emotions and beliefs amongst citizens ultimately positioning some citizens to believe that the elections have already been rigged and as such efforts made to ensure transparent elections could end up being futile if these false views are sustained. Fake News is one of the most potent threats to the 2019 Nigerian General Elections and must be tackled aggressively and honestly by all stakeholders.
DELAYED INEC BUDGET
The second critical issue was the delayed INEC budget. According to public reports INEC submitted the budget for the 2019 Nigerian General Elections in the first quarter of 2018. However there was no way to treat this budget outside the 2018 National Budget which was not passed until 16th May 2018 and signed into law on 20th June 2018. A supplementary budget and virement request was made to the National Assembly on the 11th July 2018. The INEC budget was not finally passed by the National Assembly until mid-November 2018 and later transmitted to the president. INEC clearly received its funds at the end of 2018 for an election scheduled to hold in mid-February 2019. Were it not for the resourcefulness and wisdom of the current INEC leadership headed by Professor Mahmood Yakubu, this budget delay could in itself have derailed the entire electoral process. This is because according to INEC’s Election Project Plan there are certain activities which need to be carried out well in advance of the elections especially as relates to procurement amongst others. Click the following links to learn more about the INEC Budget Delay:
2018 Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill
The third very significant issue is the 2018 Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill. The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 had been the source of much controversy and had traversed back and forth between the National Assembly (NASS) and the Presidency. The first version which had 43 clauses was transmitted on January 19th 2018 and later rejected on March 8th 2018 because of issues with Sections 25, 138 and 152(3)-(5). Clearly reordering the sequence of elections after INEC had released its election timetable was inappropriate. The second version which had 41 clauses was transmitted on the 27th June 2018 but was later rejected due to drafting errors. The third version which had just 15 clauses was transmitted on 3rd August and rejected on the 30th August 2018 as a result of drafting and cross-referencing errors in addition to issues with sections 18(1-2), 31, 34, 85(1) and 87(14). This version also had no provision for the use of smart card readers. The fourth version was transmitted on the 7th November 2018 and rejected on the 6th December 2018. The president’s letter cited confusion and disruption would likely occur if the Bill was signed in that way amongst other observations. It is instructive to note that as of the time the Bill was transmitted to the president (7th November 2018) campaigning had not commenced for any office. In fact campaigns would only commence on the 18th November 2018 (Presidential and NASS elections). The implication is that if the president had signed the Bill into law anytime before the 18th November (11 days time period) it would certainly have meant that campaigns should last for 150days (as this was the provision in the Bill up from 90 days in the Principal Act). If the bill was signed into law before December 1st 2018, it would have without any controversy meant that State Governorship and House of Assembly elections would last for 150 days. However if signed into law between the 1st and 6th December, 2018 there would have been the controversy of whether to apply 90days (existing electoral Act, 2010 as amended) or 150 days which would have been reflective of the proposed Bill. This would clearly result in confusion since the campaigning was an ongoing process yet to be concluded.
Since campaigns for Presidential and National Assembly elections commenced on the 18th November 2018 while campaigning for the Governorship, State Houses of Assembly and FCT Area Council elections commenced on the 1st December 2018. Adding 150 days to these two dates would give dates of Wednesday, 17 April 2019 and Tuesday, 30 April 2019. It is important to note that Section 25 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), empowers the Commission to appoint date not earlier than 150 days but not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office. This means that the earliest date for the 2019 General Elections would be Sunday 30th December 2018 while the last possible date would be Monday, 29th April 2019. If the 4th Version of the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill 2018 were signed as it was the window to hold the 2019 General Elections would be between the 17th to 29th April, 2019 to ensure that both limits are satisfied.
