Nigerians look forward to 2007 with high expectations. It is a crucial election. The failure point of previous republics have always been at conducting free elections. But is there anything to hope for in 2007? The electoral commission seems set up for failure, as THE NEWS claims in this important report.
The success or otherwise of the 2007 election depends on Professor Maurice Iwu, the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman. Can Nigerians depend on him?
The level of distrust that the National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its Chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu, are held by the public came to the fore on Monday 29 May 2006 at the Le Meridien Hotel, Abuja, at a press conference where Iwu planned to keep Nigerians posted on the goings-on within the commission.
After the INEC chairman presented his address, it was time for the question and answer session, moderated by Andy Ezeani, Iwu’s chief press secretary. One after the other, journalists threw their posers, which the INEC boss either tackled or diplomatically avoided like a deadly microbe. It was, however, when Alexis Anielo, the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD) chairman who, like other politicians, was present, asked his own question that trouble started. Anielo, apart from accusing Iwu and his officials of failing to recognise his presence at the gathering, took exception to the INEC boss’ submission on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM).
Anielo said: “Though you said in your speech that INEC, ‘because of an apparent opposition of the National Assembly to EVM, is not insisting on using it in the 2007 election,’ I am apprehensive about the sentence that follows. You said, Mr. Chairman, that with ‘an eye on the future though, the commission will still try and test out the machines with a view to establishing their value.’ This is a round-about way of trying to smuggle back the condemned AVM in 2007. ACD will oppose it with all its energy.”
In his reply, Professor Iwu went ballistic. He illustrated his point with an Indian parable: A boy was effortlessly pulling an adult elephant with a small rope. An adult tourist asked the boy what his secret was. “How can you, a small brat, pull this large beast in such a way?” The boy revealed that when the elephant was young, his family used to tie it to a big tree with a rope, such that when it struggled, it was held tight. Since then, the idea that the elephant should not struggle with any rope has been etched in its prodigious memory.
Iwu said the rope symbolises the suspicion of the electoral body and its chairman, registered permanently in the consciousness of politicians. That angst is, as those who were present observed, worse now that the 2007 elections are approaching. If Iwu felt that Anielo and Nigerians are apprehensive, analysts believe that they have their reasons. These stem from the difficulty in his acting independent of the executive, the manner of Iwu’s appointment, those who nominated him, his somersaults in Anambra State, attempt to force the Electronic Voting Machine on Nigerians and the role he played in the disputed House of Representatives and Senate seats.
Others are his meddlesomeness in the Alliance for Democracy (AD), All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), the Buhari case and other matters. All these fly against the ideals for which INEC was set up. The commission was established in accordance with Section 153(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The functions of the Commission, as stipulated in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution are to:
Organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices 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 the House of Assembly of each state of the Federation; register political parties in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and an Act of the National Assembly.
– Monitor the organisation and operations of the political parties, including their finances;
– Arrange for the annual examination and auditing of the funds and accounts of political parties and publish a report on such examination and audit for public information.
– Conduct the registration of persons qualified to vote as well as prepare, maintain and revise the register of voters for the purpose of any election under the Constitution.
– Monitor political campaigns and provide rules and regulations, which shall govern the political parties, ensure that all Electoral Commissioners, Electoral and Returning Officers take and subscribe to the oath of office prescribed by law. The electoral body will delegate any of its powers to any Resident Electoral Commissioner and carry out such other functions as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly.
The Nature of Iwu’s Appointment Affects His Independence
The manner of Iwu’s appointment, according to Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi, was unconstitutional. He made this observation on 1 June 2005 when the Senate was to ratify the INEC boss’ appointment. “The 1999 Constitution,” in the words of Afikuyomi, “makes it mandatory for the President to consult with the Council of State before appointing the Chairman of INEC. “My investigation showed that the presidency single-handedly chose Iwu. I don’t think it is right for us to confirm Iwu. If we do, we shall be endangering our nascent democracy.”
