The National Assembly has made major amendments to the
Electoral Act 2010 ahead of the 2019 polls, a step that has
expectedly raised dust, writes JOHN
AMEH
The Senate and the House tinkered with 156 clauses in the
electoral law, and in some cases, introduced entirely new ones. It
was the House of Representatives that first passed the clauses on
January 23, followed by the Senate a week later.
However, of all the amendments, none has either generated
interest or heated up the political environment like the new
Section 25 introduced into the Act, which purpose is to re-order
the sequence of elections in 2019.
In the extant order, which was used in 2015, the Presidential
and National Assembly elections were paired to come first ahead of
other polls. But in the reversed order, just passed by the
legislature, the presidential poll will now come last after the
National Assembly polls and others would have been decided.
The new Section 25(1) states, “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; presidential election.
“The dates for these elections shall be as appointed by the
Independent National Electoral Commission.”
The amendment is coming under 12 months to the next general
elections, where the sitting President Muhammadu Buhari is likely
to contest and remains the candidate to beat. It is understandable
why the change in the election sequence has become a huge
issue.
Opinions are remarkably divided on this re-working of the
election sequence, with a tilt in the argument suggesting that the
target of the re-ordering of the polls timetable is Buhari, a
President whose performance rating has so far left much to be
desired. Interestingly, even among members of the National
Assembly, who passed the amendment, not everyone is on the same
page.
In the Senate in particular, some 10 aggrieved lawmakers have
not hidden their feelings and have openly told the majority of
their colleagues that Buhari was the target of the dangerous
amendment.
The senators are Abdullahi Adamu (Nasarawa West), Abu Ibrahim
(Katsina North), Abdullahi Gumel (Jigawa North), Ali Wakili (Bauchi
South), Binta Masi Garba (Adamawa North), Ovie Omo Agege (Delta
Central), Umar Kurfi (Katsina Central), Andrew Uchendu (Rivers
East), Benjamin Uwajumogu (Imo North), and Abdullahi Yahaya (Kebbi
North).
“You don’t make a law targeted at one person. The perception out
there is that this Section 25 was included to target Mr.
President,” Omo-Agege summarised the position of his
colleagues.
It is no longer news that the senators staged a walkout from the
chambers, the day the controversial amendment was passed, just
weeks after the Independent National Electoral Commission released
the timetable for the 2019 polls. Ironically, in INEC’s timetable,
the presidential election is scheduled to come first!
Although, Omo-Agege had on Wednesday withdrawn his comments and
apologised to the Senate, the message was not lost on Nigerians
that while the majority of senators adopted the amendment, some
colleagues still ‘smelt a rat’.
Incidentally, analysts say election sequence has had a back and
forth movement since the 1979 elections in the country. For
instance, during the 1979 polls, the election to the Senate came
first on July 7, 1979, followed by that of the President on August
11.
In 1983, it was the President first, the Senate second and the
House of Representatives, third in that order. In 1992, those of
the Senate and House of Representatives were held first on July 4,
1992, while that of the President was held last on June 12, 1993 in
that transition period.
As for 1999, state Houses of Assembly, Senate/Reps came first,
while the governorship and presidential polls were held on February
27, 1999. In 2003, it followed the same sequence. But, in 2007, it
was state Houses of Assembly/governors first, then followed by
National Assembly/Presidential.
In 2011, the pattern was state assemblies/National Assembly and
governors/president in that order. Then finally in 2015, it was
National Assembly/President first and state assemblies/governors
last.
The foregoing is an indication that the issue of re-ordering
election sequence is not entirely new in the country’s political
terrain.
It is not surprising that the majority of lawmakers in both the
Senate and the House have defended the amendment as harmless and
not targeted at any individual. They claim that if anything, it is
to “deepen the beauty of democracy,” where candidates must freely
go out to market themselves and win the votes of the electorate
based on their own popularity.
The lawmakers also argue that the amendment falls squarely
within the constitutional role of the National Assembly to make
laws for the good governance of the country as enshrined in the
1999 Constitution (as amended).
Yet, observers say this argument, as appealing as it may sound,
leaves an unfilled gap in the role prescribed for INEC in the same
constitution, as the independent umpire in the electoral process
with the sole responsibility of fixing the dates of elections.
A member of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Mr. Douye
Diri, justifies the amendment and tries to clarify that it will, in
no way, interfere with the duty of INEC to fix election dates or
carry out its general duties as an electoral body.
“You will agree with me that there were a lot of people riding
on the popularity of the President, including most of us who are
members of the National Assembly. So, by this separation, some of
them, who are not popular, who are thinking that Buhari is a man of
integrity and so when I go under Buhari, I will win my election,
they will have a problem to face.
I am really surprised when people say that there is an ulterior
motive. I don’t see any ulterior motive. I believe that those who
are saying this have a skeleton in the cupboard. Nobody is
targeting the President.”
But, a front-line member of the Social Democratic Party, Mr.
John Dara, completely disagrees with the National Assembly.
Dara describes the amendment as “self-serving” and a ploy by the
lawmakers to abandon Buhari, whom they now see as a ‘bad product’
to market successfully in 2019.
