By Willy Eya
Human rights activist and social crusader, Mr Mike Igini was, until recently, the Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, for Cross River and Edo States respectively. In this interview, he spoke on various issues including his assessment of the recently concluded elections in the United States.
You have just returned from the US to monitor the election. The outcome came as a shock to the whole world.
Are you also surprised?
Well, the outcome appears to have gone against most of the polling expectations as well as the generally held assessment and views about the candidates that should have won the election. On my part, having been involved in the task of conducting elections as an umpire like many others across the world who went to observe the election, our focus, interest and take away was the process, whether it was transparent, credible and if it delivered a free and fair outcome, and not necessarily about who should have won. It is part of the expected professionalism, to always keep the eyes on the process and leave the matter of choice and outcomes entirely in the hands of voters. In all situations, focus should be the need to ensure procedural certainty that all stakeholders have confidence in, to deliver substantive uncertainty of outcome, which is one of the key characteristics of democratic elections.
Is the world about to witness a decline of US democracy given the disposition and idiosyncrasies of the president-elect towards immigrants and gender insensitivity, yet, he won the election?
There are concerns by various racial groups within America and even beyond, particularly the minority, over the Trump presidency, given his rhetorics and the kind of values he espoused all through his campaigns. In any event, however, one feels about the worldviews of the American President-Elect, it must be remembered that the American people elected him following their accepted processes of securing over the mandatory 270 delegates’ Electoral College votes of the 538 obtainable and not necessarily the popular votes which Hillary Clinton secured. The latter condition is the established outcome requirement which all election participants, candidates as well as voters subscribed to, prior to the election. The American people understand that within the next four years, they must allow the choice that the electoral college votes has delivered through the ballot, to play out in terms of policies, and where they find things they cannot accommodate; there are institutional processes, checks and balance to even fire elected officials or for expressing displeasure. I feel the world should respect this fact and adopt the attitude of wait and see, and indeed, observe how the reality of governance plays out with the rhetorics of campaign promises. This expectation should also be the standard for other democracies; no democracy is flawless, it is often work in progress, but the ultimate goal of human development must never be forgotten, elected office holders only help countries to achieve the goal of development by the quality of their policy choices. Sometimes they advance the goal of collective development, sometimes they don’t, but there will always be opportunities for other choices by the next election, as long as voters are the ultimate deciders.
What do you make of what appears to be a global citizens’ anger toward their governments and the rise of populism and its dangers to the global community?
The growing global dissatisfaction and anger by citizens is an indication that political leaderships around the world have become complacent in the set modes of governance, whereas the challenges facing the people have evolved. Unlike previously, where it takes days and weeks even within a country for issues of collective interest or survival amongst people or even events to get to people and to different parts of the world, currently people have real-time awareness and assessments of issues or events of common interest, thus they are able to organise and mobilize for action towards the achievement of that goal. So as new actors offer new variants, such as theocratic governance, extreme or marginal nationalism, like the Trump phenomenon that has racial profiling and the economic narrative of job creation for Americans, as well as the promise of guaranteed “stomach infastructure” in a manner of speaking, many Americans were tempted to say; why not? This may be why they moved against issues of morality and the language of inclusive political correctness, which is the Hillary Clinton message of globalization.
Do you think Donald Trump can deliver on the various promises that galvanised the electorates for his victory?
It is preposterous and indeed premature to make any statement on that for now, but going back to the history of populism and the Trump phenomenon on his promises, such as deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, building walls that Mexico would pay for, it may be that, just as Cepras of Greece who swept electoral victory by over-promising only to confront reality afterwards. Characteristically, there are certain common features about populists which are a tendency to over-promise in the face of limited resources and lack of competences that may lead to adoption of extreme measures that may eventually impact negatively on institutional integrity. While admittedly some countries have provided reasonable levels of satisfactory responsiveness to the collective aspirations of their country folks, using the established two models l earlier told you, others have not even begun to address even the most minuscule basic needs of their people. In all, we should bear in mind that it is impossible to please everyone even where great efforts have been expended to meet the collective aspirations. It is in recognition of the need to find models that work most of the time, to meet such collective needs and aspirations that several efforts have been made to define development and its principal attributes, as well as the pre-conditions which enable or sustain it. But clearly not only does more efforts need to be expended in these initiatives, more important, leaders need to listen to the people and identify their real needs, think creatively about how to apply such endeavours to provide a better, more satisfying society for the people.
Can the prompt and timely judicial approach to election matters in the United states be compared to our system, like the recent Ondo state election matter which was resolved just two days to election?
