A whole gamut of reactions has greeted the decision of the National Assembly to re-order the sequence of the 2019 elections, as stakeholder commend and condemn it in equal measure. However, the presidency has kept mum over the issue but the president’s men are strategizing how to go around the amendment as TAIYE ODEWALE, BODE OLAGOKE and ELEJO IDACHABA indicate in this report.
Last Tuesday, the National Assembly Conference Committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill adopted the re-ordered sequence of the 2019 general elections, putting presidential election last. A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives began the process to amend the Electoral Act 2010, with the inclusion of section 25(1) in the law, In essence, this insertion reordered the sequence of elections and in its ammendment, National Assembly elections will hold first, followed by governorship and State House of Assembly and the presidential election will hold last. In December 2017, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had put Presidential and National Assembly elections first and governorship and state assembly to follow. In effect, the electoral umpire had retained what was obtainable in 2015.
However, the legislators kicked against the idea and the lower legislative chamber started the process of tinkering with sequence of election.
On January 24, the House voted to amend several sections of the Electoral Act 2010 ahead of the 2019 general elections. Significantly, the House had amended 156 clauses of the Act based upon recommendations by the House Committee on Electoral Matters chaired by Mrs. Aisha Dukku.
However, the amendment that generated the most interest was Section 25(1). Specifically, the amended section states that, “elections into the office of the President and Vice-President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a state and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and Houses of Assembly of each state of the federation shall be in the following order: National Assembly elections; state Houses of Assembly and governorship elections; and presidential election. The dates for these elections shall be as appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission.”
Mixed reactions trail amendment
Significantly, various interpretations were given to the action of the National Assembly, leading to commendations and condemnations. In particular, some people accused the legislators of reversing the sequence of elections in order to save their seats in the coming general election. By holding the National Assembly elections first, according to analysts, the federal legislators will be saving themselves from likely bandwagon effect, where voters will generally be swayed to the winning party. In addition, governors and even the president will be less likely to influence the legislators’ elections, since they will be preoccupied with their own.
Presently, the relationship between most governors and the federal law makers in their states is less than cordial. Similarly, they argued that the reviewed sequence of elections goes against logic and commonsense.
According to proponents of this argument, gubernatorial and state Assembly elections should hold first because it makes a lot of sense for voters to settle their local issues and choices first before they go to the federal ones . Similarly, some people also argued that presidential election should be the culmination, not the beginning, of elections because it renders the others anti-climax.
We acted within the constitution—Committee members
Significantly, there are some lawyers who had argued that INEC’s constitutional power to fix election dates, includes the mandate to fix the order of elections. However, Senator Suleman Nazif, the Chairman of Senate Committee on INEC, said that the inclusion of section 25(1) which changed the sequence of election has not in any way violated any provisions of Section 76 of the 1999 constitution which empowers the electoral body to fix dates and conduct elections.
Similarly, Senator Nazif’s House of Representatives counterpart, Rep Edward Pwajok, said that “the sequence of election provision in the bill is not targeted at anybody but aimed at giving credibility to the electoral process.’’
According to him, the amendment will was done out of national interest and “whether it would be assented to or not by the President, as far as we are concerned, remains in the realm of conjuncture for now but if such eventually happens, we will know how to cross the bridge.’’ In the worst case scenario, “if President Muhammadu Buhari does not assent to it, the lawmakers will invoke constitutional provisions at their disposal to make it see the light of the day,’’ Pwajok envisaged.
Similarly, Senator Dino Melaye (APC-Kogi), a member of the committee, argued that while date for election was the prerogative of INEC, extant laws state that schedules for such elections are the sole responsibility of the National Assembly. “So contrary to reports and comments by some Nigerians on the reordered sequence of election, National Assembly has not overlapped its boundaries,” the senator had said.
Another member of the committee, Senator Shehu Sani, said the reordered sequence of elections, if signed into law by President Buhari, will give electorates at the entire 109 senatorial districts across the country and 360 federal constituencies, free atmosphere of electing federal lawmakers of their choice with less bandwagon effect .
Senator Hope Uzodinma on his parts said the new sequence is similar to the one earlier attempted in the 2002 Electoral Act during the Obasanjo presidency before it was later changed.