“The amendment is self-serving and everyone knows that they did
that amendment for their own interest. In the past, they rode on
the shoulders of the President to win election.
“I think they are probably taking precautions that they have a
person who is not likely to be marketable this time round. So they
want to have their own election first and leave the President to
decide his own fate,” he states.
“The fact that the National Assembly’s position can create a
conflict in the constitution, either party may have to resort to
court to settle this matter,” Dara adds.
A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Dr. Pius Okiokpe, expresses
concern over whether Buhari will assent to the amendment bill or
not.
He argues that should the President go ahead and sign the bill,
INEC’s options will become limited as it will either goes to court
to challenge the enforcement/interpretation of the law or the
umpire has to implement it.
Okiokpe says, “What I see is that time is of essence. By the
provisions of the constitution, a bill passed by the National
Assembly does not become a law until the President appends his
signature to it.”
Giving her own perspective, a member of the Senate, Senator
Biodun Olujimi, insists that INEC’s power to fix the dates of
elections has not been tampered with by the amendment.
Olujimi stated, “INEC has the independence to fix dates of
elections, which has not been tampered with by this amendment. But,
the National Assembly can reorder the elections. These are two
different issues.
“Again, we must stop this idea of jumping from one party to
another after the elections just because the presidential election
was decided first and everybody now wants to be in the same party
with the President.
“Let our work speak for us; it’s important to win your unit and
ward on your own as proof that you are really the candidate of the
people.”
But the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy
Centre, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani, holds a contrary view.
Rafsanjani argues that what the National Assembly has succeeded
in doing is to “usurp” the powers of INEC as the independent
electoral umpire.
Besides, he recalls that the Supreme Court once settled the
matter when it declared that there should be no interference with
the duties of INEC by another arm of government.
He added, “Much as CISLAC believes in legislative autonomy, we
will not support this amendment because it does not promote
democracy. It is tantamount to taking over the powers of INEC,
which is not democratic.
“We advise the National Assembly to do the appropriate thing by
reconsidering this amendment and to comply with the position of the
Supreme Court not to interfere with the work of INEC.
“Even the National Assembly, particularly the House of
Representatives, breached its own internal rules by not meeting the
one-third requirement of 120 members before passing the amendment.
Only 35 members sat, which did not meet the number.”
It remains to be seen in whose direction the pendulum will swing
in the weeks and months ahead. But clearly, the choices before INEC
may reduce to hoping the President doesn’t sign the bill; depending
on political horse-trading; and the unpredictable pronouncement of
the judiciary!
The National Assembly has made major amendments to the
Electoral Act 2010 ahead of the 2019 polls, a step that has
expectedly raised dust, writes JOHN
AMEH
The Senate and the House tinkered with 156 clauses in the
electoral law, and in some cases, introduced entirely new ones. It
was the House of Representatives that first passed the clauses on
January 23, followed by the Senate a week later.
However, of all the amendments, none has either generated
interest or heated up the political environment like the new
Section 25 introduced into the Act, which purpose is to re-order
the sequence of elections in 2019.
In the extant order, which was used in 2015, the Presidential
and National Assembly elections were paired to come first ahead of
other polls. But in the reversed order, just passed by the
legislature, the presidential poll will now come last after the
National Assembly polls and others would have been decided.
The new Section 25(1) states, “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; presidential election.
“The dates for these elections shall be as appointed by the
Independent National Electoral Commission.”
The amendment is coming under 12 months to the next general
elections, where the sitting President Muhammadu Buhari is likely
to contest and remains the candidate to beat. It is understandable
why the change in the election sequence has become a huge
issue.
Opinions are remarkably divided on this re-working of the
election sequence, with a tilt in the argument suggesting that the
target of the re-ordering of the polls timetable is Buhari, a
President whose performance rating has so far left much to be
desired. Interestingly, even among members of the National
Assembly, who passed the amendment, not everyone is on the same
page.
In the Senate in particular, some 10 aggrieved lawmakers have
not hidden their feelings and have openly told the majority of
their colleagues that Buhari was the target of the dangerous
amendment.
The senators are Abdullahi Adamu (Nasarawa West), Abu Ibrahim
(Katsina North), Abdullahi Gumel (Jigawa North), Ali Wakili (Bauchi
South), Binta Masi Garba (Adamawa North), Ovie Omo Agege (Delta
Central), Umar Kurfi (Katsina Central), Andrew Uchendu (Rivers
East), Benjamin Uwajumogu (Imo North), and Abdullahi Yahaya (Kebbi
North).
“You don’t make a law targeted at one person. The perception out
there is that this Section 25 was included to target Mr.
President,” Omo-Agege summarised the position of his
colleagues.
It is no longer news that the senators staged a walkout from the
chambers, the day the controversial amendment was passed, just
weeks after the Independent National Electoral Commission released
the timetable for the 2019 polls. Ironically, in INEC’s timetable,
the presidential election is scheduled to come first!
Although, Omo-Agege had on Wednesday withdrawn his comments and
apologised to the Senate, the message was not lost on Nigerians
that while the majority of senators adopted the amendment, some
colleagues still ‘smelt a rat’.
