COMING on the heels of its highly maligned quest for more powers, the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister 28 political parties has expectedly been mired in deep-seated controversy revolving around the legality or otherwise of the action. While there may be a strong ground for the decision, it is reasonable to infer that INEC may unwittingly be creating a constitutional problem in an attempt to resolve an electoral obstacle. It should be clear, however, that financial support being doled out by the government for the parties constitute the root of the problem. Apparently, the free money from government provides an incentive to create political parties without seriously working on their viability or their necessity. Therefore, an ultimate solution may reside in the total abolition of state funding for all political parties.

For INEC, the deregistration of the parties was nothing more than the exercise of its statutory power as provided in Section 78 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, which empowers the commission to ‘deregister political parties, for failure to win presidential or governorship election or a seat in the National Assembly or State House of Assembly’. Moreover, INEC also emphasised the logistic and administrative dilemmas it often faced in dealing with the existence of ‘too many’ political parties during elections. These explanations may tempt a conclusion that the furore over the action was unwarranted and may amount to an exercise in futility.

But for the political parties that were deregistered, INEC does not have the power to do so. The fulcrum of their argument, which derives from a superior body of law, the 1999 Constitution, was that freedom of association is constitutionally guaranteed by Section 40. It follows, then, that the Electoral Act 2010 from where INEC derives its power to deregister political parties, conflicts with the 1999 Constitution that guarantees freedom of association. This is a matter of law in which the latter should automatically take precedent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the affected parties are seeking redress in court. The National Conscience Party (NCP) reasoned along this line and promptly went to court. As Nigerians patiently await the outcome of the litigation, and without necessarily pre-empting it, INEC’s attempt to solve a problem have placed it in apparent confrontation against the fundamental human rights of citizens. Moreover, the commission evidentially may not have considered the full import of the precedent already set by the Supreme Court when it ruled in 2002 that all a political party needed, to come into existence, was to apply to INEC and nothing more.

Still, as logical as the arguments of the contending parties appear, there seems to be more to the controversy, with the most crucial issue relating to the question of funding of political parties. Should parties be funded by the government or should they be self-financing? Opinions are divided on the subject. Many have argued for the continuing funding of political parties as a precursor against the total capture of the political process by moneybags, and as a way of making the playing field somewhat level among competing actors. For some others, however, as long as the Federal Government continues to fund political parties, the struggle for the so-called expansion of the political space, through the registration of more parties will, for years to come, continue to be a vexatious issue among political jobbers. It is an unscrupulous way of accessing the ‘national cake’ without necessarily lifting a finger. This is why the suspicion in some quarters that many of the so-called political parties were actually ‘sponsored’ by the same set of politicians in the mainstream political parties may not be totally unfounded. This should not be allowed to continue.

Rather than de-register them, government funding of political parties should be totally abolished. Taking this bold step may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, as it is capable of returning the parties to their rightful owners, the people. All that is required is to take certain institutional measures to neutralise and deal with the fears and risks of possible abuse by moneybags. In the absence of such measure, and given the increasing monetisation and ‘godfatherisation’ of Nigerian politics, moneybags can actually hijack and convert political parties to their personal fiefdom. Even under the current funding arrangement, such tendencies are already evidently manifesting. A starting point could be specifying the lower and upper thresholds of the amounts individuals and groups can donate to a party in a given period. This is where the regulatory/supervisory role of INEC, especially over party finance, will once again be put to test. The earlier INEC explores this option, the better for the country’s political system.

Author of this article:Editor (Guardian Newspaper)