Having won the presidential election of March
28, 2015, the indifference of President
Muhammadu Buhari to, and the seeming
manifest disdain he has shown to
constitutional provisions regarding the
composition of the Independent National
Electoral Commission, INEC, suggests that he
no longer cares about the sanctity, neutrality
and integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process.
By the
same
token, his
shambolic attitude is begetting other further
shambolic acts from the Zambezi Street, Abuja
headquarters of INEC, as the macabre dance
steps in Kogi, Bayelsa, Gombe and the
unfolding drama in Anambra Central senatorial
district could have been avoided had Mr.
President paid more attention to the need for
an improved electoral process by obeying the
Constitution regarding the composition of INEC.
Therefore, regarding the composition of INEC’s
Board, Buhari needs to be asked whether his
appointment of seven supposedly good heads
are better than the 13 good heads
constitutionally required to form a complete
Board for the election management body.
Similarly, what does the President hope to
achieve, after benefitting from a process that
was sanitised for effectiveness, only to watch it
slide because of his manifest insouciance?
This report will show clearly the dangers being
courted by Buhari’s attitude, as well as the
need to quickly fill the remaining six slots that
would empower INEC with the full complement
of its Board as stipulated by the Constitution -
over 20 states of the federation do not have
RECs as at today, thereby opening the
Commission to the mercy of malleable civil
servants.
ANAMBRA CENTRAL SENATORIAL ELECTION
AND THE DEARTH OF INSTITUTIONAL
MEMORY
Watchers of unfolding events in Anambra
State over the court-ordered senatorial
election are wondering if Nigerians learnt
anything from past events and decisions
taken, particularly by the courts. The latter
concern stems from the backdrop of the
planned senatorial primary election by the
Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, as well as
the inconclusive and questionable primary
conducted by the All Progressives Congress,
APC, to nominate another candidate to
replace its candidate in the cancelled
election. Either as a product of ignorance,
total disregard for the laws of the land or
greed, or all, Dr. Chris Ngige who, though
qualified to contest the re-run, but has now
accepted appointment as a minister under
the Buhari administration, is watching as his
party continues to muddy the waters.
Worse still, the questionable participation of
officials of the Independent National Electoral
Commission, INEC, as observers of the so-
called primaries, has brought to the fore
concerns of Nigerians about the seeming
absence of institutional memory in Nigeria’s
electoral body.
It would be recalled that this is not the first
time that courts cancelled an election and
ordered a re-run.
In such instances, those who can participate
have a clearly established electoral legislative
framework in elections.
Indeed, in Labour Party vs INEC, the
Supreme Court - which is the highest court in
the land-on February 13, 2009, delivered a
judgment on this same subject-matter on
who is qualified to participate in such
election and whether political parties could
conduct fresh primaries.
It, therefore, comes as a surprise that INEC,
which was a party to the matter, cannot
advise political parties on the right course to
take but, instead, continues to encourage
politicians to embark on illegal actions
through active participation of its officials,
who are sent to observe such illegal
primaries, whereas the apex court in the land
has ruled on such matter.
Why should INEC assist political parties to
reinvent the wheel on the questions already
answered by the apex court that only those
who participated in the annuled election can
participate in re-run? Why should INEC
tolerate and continue to suffer the headship
of one of its directorates that its own review
committee had recommended should not
head such a sensitive department that is
very central to its operations and success of
Nigeria’s electoral process? A review of the
Appeal Court decision that led to the
expected re-run and the subsisting judgment
of the apex court below would clearly show
how much Nigeria has been regressing since
May 29, 2015.
WHY THE ELECTION WAS CANCELLED IN
THE FIRST PLACE
It would be recalled that on December 7,
2015, the Court of Appeal, Enugu, in suit no
CA/E/EPT/28/2015, between Chief (Sir)
Victor Umeh, OFR ( a former National
Chairman, All Progressive Grand Alliance,
APGA) & Anor v. INEC & Ors, upheld the
appeal of the former Chairman of APGA and
senatorial candidate in the 2015 election. The
Appeal Court held that the 11th Respondent,
Hon. Uche Lillian Ekwunife, was “not the
product of a valid primary and, therefore, not
duly and legitimately nominated, that has
disqualified her from contesting the election
into the Anambra Central Senatorial District.”
Consequently, the court nullified her
election and ordered INEC “to conduct a
fresh election into the Anambra Central
Senatorial District, within 90 days from
today.”
It is this court-ordered fresh election, about
the illegality of fielding a candidate in the
first place, that is generating palpable
confusion and political tension in Anambra
Central Senatorial District regarding who will
be the eligible candidates for the said fresh
election.
AN AVOIDABLE CONFUSION AND POLITICAL
TENSION
It is unfortunate that in today’s Nigeria, the
authorities seem so prepared to waste so
much public resources in conducting
elections as was the case in the Kogi State
supplementary election, which many
consider unnecessary, but was conducted on
the grounds of a so-called 91,000 voters,
who were yet to vote, and who may not even
have had the Permanent Voter Cards, PVCs,
whereas the total number of people who had
PVCs was just 25,000, and APC was already
leading by well over 41,000 votes.
In the same vein, the prevailing confusion
and political tension in Anambra Central
Senatorial District could have been avoided
given that it is a simple majority election that
does not require spread. Hence it could have
been called without equivocation, if the Court
of Appeal had returned Umeh, as the
winner of the senatorial election having
obtained the second highest number of votes
cast in the election. It was the most logical
and legal conclusion the Court of Appeal
should have reached to save dwindling public
funds to be used again to conduct another
election, having nullified the election of
Ekwunife on the grounds of non-qualification
which means, in the eyes of the law, the PDP
candidate was never a candidate.