What helped to exacerbate this suspicion is that Iwu, according to sources, was nominated by the Uba brothers of Anambra State. “This accounts for his disobedience of court orders, refusal to award a certificate of return to Dr. Christian Okeke, as directed by the Appeal court,” an angry Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) member told TheNEWS. Okeke was the candidate fielded by the PDP in the 2003 House of Representatives election for the Idemili North and South Federal constituency, while Chris Uba, ‘‘the godfather in Anambra politics,’’ nominated Jerry Ugokwe.
INEC, however, declared Ugokwe (Uba’s nominee) winner, a result which Okeke challenged at the National Assembly Election Tribunal.
The tribunal annulled the victory of Ugokwe, who challenged the verdict at the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division on 5 May 2005. The court upheld the tribunal’s position. Ugokwe dragged the matter further to the ECOWAS Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice Donli Hanson. The court struck out the case because it lacked the jurisdiction to hear it. Yet, INEC refused to give Okeke his certificate of return, a situation which made Alhaji Bello Masari, the House of Representatives Speaker, to issue INEC with a 14-day ultimatum to give the real winner the documents.
Okeke dragged Iwu to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division on 31 October 2005. The court asked the INEC chairman: “You are hereby required to attend the court on the first mentioned day to show cause why an order for your committal should not be made.” The matter was so serious that the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Bayo Ojo, sent a letter to Iwu on 18 November 2005, requesting Iwu to “please issue the certificate of return to Dr. Christian Okeke.” In the Senate, Uba’s boys who were fraudulently elected were, after the tribunal’s verdict, shown the way out. That is why Senator I. Abana was replaced by Senator Ben Obi while Senator Joy Emordi replaced Senator Emmanuel Anosike. On these matters, Iwu told TheNEWS (see interview) that as soon as INEC knew that the battle was becoming endless, it “signed Okeke’s certificate of return and he has since joined his colleagues at the lower chamber of the National Assembly.”
The Anambra Saga
Another cause for worry is INEC’s volte face in the Anambra governorship election, which critics have linked to the Uba/Obasanjo influence. For as long as the war between former Governor Chris Ngige (Uba’s estranged godson) and Peter Obi, his APGA challenger lasted, INEC supported Obi. Fortunately for Obi, the Anambra Election Petitions Tribunal awarded him victory. As soon as Uba’s bogeyman, Ngige, was out of the way, INEC went into its bag of tricks and headed for the chambers of Dr. O. Babalakin, who filed a cross appeal against the tribunal’s verdict, praying that the 19 April 2003 governorship election be cancelled and another election conducted.
“The irregularities were substantial and they sufficiently made the election invalid on the grounds that it did not follow the provisions and principles of the Electoral Act 2002,” Babalakin submitted on behalf of INEC. Babalakin asked the court to set aside the declaration contained in the judgement of the Governorship and Legislative House Election Tribunal that Peter Obi was validly and duly elected and returned as the Governor of Anambra State, having scored/polled the highest/majority of lawful votes cast.” INEC also sought an order nullifying or invalidating the governorship election on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 179 of the constitution and an order that a fresh election be held or conducted.
INEC’s counsel maintained that Obi did not meet the requirement of Section 179(2) of the constitution. He added that although the tribunal found that he scored at least one quarter of the votes cast in 15 councils, on evaluation of the evidence, there were at least two of the 15 councils where Obi did not score the required one quarter of all the votes. “To satisfy section 179(2) of the constitution, Obi needed to score at least one quarter of the votes cast in each of at least 14 local government areas of the state and the decision of the learned judge of the tribunal was against the weight of the evidence.”
Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, counsel to Obi, reacted that INEC’s appeal was unheard of and absurd. “A party that went to court to declare that their results were unassailable is now in court saying they are not. I think the first thing they ought to do is to institute an internal investigation and find out the culprits... I can detect a glaring case of inconsistency and people can’t subscribe to diametrically opposed positions. It is totally absurd.” Iwu, however, told TheNEWS: “The Anambra case was just a bad case of the 36 states. For me, it was a pass mark for Nigeria because there was confusion and long litigation only in Anambra governorship election. Chris Ngige did not win election. It is only in Nigeria that somebody who rigged election would be bold and talk as if he had the mandate of the people.’’