It is also expected that the dates are chosen so as to allow for a run-off where required. On the 9th June 2018, President Muhammadu Buhari assented to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 9) Bill, 2017. This Bill alters the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to provide the Independent National Electoral Commission with sufficient time to conduct bye-elections and provide grounds for de-registration of political parties. This Bill was earlier passed by the Senate on 26th July, 2017 and Federal House of Representatives on the 3rd October, 2017. The Bill increases the time frame for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct bye-elections in default of a candidate being duly elected in Presidential and Governorship elections from 7 days to 21 days. The implication is that in-order to make provision for a possible run-off, the last possible date of the elections would be Monday 8th April, 2019. It is clear that this date falls outside the 17th to 29th April 2019 band. Kindly click the following link to access the full analysis of the dangers for the fourth version of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018: https://ina-electionobserversos.blogspot.com/search?q=re-shocker-135m-nigerians-voted
The implication of this is that signing the fourth version of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill would have truncated Nigeria’s current democracy by making it impossible to conduct the 2019 General Elections. It is quite surprising why so many interest groups (local and foreign) vehemently insisted that the Bill be signed into law with its inherent flaws. It is important to note the same sort of mass pressure (much from well informed Nigerians) was mounted for the signing of the 3rd version which had only 15 clauses and without the smart card reader. When exposed some said it was a mistake or that there were just minor errors (senior lawyers and legislators were involved in this). Clearly one cannot believe that such mass pressure was as a result of ignorance therefore it becomes imperative to consider a deliberate attempt to get a bill signed into law which would create electoral crisis.
ATTEMPT AT PREVENTING THE RELEASE OF INEC regulations and guidelines for the conduct of the general elections
Another attempt to undermine the 2019 General Elections was to frustrate INEC from issuing its Regulations and Guidelines for conduct of the general elections. In the past few weeks there have been attempts by some political actors to prevent INEC from using the updated regulations and guidelines for the conduct of the 2019 General Elections. While INEC has made every effort to get stakeholders on board (political parties, civil society, media etc) it was strange that some political actors were bent on preventing INEC from carrying out its constitutionally provided function of creation of guidelines for the purpose of conducting elections. These political parties even proceeded to court to stop INEC from releasing the said Guidelines just over 30 days to the General Elections. INEC however came out to clearly state that it had engaged diverse stakeholders and ensured that the Guidelines were in the best interest of the electoral process.
The major bone of contention was INEC’s insistence of using the Continuous Voting and Accreditation system. It is important to ask why a procedure which has been in place since 2016 is just been challenged in 2019 just under a month to the first set of elections. It is also instructive to note that this procedure has been used to conduct elections in 6 off-cycle governorship elections as well as over 190 constituency elections since 2015. A plethora of political parties have been involved in these elections and at no time was there any suggestion that this procedure was in any way adverse to the conduct of free, fair and credible elections. Therefore INEC cannot be blamed for going ahead with this procedure going into the 2019 Nigerian General Elections.
The INEC bulletin below dated 26th April 2016 Volume 1, No. 840 clearly shows the Commission’s intention to deploy Simultaneous Accreditation and Voting system in subsequent elections.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
DAILY
BULLETIN
VOLUME: 1 N0.: 840 DATE: 27 / 04 / 2016
INEC RELEASES SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has released additional guidelines to the existing 2015 Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of elections in the country.
Having approved the pilot of the Continuous Accreditation and Voting Procedure at elections, for the time being, the Commission has decided that the following shall constitute a supplement to the existing guidelines and regulations at elections.
The Commission stressed that: “all procedures specified in the Guidelines and Regulations for the Conduct of the 2015 General Elections remain in effect with the following exceptions:
a) Voting shall be by the Continuous Accreditation and Voting System;
b) The accreditation process shall comprise authentication and verification of voters using the Smart Card Reader (SCR), checking of the Register of Voters, and inking of the cuticle of the specified finger;
c) The ballot paper shall be issued in the prescribed manner by the Presiding Officer of a Polling Unit/Voting Point (Settlement) of the FCT, and the Assistant Presiding Officer, APO (VP), in the case of a Voting Point (VP).
d) Accreditation and Voting shall commence at 8.00 am and close at 2.00 p.m. provided that any voters already in the queue shall be granted access to Accreditation and Voting in the prescribed manner.
e) The Polling Unit layout shall require the Presiding Officer to sit next to the APO II;
f) The Presiding Officer shall act as the Overseer.
The Simultaneous Accreditation and Voting system has several advantages some of which are listed below:
- Faster Election Day closing times.