Incidentally, analysts say election sequence has had a back and
forth movement since the 1979 elections in the country. For
instance, during the 1979 polls, the election to the Senate came
first on July 7, 1979, followed by that of the President on August
11.
In 1983, it was the President first, the Senate second and the
House of Representatives, third in that order. In 1992, those of
the Senate and House of Representatives were held first on July 4,
1992, while that of the President was held last on June 12, 1993 in
that transition period.
As for 1999, state Houses of Assembly, Senate/Reps came first,
while the governorship and presidential polls were held on February
27, 1999. In 2003, it followed the same sequence. But, in 2007, it
was state Houses of Assembly/governors first, then followed by
National Assembly/Presidential.
In 2011, the pattern was state assemblies/National Assembly and
governors/president in that order. Then finally in 2015, it was
National Assembly/President first and state assemblies/governors
last.
The foregoing is an indication that the issue of re-ordering
election sequence is not entirely new in the country’s political
terrain.
It is not surprising that the majority of lawmakers in both the
Senate and the House have defended the amendment as harmless and
not targeted at any individual. They claim that if anything, it is
to “deepen the beauty of democracy,” where candidates must freely
go out to market themselves and win the votes of the electorate
based on their own popularity.
The lawmakers also argue that the amendment falls squarely
within the constitutional role of the National Assembly to make
laws for the good governance of the country as enshrined in the
1999 Constitution (as amended).
Yet, observers say this argument, as appealing as it may sound,
leaves an unfilled gap in the role prescribed for INEC in the same
constitution, as the independent umpire in the electoral process
with the sole responsibility of fixing the dates of elections.
A member of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Mr. Douye
Diri, justifies the amendment and tries to clarify that it will, in
no way, interfere with the duty of INEC to fix election dates or
carry out its general duties as an electoral body.
“You will agree with me that there were a lot of people riding
on the popularity of the President, including most of us who are
members of the National Assembly. So, by this separation, some of
them, who are not popular, who are thinking that Buhari is a man of
integrity and so when I go under Buhari, I will win my election,
they will have a problem to face.
I am really surprised when people say that there is an ulterior
motive. I don’t see any ulterior motive. I believe that those who
are saying this have a skeleton in the cupboard. Nobody is
targeting the President.”
But, a front-line member of the Social Democratic Party, Mr.
John Dara, completely disagrees with the National Assembly.
Dara describes the amendment as “self-serving” and a ploy by the
lawmakers to abandon Buhari, whom they now see as a ‘bad product’
to market successfully in 2019.
“The amendment is self-serving and everyone knows that they did
that amendment for their own interest. In the past, they rode on
the shoulders of the President to win election.
“I think they are probably taking precautions that they have a
person who is not likely to be marketable this time round. So they
want to have their own election first and leave the President to
decide his own fate,” he states.
“The fact that the National Assembly’s position can create a
conflict in the constitution, either party may have to resort to
court to settle this matter,” Dara adds.
A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Dr. Pius Okiokpe, expresses
concern over whether Buhari will assent to the amendment bill or
not.
He argues that should the President go ahead and sign the bill,
INEC’s options will become limited as it will either goes to court
to challenge the enforcement/interpretation of the law or the
umpire has to implement it.
Okiokpe says, “What I see is that time is of essence. By the
provisions of the constitution, a bill passed by the National
Assembly does not become a law until the President appends his
signature to it.”
Giving her own perspective, a member of the Senate, Senator
Biodun Olujimi, insists that INEC’s power to fix the dates of
elections has not been tampered with by the amendment.
Olujimi stated, “INEC has the independence to fix dates of
elections, which has not been tampered with by this amendment. But,
the National Assembly can reorder the elections. These are two
different issues.
“Again, we must stop this idea of jumping from one party to
another after the elections just because the presidential election
was decided first and everybody now wants to be in the same party
with the President.
“Let our work speak for us; it’s important to win your unit and
ward on your own as proof that you are really the candidate of the
people.”
But the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy
Centre, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani, holds a contrary view.
Rafsanjani argues that what the National Assembly has succeeded
in doing is to “usurp” the powers of INEC as the independent
electoral umpire.
Besides, he recalls that the Supreme Court once settled the
matter when it declared that there should be no interference with
the duties of INEC by another arm of government.
He added, “Much as CISLAC believes in legislative autonomy, we
will not support this amendment because it does not promote
democracy. It is tantamount to taking over the powers of INEC,
which is not democratic.
“We advise the National Assembly to do the appropriate thing by
reconsidering this amendment and to comply with the position of the
Supreme Court not to interfere with the work of INEC.
“Even the National Assembly, particularly the House of
Representatives, breached its own internal rules by not meeting the
one-third requirement of 120 members before passing the amendment.
Only 35 members sat, which did not meet the number.”
It remains to be seen in whose direction the pendulum will swing
in the weeks and months ahead. But clearly, the choices before INEC
may reduce to hoping the President doesn’t sign the bill; depending
on political horse-trading; and the unpredictable pronouncement of
the judiciary!
Read more https://nairalaw.com/inecs-unpredictable-options-amid-poll-re-ordering/