Iwu’s critics are ready to point to his “reversal of fundamental principles of granting political parties recognition.” After becoming chairman, Iwu recognised the Victor Umeh faction of APGA. Umeh is an acolyte of Peter Obi who was giving Ngige hell. Ngige was said to be close to Chekwas Okorie, another factional leader of the party. In this case, as watchers of Anambra politics put it, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Plateau Recall Process (Lalong And Mantu)
Plateau State, critics posit, is another case of how Iwu can be an interested party in a dispute. In this matter, the hand of Obasanjo whose relationship with Governor Joshua Dariye has not been cordial was visible. Dariye was arrested in London for alleged money laundering but escaped to Nigeria where he has immunity against prosecution. To be able to prosecute the governor, he had to be impeached, a process which is the responsibility of the Plateau State legislature, chaired by the Speaker, Solomon Lalong. Unlike Bayelsa State where the state assembly left former Governor Dieprieye Alamieyeseigha helpless like a beached whale, the Plateau legislature refused to impeach Dariye. For this, Solomon Lalong had to go, through a recall, constitutionally preceded by a plebiscite.
But in August 2005, the Jos High Court, in a ruling, restrained INEC from conducting the referendum, pending the determination of the suit. Iwu, however, went ahead to conduct the referendum on 28 August last year. Fortunately for Lalong, he polled 74 per cent of the total 41,859 votes to defeat those who wanted to kick him out. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) condemned INEC for conducting the plebiscite, despite the court order. A political analyst, Basirat Abbass, condemned the INEC boss: “Iwu’s brazen flouting of court order was because the Presidency had more than a passing interest in the failed move to recall Lalong from the Plateau State legislature. Lalong is a supporter of Governor Dariye whom the presidency is desperate to remove from office by all means. In other words, Lalong is guilty by association and the main target in the recall plot was actually Dariye.”
Critics charged that the same Iwu who, in spite of a court injunction conducted a referendum for the recall of Lalong, refused to do the same in the recall process of Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, apostle of Obasanjo’s third term. On 14 December 2005, the Plateau Central Senatorial District, led by Chief Joseph Din, a businessman, submitted a petition to INEC seeking Mantu’s recall. His petition was accompanied with 208,000 signatures and thumbprints. Din’s reason was that Mantu allegedly engaged in “anti-people activities.”
When Iwu received the document, he promised to complete the recall process within the constitutionally stipulated 90 days. This is in accordance with Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution, requiring that the recall of a National Assembly member should be completed within 90 days after INEC has received a petition. When INEC fixed the verification of signatures for 4 March 2006, a Federal High Court in Jos ruled against the move. But when the court vacated the order on 15 March, it asked INEC to fix another date. The matter dragged on till the collapse of the third term bid.
The Buhari/Obasanjo Case
In the case involving President Obasanjo and General Muhammadu Buhari, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) presidential candidate in the 2003 election, INEC showed its bias when it failed to present certain facts/instances of electoral malpractices as demanded by the Court of Appeal. This also brings to mind the Appeal Court judgement read by Justice S.A. Nsofor on the Obasanjo/Buhari case: “I find that the substantial non-compliance with the mandatory electoral law amounts to no election. I also find that there was violence perpetrated by President Obasanjo and INEC.
In Adamawa State, there was massive rigging, malpractice and violence using law enforcement agencies.” The justice said deployment of soldiers and police was to intimidate innocent electorate as alleged by the petitioners (Maj. Gen. Buhari and ANPP). ‘‘If not, why is it that no PDP member was killed or shot? Six innocent Nigerians were shot dead in police station. Others were wounded. All were ANPP members. Why is it that the law enforcement agencies turned their eyes from the various atrocities inflicted on innocent Nigerians by the army and the police?... Why is it that INEC did nothing and said nothing about it too?... May Nigeria never and never again see a black Saturday like April 19, 2003.’’
