LAST week’s inauguration of a 24-member Committee on Electoral Reforms by the Federal Government is raising legitimate concerns in the polity about the sincerity of the government on the reform of our electoral process.
A former President of the Senate, Ken Nnamani, heads the Committee. Other members include Dr. Mamman Lawal of Bayero University, Kano, as Secretary; Dr. Muiz Banire, Dr. Clement Nwankwo, Chief A.C. Ude and Mr. Tahir, who is the Director, Legal Drafting, in the Federal Ministry of Justice. The Committee has about ten weeks to do its work, which includes the review of the report of the Justice Muhammad Uwais-led National Electoral Reform Committee submitted to the Presidency on December 11, 2008.
Other terms of reference of the panel include the review of the laws impacting elections in Nigeria. This includes review of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act (as amended), as well as the recent decisions on election petitions as they relate to conflicting judgments, absence of consequential orders and delay in the issuance of Certified True Copies of judgments. In addition, the committee will review the “lessons learned from the 2015 general elections and make recommendations for improvement as they relate to the judicial decisions and experience from field operations”, as well as “identify and assess international best practices on electoral systems relevant to Nigeria’s experience…”
Expectedly, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has strongly defended the need for the committee. He said it is in fulfillment of President Muhammadu Buhari’s promise to deepen Nigeria’s commitment to democracy and entrench the democratic culture. Besides, he said the country’s recent electoral history and the challenges of managing elections require far- reaching measures to build consensus among stakeholders in order to institutionalise critical reforms. He stressed that a more robust and acceptable electoral system has become exceedingly necessary in the country. We are not opposed to comprehensive electoral reforms. They are even overdue. Indeed, the country has gone through difficult times, particularly in the effort to conduct free, fair and credible elections. In recent times, these difficulties have resulted in inconclusive elections in some states. Moreover, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) seems overwhelmed by the manifold problems.
These challenges are such that the present leadership of INEC has admitted that it needs help to get it right in the electoral process. Maybe, given the terms of reference and the priority areas stated by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, it is necessary to deal with all the anti-democratic practices that hamper free and transparent elections and, perhaps, instill internal democracy in the political parties. It is also necessary to impose commensurate sanctions for electoral offences and regulate campaign financing, which may pose a serious threat to credible elections.
Nonetheless, in spite of all the benefits that good laws can bring about, public concern is that the ruling party which is spearheading electoral reforms may not, itself, be free of bias. This is so for obvious reasons. Why, for instance, has the government jettisoned the Uwais Panel report that is gathering dust on the shelf at the Presidency, despite its far-reaching recommendations that were largely well received by Nigerians?
These recommendations include independent candidacy, advertisement for the post of INEC board chairman/members and procedures for their removal, funding of INEC to be charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the abolition of States’ Electoral Commissions and other recommendations that many Nigerians believe are vital for the strengthening of democracy. The reform of our electoral laws or any other relevant provisions of our Constitution that require a review is desirable, but we are not fully persuaded that the assignment of the present committee is markedly different from that given to the Uwais panel, which was judiciously carried out. The paradox of the frequent demands for reviews of our electoral laws is that the demands are sometimes self-serving, while the outcomes of such reviews are not always implemented. It is not that our laws, including the Electoral Act, have not made ample provisions to strengthen our democratic process and punish electoral offenders. The problem is largely the lack of political will to enforce the laws, as well as the willful disregard of the laws by our politicians.
Altogether, we enjoin the committee members to work diligently and without bias in proffering solutions to the problems hampering our democracy. The ultimate objective of the quest for electoral reforms should be the public good, not party interest.