The clamour for the recall of the senator representing Kogi
West, Dino Melaye brings to the fore a provision of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which has hardly
enjoyed being a subject of discussion in constitutional review.
This provision concerns the power of the electorate to recall
representatives.
Unlike more popular methods of removing officials from office —
such as impeachment and resignation, recall is yet to grab the
people’s attention.
Simply put, recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove
and replace a public official before the end of a term of office.
It is important to add, however, that the power to recall does not
apply against any other arm of government except the legislature.
Thus, only members of the National Assembly may be recalled from
office before the expiration of their tenure by the same people who
elected them.
Accordingly, as one arm of government checks on the other, the
people too can, even after elections, check the excesses of their
representative by calling for the removal of such representative
who they have lost confidence in.
It is perhaps important to add that the power to recall, though
popular around the world, is not found in every democracy in the
world. In fact, it is unknown to the Constitution of the United
States of America. Thus, senators and members of the House of
Representatives in the American Congress cannot be recalled
(although provisions for recall exist in some states in the
US).
Nigeria enshrined this concept into her constitution. In the
1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Sections 69 and 110 provide for the
manner by which a recall may be effected in the federal and state
legislative houses respectively.
Accordingly, Section 69 of the Constitution provides thus: a
member of the Senate or the House of Representatives may be
recalled as such a member if- (a) There is presented to the
Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission a
petition in that behalf signed by more than one-half of the persons
registered to vote in that member’s constituency alleging their
loss of confidence in that member that member; and (b) The petition
is thereafter, in a referendum conducted by the Independent
National Electoral Commission within 90 days of the date of receipt
of the petition, approved by a simple majority of the votes of the
persons registered to vote in that member’s constituency. (Section
110 has an identical provision).
The foregoing provision makes sense.Doesn’t it? If voters
strongly feel that as a representative you are not performing your
role, then they should have the power to recall you. With many
representatives failing across the country to listen to their
constituents (and putting their ambitions first), clearly this
power actually has the potential to force them to remain
accountable to the people.
It is indeed remarkable that our constitution recognises the
fact that it is possible for our representatives to go rogue on us.
That the power to recall is provided for in our constitution ought
to be a “big deal” to Nigerians because it is the only power vested
in the electorate after elections. Also, the exercise of this power
can be initiated by the people as opposed to INEC or any other body
whatsoever. It is a constitutional provision that gives the
electorate a second chance after they realise that they made a bad
choice. Unfortunately, it is not given much or any regard.
This spectacular provision of the law has hardly been put to
test or seen to come to the people’s rescue. Actually, there is no
single case where a member of a legislative house has been
successfully recalled in Nigeria. With all the corruption
allegations, grumblings and complaints about many of our
representatives, does it not surprise you that we have never gotten
around to exercising our power of recall?
The reason for the foregoing anomaly may be found in the
provision itself and that is — the feat of acquiring the signatures
of over 50 per cent of the persons registered to vote in the
concerned member’s constituency. This provision has overtime proven
itself to be difficult to pull off in reality, as mobilising the
required amount of people and gathering their signatures is often a
herculean task.
Thus, this requirement has made it difficult for voters to
recall their representatives even if they were non-performing. This
is why many describe the power of the people to recall as “nothing
but an example of how the government gives you something with one
hand, and takes it back with another.”
However, there is a method which I believe can reverse the trend
without having to wait for another election (which may even be
rigged) in order to vote out a non-performing representative. This
approach would have us regard our constitution as an evolving,
living entity which, by its nature, is capable of responding to
changing social circumstances.
The approach being recommended is this: We should take advantage
of the technological advancements that we enjoy in these times to
solve the problem of exercising the power to recall. With the
Internet literally at our finger tips, the process for recalling a
representative should not be seen as a monstrous task anymore.
Organisation and mass mobilisation now simplified in a way never
seen and there is no reason why our democracy should not enjoy
it.
Thus, if the constitution is read in the light of the current
realities in which we find ourselves, then it would no longer be
difficult to exercise the power to recall. Hence, we must use
technological developments that are available to advance the
exercise of people’s rights and powers.
Consequently, concerning the problem of getting more than half
of the persons registered to vote in a constituency to sign a
petition, it may be a good idea to gather the required signature
using online petition platforms. This is not new; change.org is an
example of such platforms being used by many across the globe.
Perhaps, even the government may set up its own online platform for
this purpose. Apart from being easier, transparent and faster, it
is a lot cheaper than physically rallying up people to participate
in a recall.
If the United States can organise an election that allowed her
citizens to vote from anywhere in the world, it should not be too
difficult for us to use the Internet to acquire signatures for the
purpose of removing a legislator (after all, our courts agree that
e-signatures are signatures). Also, we must not forget that Nigeria
pulled off an election using card readers as opposed to the old
school means and it was held not to have infringed the
constitution.
Perhaps, after a few successful recalls, our constitution might
even be amended to permit a recall of governors or even the
president, especially in instances where the legislature fails to
act on impeachment proceedings.