- Voter inclusion (significantly increase the number of people who vote after accreditation. In 2015 seven percent (7%) of accredited voters (i.e. 2,222,254 people) did not come back to vote after they were accredited).
- INEC Smart Card Reader shows the number of accreditations at any point in time (thus no fear of not being able to know the number of accreditations).
- Voters who have used the system have all said that they prefer it from surveys conducted in recent elections. The desires of voters should be placed above all other stakeholders.
Election Monitor believes that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has not erred by maintaining Simultaneous Accreditation and Voting system in its Regulations and Guidelines for the 2019 General Elections in Nigeria. expects this procedure to actually make the upcoming elections much more credible and efficient.
SECURITY THREATS
Another significant threat to the 2019 General Elections is the recent information made public by the Federal Government that there is credible intelligence to show that there are plans by some people to scuttle the elections deploying widespread violence. In addition, there have been claims by the opposition that there are plans to engineer inclonclusive elections in some states. Both of these portend great danger for the elections and Nigeria’s democracy. Some have waved off these findings as mere politics between parties. However this should not be seen as politics at all, because if there is any truth in them, then all Nigerians and indeed the international community should be concerned. While it is clear that there has been a significant upsurge in armed banditry (majorly in the northern part of the country) it is not clear exactly what the real intension of these armed bandits are considering the fact that they are very well trained and equipped and not conventional armed robbers. The spike of their activities during the political season would also lend credence to the belief that they may have some political leaning or be operating to achieve a political outcome. There has also been a deliberate attempt to use violence to create an election inconclusive as seen in the 2016 Bayelsa State Governorship Rerun Election.
The Bayelsa State Governorship Rerun Election of 9th January 2016 is an example. The Re-run occurred as a result of the violence which occurred on the 5th December 2015 Bayelsa Governorship Election. There were 157,490 registered voters who were affected by cancellations and Southern Ijaw LGA was unable to hold elections in its entirety.
The Summary of results for the two leading parties in the 2015/2016 Bayelsa Governorship Election and Re-run are:
APC | PDP | |
Sunday 6th December 2015 (first election) | 72,594 | 105,748 |
Saturday January 9th 2016 (re-run election) | 14,258 | 29,250 |
Total | 86,852 | 134,998 |
u Difference between two leading parties – 48, 146
u Number of Cancellations (breakdown in table below) – 53, 959
u The Election was determined conclusive even though technically it satisfied the conditions of an inconclusive election (there would most likely have been a break down in law and order if the election was not declared conclusive that night).
LGA CODE | Number of Cancellations RA | PUs | Registered Voters affected by the cancellations | |
Brass | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ekeremor | 2 | 5 | 17 | 6600 |
Nembe | 4 | 1 | 3 | 883 |
Ogbia | 5 | 4 | 9 | 1854 |
Sagbama | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
Southern Ijaw | 7 | 120 | 39679 | |
Yenegoa | 8 | 6 | 11 | 4943 |
7 | 16 | 160 | 53959 |
Why is this important?
u Date of expiration of the serving governor’s first term – 14th February 2016
u Last Date that INEC can conduct elections in Bayelsa – 14th January 2016
u The results of the Rerun were released on the 10th January 2016.
u There were cancellations in 4 LGAs, 16 RAs/Wards and 160 polling units with 120 polling units in Southern Ijaw LGA alone.
u Due to the violence witnessed during the election re-run it would have been very difficult for INEC to conduct another re-run before the 14th January (4 days allowance).
u This would have lead to certain unrest and crisis in the state because the governor would have to leave office after the expiration of his tenure even though the election was not concluded. This would have lead to a constitutional crisis and certain violence especially being that the governor was having a significant lead as of the 10th January 2016.
One of the key learning points from the 2016 Bayelsa Governorship Re-run Election is that a candidate who is less likely to win an election would more likely pursue a destructive strategy as a constitutional crisis would never be the desire of a candidate who is more confident of winning an election.
