Attempts at further altering Nigeria’s electoral law by the National Assembly have remained tales of tortuous and repeated failed journeys, especially, under the government of President Muhammadu Buhari. JOSHUA EGBODO takes a look at the drama surrounding the latest move.
After a long journey
It was on record that President Muhammadu Buhari repeatedly vetoed fresh attempts at amending the 2010 Electoral Act, beginning from the 7th National Assembly, during which the leadership of the nation’s apex legislature was under the control of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). In the belief by followers of the events, there were suspicions of every move of the parliament so, the president kept returning the document each time it was transmitted for his assent.
Typographical and cross-reference errors, as well as commencement of the alteration, if enacted, were parts of his arguments before the general election that offered him the outgoing second tenure.
Breakthrough, but…
While the back and forth movements lasted, a breakthrough in the considered opinion of many pundits later came, however, not without challenges. When the Bill was transmitted, the President yet pointed out his worries on the provision of section 80(4), which was intended to make primary election of political parties mandatorily a direct process.
When the mandatory direct primaries provision was expunged as he requested, President Buhari again pointed out the provision in Section 84(12), as it relates to the need for political appointees to resign at a specified period away from such activities, if they wish to participate as delegates or aspirants during conventions of their respective political parties.
“This (perceived intended electoral system improvement provisions in the Bill), however, cannot be said about one provision as contained in the proposed Bill, which provision constitutes fundamental defect, as it is in conflict with extant constitutional provisions.
“Section 84 (12) constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at Conventions or Congresses of any political party, for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days to the National Election.
“The section provides as follows: ‘No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.
“This provision has introduced qualification and disqualification criteria that ultra vires the Constitution by way of importing blanket restriction and disqualification to serving political office holders of which they are constitutionally accorded protection.
“The practical application of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Bill 2022 will, if assented to, by operation of law, subject serving political office holders to inhibitions and restrictions referred to under Section 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)”, the president said while asking that the provision be deleted.
A court judgement
When it appeared obvious that the National Assembly was not in anyway ready to yield to the latest request by the President, as the debate was on its propriety or otherwise, a court case was instituted to see that the controversial section is deleted. The opposition PDP had earlier sought and got an injunction against the National Assembly, barring it from tampering with the newly enacted Electoral Act. However, a Federal High Court, sitting in Umuahia, Abia state, was later to issue a judgement directing Attorney General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami to delete the section in contention.
Reps insist
The House of Representatives, through its spokesman, Benjamin Kalu, in an immediate reaction to the development, gave indications that the House might seek judicial interpretation of the judgement. The lawmaker argued that the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) was misconstrued, as it clearly stipulates who a public servant is, not political appointees. “The judgment of the Federal High Court has raised a couple of issues. Let me say that the House of Representatives is not aware of this legal matter and is still not aware whether we were necessary party to this matter or not.
“It is important to note that it is out of place to comment on a judgment for which we are yet to see the certified true copy. So, we will make comment on this judgment once we receive the certified true copy, to know the length and breadth of it”, he told journalists then.
The House was to follow later with the argument that the controversial section still remained as part of the Act, despite opinion offered by the Attorney General that the said portion had been nullified by the High Court pronouncement, insisting that the status quo persists until all appeal windows have been exhausted.
He said that until the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement on the matter based on the right of appeal of those who were interested parties, nobody can tamper with the law after its passage by the National Assembly. “One thing I want Nigerians to know is that the Electoral Act is alive and INEC is working with the Act. There is no impediment on the Act until our right of appeal has been fully exercised….So, exercise no fear, the Act is alive.
“The President signed the Electoral Act amendment bill into law, but raised an issue about it. There is an assumption out there that there was a precondition for the signing of the act. No. Mr. President was not coerced into signing the bill into law and was not compelled. He saw the benefits of the electoral reforms and wanted to leave a legacy by cleaning up the space. That was why he signed the bill into law.
“As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, who has raised an issue, such an issue should not be swept under the carpet. He decided to refer his concern not to the law court, but to the parliament and that is how it ought to be in the spirit of the doctrine of separation of power where everyone know where his power lies. He did not refer it to the Attorney-General. Mr. President was a better judge than what we just experienced recently where the principles that is reserved for the parliament was, in an over-reaching consequential order passed to the executive which ought not to be, if we must maintain checks and balances”, he maintained.
But the noted error
To many analysts, attention appeared to have been given too much to the issue of seeing political appointees resigning from offices in order to participate in elections, and so the failure to spot the error in section 84(8) of the new Electoral Act, which denies elected public office holders, who in normal practice participate as “statutory delegates” in conventions or congresses of their respective political parties. These include the councilors and chairmen of local governments, state Houses of Assembly and National Assembly members, state governors and their deputies, and the president and vice president.
Many have concluded that it was an error, a huge one akin to shooting selves on the feet by members of the National Assembly.
Failed pressure?
As it stands today, the latest amendment in the opinion of pundits, may not play any role in the fast approaching 2023 general elections, a process which commenced earlier in the week with primaries for some elective offices already concluded by the leading opposition PDP, using only elected delegates. Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives, had prior to commencement of the exercise, appealed to President Buhari to sign the amendment, with concerns that not doing so may breed crisis. “The Caucus notes with grave concern that Mr. President’s delay in signing the single amendment to Section 84 (8) to the Electoral Act 2022 has thrown the nation into serious confusion and constitutes a huge threat to our democracy and the smooth conduct of the 2023 general elections”, a statement to that effect by Minority Leader, Ndudi Elumelu had stated
A seeming hope after all pressure on the President that the amendment be signed was a rumour over the weekend that he had bowed to same and assented to it, but the hope was immediately dashed with a reaction from the presidency that the information was false. Media reports quoted the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mallam Garba Shehu, as saying the news of the signing, which had already gone viral on social media, was not known to him. “It is news to me too”, he reportedly said.
Is it, therefore, now a case of ‘do me I do you?’ Many Nigerians are seeing it that way, since the parliament failed to create a good turn to deserve another from the president, when he wanted a section in the Act expunged, but ignored by the National Assembly. Same had remained a subject of an ongoing litigation.