Lack Of Financial Autonomy
He who pays the piper, as the saying goes, calls the tune. This, in the view of critics exposes INEC to manipulation, since it is financed by the Executive which, if it likes, can turn off the monetary faucet. In other words, the ruling PDP can use INEC as it pleases. Right now, INEC still relies on the presidency for funds. Last month, the commission had not received up to 10 per cent of its 2006 approved budget, a situation that delayed the electoral pilot schemes that INEC ought to have embarked upon.
Last month, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora was so worried that he called on the upper legislative chamber to direct its committee on INEC “to assess the level of funding INEC has enjoyed and determine whether same is adequate and in accordance with the Appropriation Act 2002 and send to the Senate in two weeks.” But his idea was not accepted. INEC’s financial problem is, according to observers, “an attempt to, alongside the delay in passing the Electoral Act, weaken and make its manipulation easy.” Iwu himself told TheNEWS exclusively that “funding is not the problem per se but the release of funds.”
Alhaji Balarabe Musa, expressing fear that Nigeria may be subjected to the experience of 2003 again by this government, asked: “Tell me, why would government deliberately refuse to release money to INEC to carry out voters’ register update? It is not that the money is not there. This was the same thing they did in 2003. We have been shouting that INEC should be made to have financial autonomy. Election is just a few months away and they are still talking about having money to create public awareness, update voters’ register, etc. It is bad, it is a ploy, it is deliberate.”
Also, Chief Victor Umeh, acting National Chairman of All Progressives Grand Alliance, APGA said: “I have always told Nigerians that it amounts to chasing shadows when we leave the main issue to criticise just because we want to criticise. We ought to come out now to mount pressure on the Federal Government to release money to INEC so that it can do all it is expected to do before the elections. It is only when it gets the money and fails to work that we can criticise those in charge of the commission. We should support everything that will make us have free and fair elections in 2007.”
Yinka Odumakin, Afenifere publicity secretary argued that any follower of electoral processes in Nigeria would easily know that the greatest bane of free and fair election in Nigeria has been the absence of a fair umpire not tied to the apron strings of the incumbent.”
Solution
Mobolaji Aluko, a professor of Chemical Engineering, suggested that INEC be funded as a first direct charge from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. He added that he supported the “proposed constitutional amendment to Section 81 of the 1999 Constitution which adds a Section 6 that reads viz: ‘Any amount standing to the credit of the Independent National Electoral Commission in the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall be paid directly to the Commission.” A new and similar Section 5 providing a level of financial independence is also being proposed for the National Assembly. A similar Section 3 already exists in the 1999 Constitution with respect to the National Judicial Council.”
Making INEC Independent
The lack of this, according to political analysts, is why all electoral commissions in Nigeria have failed. However, concerned Nigerians have suggested ways out. According to Aluko, INEC should be removed from under the Executive branch and placed under the Judiciary. He argues that only the Judiciary does not have a direct stake in elections in Nigeria.” To achieve impartiality and improve citizens’ confidence, the chairman of INEC, he urged, should be a sitting or retired judge chosen by the Chief Justice of the Federation (see box). Senator Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa on his part also submitted that INEC should compose of members of other political parties.
Meddling in AD Affairs
Critics of Iwu also accuse him of meddlesomeness in the affairs of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). When the party organised its 2003 convention at Onikan Stadium in Lagos, INEC sent a team, led by Dr. Ishmail Igbani as observers. INEC, thereafter, recognised Chief Bisi Akande as chairman, based on the report of the Igbani-led team.
After the exit of the former INEC chairman, Dr. Abel Guobadia, Iwu, who was also part of the INEC top echelon, made a U-turn and recognised Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa as chairman.
System Of Voting
What further raised the anxiety of Nigerians about the INEC boss was his proposal to adopt the electronic voting system (EVS) in 2007. On 16 March 2006, when Iwu declared open a meeting with his 36 state commissioners, he said INEC had resolved to use the EVS. “The EVS,” according to him, “is still very much a part and parcel of our plans for the 2007 elections. The pilot of the EVM is going on. The fact remains also that the decision of what method to adopt in conducting an election is vested by the constitution in the commission. It is important to make these clarifications so that you will gain a chirper grasp of the issues involved.”