“ To me, what our colleagues in the House of Representatives have done and adopted by the senate by adding sequence of elections in the electoral act in the order of National Assembly election first, followed by State Assembly and governorships election before presidential election is right and within the legislative powers of the National Assembly going by judicial pronouncement on such issues in the past , which says that though the National Assembly has no constitutional right to fix date of elections but has the power through the electoral Act to give sequence for such elections after which INEC will now fix dates for them,’’ he recalled . According to Uzodinma, ‘’going by historical records , all general elections that had been midwife by the military have always put that of the presidency last being the highest political office in the land to avoid bandwagon effects which however have been the problems with elections organised by democratic governments in the country since 2003.
We are waiting for them- APC
Speaking to our correspondent, the Director General of the Voice of Nigeria (VON), Mr Osita Okechuwu said that re-ordering the sequence of election runs against past precedents. Okechukwu who is an All Progressives Congress(APC) chieftain, pointed out that, “the INEC time table has been this way since we came back to the fourth republic. So, anybody who wants to re-arrange it should let us know the high points, otherwise they are either misguided or something else but we need to wait to hear the reasons from them actually.”
With time, according to him, the party will know whether the legislators are rational or misguided in their action because the day they will present it to Mr. President they will be able to explain to him the rationale behind it.’’ He further said that, “the leadership of the both Houses are in the same political party with us so I don’t think we can speculate. “So when they present it to the President we will know the reasons behind it whether they are misguided.” The Director General pointed out that, “whatever National Assembly does can not become a law until Mr. President appends his signature. If the move go down well with the majority of our party members no problem, otherwise to get the two third of the National Assembly to pass it into law is not a tea party. So, if their reason for changing the time table as released by INEC is not convincing we will all lobby the members of the National Assembly to drop the idea, don’t forget that the majority of the lawmakers belong to APC. We are waiting to hear from them.”
We have been yearning for it—UPP
The United Progressives Party(UPP) also commended the re-ordering of sequence of elections as the National Chairman, Chief Chekwas Okorie said it is a dream come true. According to him, “over the years opposition political parties have been canvassing for the present order that has been passed by the National Assembly.’’ It is common knowledge that any party that wins the presidential election since the commencement of the present democratic dispensation in 1999, always benefits from the bandwagon effect of winning overwhelmingly in subsequent elections.
In all cases, such a party ended up dominating the National Assembly, majority of the states and the state Assemblies in Nigeria. In this way, the opposition political parties are weakened to the extent that the State Assemblies and National Assembly never developed outside the whims and caprices of the ruling political party and its executive arm. The legislature became more of rubber stamp of the executive arm of government.’’
Chief Okorie alleged that the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), with its overwhelming majority, had turned down several demands for the reordering of the elections schedule.
‘’The same scenario replicated itself, the moment the APC won the presidential election with President Muhammadu Buhari as its presidential candidate, in 2015,’’ he pointed out. The UPP chairman argued that the successful passage of the re-ordered sequence of election was possible because of the feud with APC, especially between the federal legislators and the presidency on the one hand and the lawmakers and the party’s leadership on the other hand. According to him, the situation is so intense that most APC legislators are uncertain of being re-nominated by the ruling party following the face-off.
The UPP national chairman further said that his party is ‘’satisfied that INEC has given an early assurance that it will comply with the provisions of the law provided that the period specified by the Constitution of Nigeria for such amendments to be completed, is met.’’
Amendment in order, INEC time-table oppressive—ADP, SDP
On the other hand, the Action Democratic Party (ADP), said that the amendment of section 25 of the Electoral Act is in order. The party’s National Secretary, Dr. James Oroma, further said that the amendment is timely. According to him, “election rigging begins with tinkering with the order of elections.
What the National Assembly has done is to prevent band wagon effect once the presidential election is held.’’ Dr Oroma further said that any attempt to hold the presidential election first will confer undue advantage on the incumbent.’’