It is important that Nigerians take the security threats very seriously and put pressure on all stakeholders to ensure that there is peace before, during and after the 2019 General Elections. Deliberate, simultaneous and nationwide violent attacks could be devastating and such coordination of violence cannot be suppressed by the security agencies alone. The citizens must also reject it but this is only possible if they are sensitized that there is a potential for it to occur and educated on how they can support the security agencies to prevent it.
neutrality of the security agencies and the judiciary
The last issue to be considered in this particular write-up is the neutrality of the security agencies and the judiciary. While there has been public outcry (local and international) about the need for non-partisan security agencies in the upcoming elections, it is important that efforts are sustained to ensure that security forces are not used to favour any political party during the 2019 General Elections. The negative perceptions of the 2018 Osun re-run governorship election were basically as a result of security agencies failing to act professionally and neutrally and not a failure of INEC. However, progress is being made in this respect with the refusal of the president to extend the tenure of the immediate past Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Kpotum Idris and appoint a non-controversial replacement Mohammed Abubakar Adamu. This has calmed many stakeholders and increased hopes of a neutral police force in the elections. While stakeholders continue to reiterate the need for neutral security agencies during elections there is very little focus on the neutrality of the judiciary which play a very critical role in elections in Nigeria. However the recent suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen has put the nation’s judiciary and electoral process in the spotlight with some foreign governments weighing in on the move as well.
Suffice it to say that the issue is not as simple as it may appear, however there have been reports and allegations that the judicial system has been used severally to undermine the nation’s electoral process by providing judgments to the highest bidder in some cases and not necessarily the rightful winner of an election. Even where in 2007 the sitting Late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua publicly acceded to the flaws in the election that brought him into office, he still won the election petition instituted against him. This also shows up in the ‘go to court’ syndrome where politicians who have rigged elections tell their opponents to go to court. This they do because they believe nothing would change even after the matter has gone through the legal process. Unfortunately the percentage of cases where elections have been successfully overturned in the judiciary is dismally low as compared to the percentage of election petition cases that have been instituted in the country. This is so, even in some elections where all well meaning stakeholders observed such elections as not free, fair or credible. This has made some politicians and stakeholders lose confidence in the judiciary in determining election petition cases and as such leads to increased desperation during elections including a rise in vote buying since the person who wins on Election Day has all the advantages irrespective of how he or she won.
It is this loss in confidence of the role of the judiciary in the electoral process that makes it paramount that everything is done to build the confidence of Nigerians and indeed the international community in the Nigerian judicial system. This is key because if the country gets to the point (many people believe this is already the case) where people completely lose confidence in the nation’s judiciary this would have grave implications for sustaining Nigeria’s democracy. For this reason every effort must be made to ensure that the judiciary performs its functions in a transparent and non-partisan manner. When considering this it becomes important to look at the current suspension of Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen beyond his person but its implication on the nation’s electoral process.
There are reports that a petition was made against the Hon. Justice Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). The bone of contention it seems is the non-declaration of some bank accounts which contravenes the code of conduct rules for public officials. There are also reports that the suspended CJN admitted in writing that he forgot to make some declarations and that it was a mistake. Consequently he was to be arraigned before the CCT. This lead to a flurry of judgments clearly instituted to frustrate and delay the process of arraigning the CJN. While this is common amongst lawyers (especially in Nigeria), it is however unbecoming for a CJN because he is not just any citizen but is the face on an entire arm of government. In addition the CJN heads the Supreme Court which is the last port for election petition tribunals for the offices of governor and president. The implication of this is that if a judge has undeclared bank accounts with huge sums of money vastly exceeding his official income there is the possibility that some of these funds could have been obtained in an illicit manner most likely given for a favour. Such a favour would most likely be related to the primary function as a judge. As a result of this it becomes precarious for such a judge who would clearly have sympathies to administer a critical component of the electoral process. It is only when one looks beyond the personality involved to the larger electoral process that it becomes very clear why Hon. Justice Onnoghen’s continued stay was precarious. What would have been expected is a recusal at least (a resignation may not have been necessary initially) from any judicial/election related activity until the cases have been determined. This would have been the best way to put the country first and secure the credibility of the electoral process.