In its statement, the National Democratic Institute Pre-election Delegation to Nigeria, led by its President, Kenneth Wollack, said one issue that has generated particular debate is electronic voting. The team found that electronic voting and related technologies would be introduced into the 2007 election process. Public skepticism as reflected by both political party and civil society leaders who discussed the subject with the delegation’s various teams, appears high concerning such electronic technology.
Reasons cited for skepticism include concerns about lack of transparency and inability of political competitors to examine and verify the integrity of such technologies, worries about consequences of the country’s unpredictable power supply, the level of education of the country’s electorate, and the vulnerability of such technologies to manipulation. INEC informed the delegation that electronic voting will only take place on a “pilot” basis in select polling sites. This does not appear to be widely known.” Iwu himself said in Abuja last week that with an eye on the future though, the commission will try and test out the mechanics with a view to establishing their values...
Critics said this means INEC has not totally dropped the idea.
However, the Afenifere believes that Nigeria is not yet settled to the point of adopting e-voting as it is prone to a lot of problems. “Even in an advanced democracy like the US which has a high level of literacy, e-voting has generated a lot of heat to the point that states like California have banned its use,” it said.
Solution
Many Nigerians have suggested Option A4 as the best, given its success in the 2003 presidential election. Professor Mobolaji Aluko, in his essay, Roadmap for Successful 2007 Elections in Nigeria, wrote: “The Modified Open Ballot System (MOBS) option of June 12, 1993 presidential election where voters are admitted to line up over a fixed period of time behind the ballot box of their favoured candidate – and then voting commenced - has its laudable merits and ardent followers. However it compromises secrecy. Aluko suggests some measure of secrecy in the Option A4.
Election Time Table
This is one of the major issues generating fear that Iwu may be up to some subterfuge. INEC recently announced that next year’s elections will hold between 7 and 28 April 2007. Politicians believe that the short period will not allow for proper preparation for incoming office holders. According to the Turaki Vanguard Worldwide, the timetable is neither feasible nor workable. “It is strange that while the nation still reels from the effects of some people exercising potentially unearned mandate three years into a four-year tenure because of delays in resolving the legal disputes, INEC decides to conduct the Presidential poll on April 29, 2007 just one month to the hand-over date. This definitely would not guarantee a free and fair election.
Many Nigerians are wondering just why Professor Iwu’s INEC does not want to conduct the presidential election in February, for example, just like the military government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar?
To the Turaki Vanguard, INEC’s schedule is lopsided and seems calculated to achieve a hidden agenda. “We, therefore, urge all Nigerians to resist this. We also call on INEC to try to demonstrate that it is more than a mere department of the ruling PDP. It needs to make Nigerians have faith in its actions and President Obasanjo’s responsibility to complete a smooth transition to another elected leader devoid of crisis.
INEC’s flawed timetable and “Professor Iwu’s insistence on going ahead with it even as a new electoral Act is being awaited shows that he cannot be trusted to conduct free and fair elections in 2007.”
An alarm has also been raised by the anti-third term members of the National Assembly’s “2007 Movement” that INEC was working secretly for Obasanjo to remain beyond 2007. In a press conference on Thursday 1 June 2006, the body condemned INEC’s election timetable (7 to 28 April 2007), arguing that it negates Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.
“The outline of the electoral schedule by INEC,” according to Senator Uche Chukwumerije, “2007 Movement” Chairman, “compromises the spirit of the constitution. If INEC limits its election time-table to this straight jacket, the prospects of a regime change on 29 May 2007 will be dim.” The Movement submitted further: “In a situation where the constitutional stipulation of conclusive presidential election 30 days before the expiration of the incumbent’s tenure is violated... automatically means tenure elongation for the incumbent.”