Lari-Williams, a lawyer, sent this piece from
Lagos
The clamour for the recall of the senator representing Kogi
West, Dino Melaye brings to the fore a provision of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which has hardly
enjoyed being a subject of discussion in constitutional review.
This provision concerns the power of the electorate to recall
representatives.
Unlike more popular methods of removing officials from office —
such as impeachment and resignation, recall is yet to grab the
people’s attention.
Simply put, recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove
and replace a public official before the end of a term of office.
It is important to add, however, that the power to recall does not
apply against any other arm of government except the legislature.
Thus, only members of the National Assembly may be recalled from
office before the expiration of their tenure by the same people who
elected them.
Accordingly, as one arm of government checks on the other, the
people too can, even after elections, check the excesses of their
representative by calling for the removal of such representative
who they have lost confidence in.
It is perhaps important to add that the power to recall, though
popular around the world, is not found in every democracy in the
world. In fact, it is unknown to the Constitution of the United
States of America. Thus, senators and members of the House of
Representatives in the American Congress cannot be recalled
(although provisions for recall exist in some states in the
US).
Nigeria enshrined this concept into her constitution. In the
1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Sections 69 and 110 provide for the
manner by which a recall may be effected in the federal and state
legislative houses respectively.
Accordingly, Section 69 of the Constitution provides thus: a
member of the Senate or the House of Representatives may be
recalled as such a member if- (a) There is presented to the
Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission a
petition in that behalf signed by more than one-half of the persons
registered to vote in that member’s constituency alleging their
loss of confidence in that member that member; and (b) The petition
is thereafter, in a referendum conducted by the Independent
National Electoral Commission within 90 days of the date of receipt
of the petition, approved by a simple majority of the votes of the
persons registered to vote in that member’s constituency. (Section
110 has an identical provision).
The foregoing provision makes sense.Doesn’t it? If voters
strongly feel that as a representative you are not performing your
role, then they should have the power to recall you. With many
representatives failing across the country to listen to their
constituents (and putting their ambitions first), clearly this
power actually has the potential to force them to remain
accountable to the people.
It is indeed remarkable that our constitution recognises the
fact that it is possible for our representatives to go rogue on us.
That the power to recall is provided for in our constitution ought
to be a “big deal” to Nigerians because it is the only power vested
in the electorate after elections. Also, the exercise of this power
can be initiated by the people as opposed to INEC or any other body
whatsoever. It is a constitutional provision that gives the
electorate a second chance after they realise that they made a bad
choice. Unfortunately, it is not given much or any regard.
This spectacular provision of the law has hardly been put to
test or seen to come to the people’s rescue. Actually, there is no
single case where a member of a legislative house has been
successfully recalled in Nigeria. With all the corruption
allegations, grumblings and complaints about many of our
representatives, does it not surprise you that we have never gotten
around to exercising our power of recall?
The reason for the foregoing anomaly may be found in the
provision itself and that is — the feat of acquiring the signatures
of over 50 per cent of the persons registered to vote in the
concerned member’s constituency. This provision has overtime proven
itself to be difficult to pull off in reality, as mobilising the
required amount of people and gathering their signatures is often a
herculean task.
Thus, this requirement has made it difficult for voters to
recall their representatives even if they were non-performing. This
is why many describe the power of the people to recall as “nothing
but an example of how the government gives you something with one
hand, and takes it back with another.”
However, there is a method which I believe can reverse the trend
without having to wait for another election (which may even be
rigged) in order to vote out a non-performing representative. This
approach would have us regard our constitution as an evolving,
living entity which, by its nature, is capable of responding to
changing social circumstances.
The approach being recommended is this: We should take advantage
of the technological advancements that we enjoy in these times to
solve the problem of exercising the power to recall. With the
Internet literally at our finger tips, the process for recalling a
representative should not be seen as a monstrous task anymore.
Organisation and mass mobilisation now simplified in a way never
seen and there is no reason why our democracy should not enjoy
it.
Thus, if the constitution is read in the light of the current
realities in which we find ourselves, then it would no longer be
difficult to exercise the power to recall. Hence, we must use
technological developments that are available to advance the
exercise of people’s rights and powers.
Consequently, concerning the problem of getting more than half
of the persons registered to vote in a constituency to sign a
petition, it may be a good idea to gather the required signature
using online petition platforms. This is not new; change.org is an
example of such platforms being used by many across the globe.
Perhaps, even the government may set up its own online platform for
this purpose. Apart from being easier, transparent and faster, it
is a lot cheaper than physically rallying up people to participate
in a recall.
If the United States can organise an election that allowed her
citizens to vote from anywhere in the world, it should not be too
difficult for us to use the Internet to acquire signatures for the
purpose of removing a legislator (after all, our courts agree that
e-signatures are signatures). Also, we must not forget that Nigeria
pulled off an election using card readers as opposed to the old
school means and it was held not to have infringed the
constitution.
Perhaps, after a few successful recalls, our constitution might
even be amended to permit a recall of governors or even the
president, especially in instances where the legislature fails to
act on impeachment proceedings.
Lari-Williams, a lawyer, sent this piece from
Lagos
Read more https://nairalaw.com/peoples-power-to-recall-representatives/