Many have insisted that the matter should have been brought to the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the first instance. However, the NJC was to sit on the 15th January 2019 but this sitting was suspended indefinitely by the same CJN, Hon. Justice Onnoghen. At this point approaching the NJC would not be feasible even though other members of the NJC could have still convened without the Chairman they clearly were not ready to do so otherwise they would have still sat on the 15th January 2019. However after the current suspension of the CJN, the NJC suddenly realizes that it can hold an emergency meeting which would have prevented the current situation in the first place. So the nation is presented with an imbroglio. There is credible evidence to show that the CJN is having funds significantly beyond his means which he has admitted that he has failed to declare, however the same CJN with support from his colleagues is making it ‘impossible’ to prosecute him. Add this to the fact that he is not willing to recuse himself of judicial activities has created a situation not anticipated by the framers of the Nigerian Constitution. The implication of this is that the ‘CJN cannot be successfully tried’ as any other Nigerian without immunity would be.
It is important to consider the wider picture so as to make the right interventions. Unfortunately many stakeholders have come down hard on the suspension of Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen but these same stakeholders remained quiet when he suspended NJC meetings indefinitely. The irony is that some of his lawyers are saying that his case should have first been brought up before the NJC before the CCT. So with the indefinite suspension of the NJC what happens next? Clearly the meaning of this is not positive for the Nigerian judiciary and the electoral process. While the president’s actions may be seen as controversial and rightly so, it would be unfair and myopic to only focus on the president’s action without looking at the suspended CJN’s actions which created the platform for the impasse in the first place.
Election Monitor urges support for Nigeria’s electoral process to meet global best practices. However, encourages stakeholders to speak out about causes as well, and the unwanted effects may never materialize. While the timing of the suspension of the CJN is important it is also pertinent to understand that if the whole process came into being in early January 2019, it means there was very little to be done about it because the elections were already close. Would it be better to allow things be even when there could be partisanship which would affect the credibility of the forthcoming elections? In this situation the timing is a matter of serendipity and most likely not the intentional making of any particular party. For example if information is discovered that a candidate for an election is not eligible, it doesn’t and should not matter that the evidence was discovered on the eve of the deadline for submission of nominations of candidates. What should matter is that the information is acted upon in a timely manner so as not to further jeopardize the electoral process.
The National Assembly is slated to reconvene on Tuesday 29th January 2019 to deliberate the suspension of Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen (there are speculations as of the time of writing this article that this may be postponed so that the NASS can get the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the suspension of the CJN). It is quite interesting that the same National Assembly refused to reconvene to pass the INEC budget despite hues and cries being made for it do so. The NASS even went further by extending its recess from the 25th September to 9th October 2018. So the alacrity with which the National Assembly is being reconvened is quite surprising considering that passing an election budget is also a very critical national activity. In addition the suspension of plenary of the NASS on 24th January 2019 till 19th February 2019 seems also strange considering that the NASS is critical in the full removal of a serving CJN from office. How come both the NASS and NJC were suspended till after the 2019 Presidential Election? So many questions remain unanswered.
It is in this light that recommends that stakeholders should avoid sensationalism, undue emotion and intentional spreading of false and misleading information. To build a better and more effective electoral process, the whole process needs to be considered. Every controversial action should receive the same level of attention. If stakeholders had condemned vehemently the indefinite suspension of the NJC by Hon. Justice Onnoghen, perhaps we would not be in a situation today where other controversial actions have also taken place.
However what is truly important is for stakeholders to be not only proactive but ultimately consider the larger picture which is most significant to Nigerians.
Conclusion
In summary from all the points delineated in this article, it is clear that there is a consistent, well organized, planned and sustained attempt to scuttle the 2019 Nigerian General Elections which has grave implications for sustaining the nation’s democracy. calls on all well meaning Nigerians and the international community to reject any attempt to prevent the 2019 general elections from holding and resist all activities which may be concealed or disguised as populist, interventionist or reactionary which are just veiled attempts to truncate the nation’s hard earned democracy.
Sumber http://electionmonitorng.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Looming Threats To The 2019 General Elections And Nigeria’S Democracy"
Posting Komentar