Way Forward
The 2007 Movement proposes that INEC conduct elections and run-off elections between 29 March and 14 April. “Any election timetable short of this is inconsistent with sub-section 134 and sub-sections 3,4 and 5 of Section 79 of the 1999 Constitution. Prof. Aluko said that Nigerians hope that all these elections would be systematically staggered such that not all the presidential election, the 36 states gubernatorial elections, 109 federal senate seats, 360 Federal House seats, over 600 state assembly seats and 8810 local government councilorships are held only every four years within a one-month “election carnival” period that can overwhelm INEC.
Aluko suggests “differential term lengths – e.g. three years for LGs, four years for legislative assemblies and a six-year one-term-maximum period for the presidency, coupled with a deliberate mechanical division of constituencies into different start and end of terms – would keep the NEC and SECs constantly busy year-by-year, and make elections more routine than the desperate carnival that it presently is.”
Election Monitors
At a stakeholders’ forum in Abuja last year, Iwu was asked to issue guidelines for foreign monitors of the 2007 polls. The INEC boss was reported as saying that allowing foreign monitors was akin to unnecessary interference in Nigeria’s electoral process. Though Iwu modified his statement, preferring observers, Professor Wole Soyinka said there was no difference between “observe” and “monitor”. Iwu’s remarks, according to Soyinka, “shows that he neither has the training nor the experience required to effectively midwife our electoral system. I wish he resigns.”
Solution
Aluko suggested that independent (local, national and international) monitors and/or observers “must be an integral part of election administration, and not considered a necessary nuisance. The deliberate use of hundreds of Diaspora Nigerians as accredited observers/monitors by INEC should be seriously considered here.”
The Electoral Bill
The controversy as to whether or not to use the electronic voting machine has been settled in the recently passed 2006 Electoral bill. The harmonised version of the bill, which was passed last month by the National Assembly provides that, “the use of electronic voting machine (EVM) for the time being is prohibited.” Besides, the bill contains a clause that contradicts Section 132.
2) On the portion of the 1999 Constitution which says that the election of president should be held “not earlier than 60 days and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of the office,” the new bill increased the time line from 60 days as stipulated by the constitution to 150 days.
But observers believe the time line as contained in the new bill may cause constitutional crisis since it is incongruous with Section 132 of the 1999 Constitution if that section is not amended to blend with the 2006 bill.
Solution
Senator David Brigidi, Chairman of the Joint Conference Committee on the bill said his committee merely amended the House of Representatives earlier rejection of the EVM by including the clause... “For the time being prohibited.” He also hinted that the committee increased the time line of elections to strenghten democracy. “Secondly, the committee resolved the difference in the time for submission of nominated candidates by settling for a time line of 120 days before that date appointed for elections. The committee also resolved that the Senate’s position of a minimum of six months to the date of the next general elections should be the time allowed for registration and merger of political parties,” Brigidi stressed. In line with the Supreme Court judgment vesting the powers of sequencing elections on INEC, the committee equally gave the nod to the commission to determine the order of elections.
Electoral Violence/Rigging
The 22 April 2006 by-election in Ekiti State has generated a lot of controversy, putting a serious question mark on the ability of Professor Iwu to conduct a free and fair election. That was when a former military administrator of Bayelsa State, Navy Captain Olubolade (retd) was brutalised. Dr. Kayode Fayemi, an AD gubernatorial aspirant in the state, said what happened that day has brought into clear relief that a leopard hardly changes its spots. INEC, according to him, has proved itself to be the handmaiden of the executive branch of government in every sense. Fayemi painted an ominous picture of what happened that gives the greatest inkling of what to expect in 2007.
Solution
A governorship aspirant suggests that “all lovers of peace and democracy – including our people outside Nigeria – must work assiduously to ensure free, fair, and non-violent elections all over Nigeria in 2007. If nothing else, the most important legacy that President Obasanjo could bequeath the nation right now is not even the entrenchment of current economic reform, which everyone talks about, but the guarantee of a free, fair and credible election in 2007.”