As a people, we should learn to emulate good practices that have helped to strengthen democracy in other parts of the world. The judiciary is the backbone of the strong tradition of the American democracy, hardly would any electoral matter get to courts that and not resolved immediately, particularly when election dates have been fixed and are considered sacrosanct. In the just concluded US general election, hundreds of pre-election matters bordering on procedures, mode of identity, voters register, that were subject of either administrative procedure or court adjudication, were all resolved before the election, including electoral disputes that arose even on Election Day, as we saw in Maryland and Nevada where agents of Trump challenged in court election voting procedure. The judges in whose court the matters were instituted sat immediately and determined the issues and the process of voting continued unhindered.
But that was what the Appeal and Supreme court did before the election?
I’m saying that this festering leadership tussle in PDP should have been resolved by the Courts several months ago, even before the Edo governorship election. If our judicial system is like that of the US, if as the Supreme Court declared in 2003, in INEC Vs Musa, that “political parties are the essential organs of the democratic process” why should it take the judiciary this long period to deal with a simple narrow issue of which group represents the legal leadership of the party? Look, if the court has determined this matter since, all the accusations and counter accusations about removal of names and limitation of time for the submission of party agents would not have arisen. Again, let me give you another classic example of a similar situation in the United States. In South Carolina some years back, a gubernatorial candidate suddenly withdrew participation 48 hours to the election. The election board decided to put the name of the first runner-up and this was challenged at the High court. Because election date had been fixed and it was just 48 hours to the time, both the Appeal Court and Supreme Court were placed on standby, and as soon as the High court decided and its decision was appealed against, the Appeal court sat and thereafter the Supreme court, thus within 24 hours the highest court disposed of the matter. That is how the judiciary protects the American democracy, by acting timeously against any action that may bring about widespread political disruption. If it were to be in the US, as l have told you or in other more sober climes, the leadership crisis of any party, particularly the two main parties, would have been a matter of urgent importance that must be resolved within a week or at most a month, by a final verdict of the highest court because they are the pillars of democracy, and the judiciary in the US would not allow a crisis to fester because of the potential for instability and the security implications.
What actually differentiates the United States electoral system from that of Nigeria?
Primarily it is the actual practice of full blown federalism, instead of a quasi-federal electoral system as we do here. There is no federal electoral body in America that conducts election as we have here, instead states and county jurisdictions run elections that produce all elected office holders both state and federal and even at that, different parties and independent candidates win incumbents repeatedly, this is because the federating states make the Country. Can we entrust the conduct of all elections both federal and state with the SIECs in Nigeria, where even within the parties controlling the states, there is no room to accommodate opposing views or aspiration of members of the same party? You elect someone to a position and suddenly he/she becomes an untouchable colossus, dictating to the party and all jurisdictions, it is a curious form of democracy, where the elected delegate wags the institutional structures that presented him/her as their delegates and even the “demos” it shows that both the elected and the electors do not understand or appreciate the fundaments of their roles. The doubts I have expressed here is certainly not about the competences of the individuals in the state election management bodies, many of whom are some of the finest, if given the type of freedom and independence that those who operate in INEC enjoy to perform, but based solely on the fact that they are not allowed to work independently. Nigeria would certainly be aflame, if for instance we try the idea that, each of the state electoral body controlled by the political parties as we have in the US should conduct all elections in 2019. Here in Nigeria, there is so much statute sabotage and institutional capture that no state controlled by any party would ever surmise the notion of losing an LGA election to an opposition party, as if sovereignty belongs to them and not the people. For instance, despite the clear breach of the Nigerian constitution, a very impeachable offence, you still find state governments erecting illegal sole administrators of Local governments, a matter that has been very troublesome. I was recently quite happy to hear some legislators pushing for an amendment to the effect that any LGA which is not run by elected officials should be de-funded. This anomaly of illegal sole administrators is still on, despite court judgments to the contrary, a terrible disregard to our constitution and the sovereignty of Nigerians over their local jurisdictions. In fact, our federalism has been farcical on many levels and the local electoral systems are an immense and consequential part of the farce.
Jigawa:Uproar over failure to conduct LG polls
From Desmond Mgbo and Ahmed Abubakar, Dutse
Stakeholders in Jigawa State have expressed disappointment over the inability of the Jigawa State Independent Electoral Commission (JISIEC) to conduct elections into the 27 local government areas of the state. The development is coming several months after the expiration of the tenure of the last democratically elected council government in the state.
In January, council elections in the state were surprisingly shelved by the Jigawa State Independent Electoral Commission (JISIEC), which cited financial challenges as one of its key reasons. But ever since, nothing tangible has been done to restart the process, fueling speculation that the government was benefiting from the undemocratic situation at the local council level.
Among those who were offended by the development in the state included some members of the political class, civil servants and some non-government and community based groups dedicated to credible elections and civil rule.