Similarly, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has commended the National Assembly for the alteration on INEC’s time table. SDP’s national publicity Secretary, Mr Alfa Mohammed, described the time table that was earlier released by INEC as ‘oppressive.’ According the national publicity secretary, INEC’s proposal was unfair “to the states and National Assembly aspirants because their supporters may be discouraged from coming out to vote in the subsequent elections if their preferred governorship or presidential candidates fail to win the election. But voters will still turn out to vote in both governorship and presidential elections irrespective of the time it is fixed because such candidates have the highest number of followers.” Mr Mohammed envisages that “the undue advantage of the bandwagon effect that often follows the two superior elections to the disadvantages of popular legislative candidates would be avoided in new the arrangement.”
NASS’s decision selfish–Partners for Electoral Reform
Significantly, the National Assembly got some knocks over the amendment, especially from civil society organisations. In a chat with Blueprint Weekend, the Executive Director, Partners for Electoral Reform, Ezenwa Nwagu, said that “the National Assembly has no power to dictate for INEC how it should be run. Both institutions are a creation of the law. Remember that INEC is an independent organisation whose existence has the backing of the law and by which it is empowered to decide matters that bother on its core operation.
As far as I am concerned, what the law makers want to do is self-service. Nobody is saying that the law makers don’t have powers to make laws for the country but as far as this matter is concerned, their decision is borne out of selfish aggrandisement. They are merely playing politics with a major aspect of our national life. Asking INEC to kow-tow their resolution on this matter is akin to a university senate giving orders to, for example, English Department of that university, to write exams.
In as much as the National Assembly has the power to make laws for the entire country, they should also know that INEC is created by law to organise elections in line with its time table.”
INEC should reject the amendment—Situation Room
Similarly, a coalition of civil society organisations under the umbrella of Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room, had equally asked INEC to reject the revised election time table. According to its Convener, Mr Clement Nwankwo, “the National Assembly needs to back-track from passing self-service legislation that contradicts the constitutional guarantee of the independence of INEC. The move is unwarranted and undue interference in the constitutional powers of the electoral umpire towards the conduct of elections.”
Nwankwo, who is also the Executive Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) said INEC has the window of challenging this unconstitutionality up to the Supreme Court. According to him, “this particular decision done in a fiat through the collaboration of the two Houses of the National Assembly is a distraction to the enormous challenges it has at the moment”.
President Buhari should veto the amendment—Lawyer
The Executive Chairman of Human Rights Monitor and former Chairman of of Transition Monitoring Group, Barrister Festus Okoye, told Blueprint Weekend that the lawmakers over stepped their bound by re-ordering the sequence of election. Speaking to our correspondent, Okoye said that ‘’INEC has been given the powers to organize, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the president and vice president, governor and deputy governor, membership of the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly.’’
According to him, to organize elections involves arranging, classifying, regulating, structuring and categorizing elections. Okoye who has been monitoring elections in the last 16 years, argued that the arranging the sequence of election falls within the compass of organizing elections. “Therefore, for the National Assembly to re-order the sequence of elections, they must first of all amend the constitution in order to remove item 15 of the third schedule of the constitution,’’ he further argued.
Continuing, the constitutional lawyer said that, “constitutionally, as at today, its within the rights and powers of INEC to order the sequence of election.”
Significantly, what National Assembly is trying to do, according to him, “will violate the spirit and intent of the constitution.’’ Okoye advised that the only way to go about re-ordering the sequence of election, is to amend the constitution and that entails getting the consent of two-thirds of the state assemblies.
Conversely, if the legislators want to amend the Electoral Act 2010, the president has to assent to it to become effective. Okoye advised President Buhari not ot sign the amendment because “it will amount to a breach of the oath of his office to assent to a legislation that breaches the provisions of the constitution.’’
According to him, ultimately the matter will go to the courts which are there to show us the way, when there is constitutional ambiguity and confusion.’’
President’s men in disarray
However, before the matter gets to the courts, the amendment of the sequence of election has sent jitters to the presidency, a ranking APC member told Blueprint Weekend last Thursday.
According to the source, three options are on the card right now and the first is for the president to veto the bill. “This is fraught with dangers, given that elections are round the corner,’’ he said.
The second option is to rush to court even before the bill is formally transmitted to the president, using some members of the National Assembly. The third option, according to the source, is for the president to sign the bill and allow “matters to be settled at the polls.
We are very confident that the masses will still vote for the president, who is the target of this bill.’’ The coast will become clearer in coming weeks as right now, the president’s men appear to be in a tight corner.
