The furore over INEC timetable, by ADEWALE Kupoluyi

In the last few days, the amendment bill on the Electoral Act, 2010 that is due for passage into law, continues to dominate discussions across the country. Ordinarily, this should be expected as the next general election is fast approaching and many events would naturally be unfolding.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently released the elections timetable, which is in line with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). From the INEC schedule, the presidential and national assembly elections would hold on February 16, 2019; gubernatorial and state houses of assembly election would take place on March 2, 2019. Expectedly, series of reactions have trailed the commission’s timetable because of the belief that the idea of fixing the presidential election first, being the extant provision, would give the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) undue advantage over the opposition parties while other observers believe that timely release of the schedule was as a good move that would ensure adequate preparation for the polls.

But with the just-concluded amendment by the national assembly, there is a reversal in the order of elections by virtue of Section 25 of the Electoral Act, which would now see the national assembly elections holding first; elections into the state houses of assembly and governorship would be held on a different day; while the presidential election would come last. For emphasis, the amendment goes beyond reordering of elections.

The main thrust of the new electoral act is to improve how elections are conducted and reduce human interference in the process, thereby reducing corruption in a number of ways. For instance, the amendment mandates the immediate transmission of voting results from polling units to collation centres. The implication of this is that it would help give realtime results and updates of proceedings.

In addition, the amendment would provide a fairer platform for all contestants by mandating INEC to publish available voter registers 30 days before elections. When this is done, it would end the usual manipulation of voter registers that had characterised our electoral process, as missing names on the voter register could be detected and addressed within the stipulated 30 days. Under the new arrangement, the electoral umpire is empowered to deploy full biometric accreditation of voters using smart card readers and other technologies, among others.

However, critics believe that aside Section 76 of the 1999 Constitution that empowers INEC to organise elections, the impending reordering of the sequence of elections would have dire cost implications on both public and business life of the nation, considering the compulsory restriction of human and vehicular movements on election days.

They also alleged that the idea was selfish on the part of the legislators and was never thoroughly discussed before making the bill. The controversy trailing the amendment is a sort of mixed blessing for two main reasons. For the big politicians and stalwarts, it is a ‘yellow card’ for them because it is going to be a radical departure from the past and for fresh and politically not-too-strong candidates.

As it is now, registered parties in the country have just few months to go before they conduct their primaries. The situation now is that most of them seem not set for the task ahead, including the ruling APC that is busy talking about restructuring at the last minute, as well as the main opposition party (PDP) that is saddled with series of alignment and realignments while the recently registered parties appear not to have strong structures in place for many Nigerians to even ascertain what new they are bringing into the political turf.

In the final analysis, the amendment is a welcome development that is good for our polity. There is nothing unconstitutional in what the federal lawmakers are doing. However, one of three things may happen in the political terrain in next few weeks.

First, the president may give his assent to the bill and the amendment becomes law. This is not likely because of the belief that the amendment may not favour his political interest. Secondly, the president may refuse his assent and the national assembly may veto the bill.

This too may not happen because of the sharp division among the lawmakers. Thirdly, legal action could be instituted by either party (legislature v. executive) for the courts to come in and resolve the constitutional logjam. Of the three possibilities, the third option may hold sway.

If the amendment is passed into law, it would definitely add value to our electoral process. Beyond the amendment, focus should be centred on what still needs to be done to have fair, credible and transparent elections in Nigeria. These include adequate and timely release of funds to INEC; minimising voters’ apathy, especially among the elites; learning from past mistakes for improved electioneering; display of honesty, sincerity and determination by all stakeholders, among others.

When we strive towards achieving these, the nation would be actually be marching forward and seen to be entrenching the desired and solid democratic culture for good governance.

Leave a Reply