They told Daily Sun that the absence of democratic structures at that level was denying a sizable population of the state (more people in Jigawa State reside at the local council level) a sense of democracy, adding that the replacement of elected officials with government -appointed personnel had stalled developments and progress recorded at that level.
Already, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state, which in its 16 year tenure, had periodically conducted council elections, has expressed disgust over the prevailing situation, charging that except the Jigawa State Independent Electoral Commission did the right thing, it would surely return to court.
The absence of democracy at the third tier of government in the state dominated discussions at a one day workshop recently organized by the Jigawa State Independent Electoral Commission at the Mapower Development Institute , Dutse.
Apparently unsettled by growing public concerns over its seeming disregard to the erection of democratic structures at the local government, Deputy Governor of the state, Ibrahim Hassan, absolved the state government of culpability in the case, stressing that the state government was capable and had enough money to fund the exercise, contrary to speculation.
In his remarks also, the Chairman of JISIEC, Alhaji Sani Ahmed corroborated the position of the Deputy Governor, stressing that the commission had sufficient funds for the exercise.
His words: “We have even issued out advertorials in some national dailies on the election time table schedules and the indication of interests in recruiting ad-hoc staff before the effort was truncated by the state assembly”.
He explained that they were overruled by the Jigawa State House of Assembly, which had insisted on the appointment of Caretaker Committee for for a period of six months.
The PDP chairman, Jigawa State, Alhaji Salisu Mahmuda, in his reaction recalled that his party had previously approached a court in the state to challenge the illegal appointment of Caretaker Committees for local government councils in the state.
He also observed that the six month tenure of the appointed Caretaker Committees as approved by the Jigawa State Assembly had since expired, yet they were still operational.
“The said illegal mandate has already expired, which translates into another illegal administration of Jigawa local governments, even by the standards established by the Jigawa House of Assembly” he stated in a statement.
He stressed that the PDP in the state would not accept any further extension of the tenure of local government Caretaker Committees by either unilateral executive decision or the usual adhoc- law of the Jigawa State House of Assembly.
He advised the Assembly to direct the State Governor, Alhaji Mohammad Badaru Abubakar to desist from operating institutions that were illegal and unknown to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
However, a few days ago, the Jigawa State House of Assembly hurriedly reconvened and in their deliberation of only one item, extended the lifespan of appointed local government council Caretaker Committees for a period of another six months.
Speaker, Jigawa State House of Assembly, Idris Garba, who announced the latest position, explained that the extension would be the last from the Assembly, while advising JISIEC to conduct a credible election for the 27 councils of the state.
Alhaji Abubakar Alhassan, a trader in Jahun village, who spoke to Daily Sun, stressed that the continued administration of the council by appointees of the state government was a clear violation of his democratic rights, adding that he would have gone to court if he were rich enough to pay the legal bills.
Commenting on the situation in Jigawa State and in the rest of the federation, Dr Ibrahim M. Zikirulahi, who is the Executive Director, Resource Centre for Human Rights & Civic Education (CHRICED), condemned attempts by state governments to circumvent the process by appointing caretakers, saying that their action was not only an outright violation of our nation’s Constitution, but a call to anarchy. He stressed that the situation was, “ condemnable in the strongest term; and shows features of a political space which present grave threats to the democratisation process in Nigeria.”
He declared: “ the Refusal to conduct election into local government is a product of an authoritarian culture, which generates attitudes and ways that are antagonistic to democracy, particularly by rejecting constraints on the use of power, encouraging disdain for the rule of law and due process, and demanding conformity and unquestioning obedience to command. In addition to impoverishing the democratic credentials of the entire system of governance.”
Speaking to Daily Sun, Senate Committee Chairman on local governments and states, Senator Abdullahi Abubakar (APC) lamented the failure of many states in the federation, Jigawa State inclusive, to conduct elections at the local government levels.
He disclosed that 30 out of the 36 states of the federation were operating in default of the constitution and were currently without democratic structures at the local government council level.
Senator Abubakar who represents Jigawa North-West Senatorial Zone,
observed that the Senate was very uncomfortable with the ugly situation and was presently considering the prospect of scrapping State Independent Electoral Commissions, a situation which would pave way for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to take over their responsibilities.
He recalled: “I drew the attention of Mr. President in one of my meetings with him and I said at that time that ‘Mr President, under your watch, local government administration is being killed by state governors.
I told him that as we are talking, only 10 out of the 36 states had conducted their local government elections”.
The APC Senator recalled he called the attention of President Muhammadu
Buhari that technically, 75 per cent of the local government administration in
Nigeria was unconstitutionally erected and unelected by the people.
“I told him there and there, that unfortunately, your state (Katsina) and my state (Jigawa) were not among the few states that had conducted their local government elections,” he said.