There is no legal impediment hindering the
Court of Appeal from returning the APGA
candidate in the circumstance because the
hitherto hindrance in Section 140(2) of the
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) has been
struck down by the Federal High Court as
unconstitutional. For ease of reference,
Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as
amended) provides thus: “Where an Election
Tribunal or Court nullifies an election on the
grounds that the person who obtained the
highest votes at the election was not
qualified to contest the election…, the
Election Tribunal or Court shall not declare
the person with the second highest votes or
any other person as elected, but shall order a
fresh election.” Interestingly, the provision
above is no longer extant, because it has
been struck down twice by the Federal High
Court as acting ultra vires to the National
Assembly and, therefore, unconstitutional.
The judgments of the Federal High Court that
struck down S. 140(2) of the Electoral Act
2010 were delivered on July 21, 2011 in Suit
No. FHC/ABJ/CS/399/2011 Labour Party v.
INEC and on June 30, 2011 in Suit No.
FHC/L/CS/471/2011 ACN v. The National
Assembly. Both decisions are subsisting and
should have been relied upon to make a
return that would have avoided the tension
and more waste of public funds for the
ordered re-run.
Even though the Appeal Court is well aware
of the status of S. 140(2) of the Electoral
Act 2010, it, nevertheless, acted to the
contrary, given its own observation in its
judgment that: “Whether Section 140(2) of
the Electoral Act is extant or not, no
advantage can be conferred on the
Appellants by declaring the 1st Appellant as
a winner on the grounds of his obtaining the
second highest votes as elected.” The
observation, with respect to the Court of
Appeal, is strange.
Pray, how can declaring the winner of an
election not confer an advantage on him?
Certainly, declaring the winner of the election
would have saved INEC the enormous cost/
task of organising a fresh election. It would
have also saved the electorate from the
palpable confusion and political tension in
Anambra State regarding who will be the
eligible candidates in the court-ordered fresh
election. The prevailing confusion and
political tension in Anambra Central
Senatorial District could also be avoided if
INEC clears the air by adopting the “common
sense doctrine” established by the Supreme
Court in LABOUR PARTY v. INEC (2009) 1 –
2 SC (pt. 11) 43 or (2009) 6 NWLR (pt. 1137)
315.
FACTS AND LESSONS OF LABOUR PARTY
Vs. INEC CASE AND COMMON SENSE
DOCTRINE
Relatedly, after the Court of Appeal nullified
the governorship election in Adamawa State
in 2007, on the grounds of unlawful exclusion
and the court ordered for fresh election in
the state, the Labour Party sought to submit
a new list of candidates for the fresh
election. INEC refused to accept the new
list, informing the Labour Party that the
Commission will conduct the fresh election
with the list of candidates used for the
nullified election. Aggrieved, the Labour
Party went to court to compel INEC to accept
the party’s new list of candidates.
By way of a referral, the Court of Appeal was
asked to determine, amongst other points,
the right of the Labour Party to submit
candidates of her choice for the fresh
governorship election in Adamawa State.
Without equivocation, the Court of Appeal
held that where there is nullification of a
general election and a re-run election is
ordered, only candidates who were
nominated to contest in the nullified election
can contest in the re-run election.
OKORO, JCA, in the lead judgment,
elucidated as follows at pages 102 – 103 of
the law report:
“Where a general election has been held and
there is a false start, for example, a
candidate who ought to have been part of
the election was unlawfully excluded or there
was no level playing ground for all the
candidates and that election is subsequently
either cancelled by the regulating authority
like INEC or nullified by an order of a court or
tribunal and a re-run or re-start is ordered, it
is my humble (view) that the re-run or re-
start refers to that general election council
(sic) or nullified, and not a bye-election.
"The consequence of this is that all the
candidates including the one unlawfully
excluded would now get back to the starting
line for a fair and free contest.
“It does not admit of any other candidate
since, as it were, the period for nomination
and screening of candidates would have
elapsed. It is just restoring the parties to the
status quo ante belum. See Honourable
Mohammed Salisu A. Alwa’u & Anor v. Abbas
M. Yakubu & 2 ORS CA/K/EPT/SHA30/20C
(unreported) delivered on 6th November,
2003".
“Let me demonstrate this”, Okoro went on,
“with a common place example. We are
familiar with athletes who participate in, say,
100 metre race for example. They are
ordered to the starting point of the race by
the umpire. But before the gun is shot or
the whistle is blown, there could be a false
start maybe due to the mistake of one or
more of the runners. The race is cancelled.
They are ordered back to the starting line to
repeat that same race with all the
competitors who took part during the false
start. At that stage, no new competitor is
allowed to take part. Only those who had
been screened and had taken part in what
usually called “the heat” and are certified fit
for the final race that are allowed in the
repeat race.” Underlining for emphasis.
Similarly, at page 109, AUGIE, JCA,
concurred that whenever an election is
nullified, the implication is that “it’s the
same candidates that were set to run in the
election that must go back to run in the fresh
election ordered .........Labour Party, though
has a right to sponsor a candidate, cannot
exercise that right when an election is
nullified and a fresh election is ordered
because the date and period for calling for
nominations has elapsed.” (Underlining for
emphasis).To cap it all, OREDOLA, JCA,
admirably summed it up as follows at page
110 of the judgment: “Even though the order
for the conduct of a fresh election after the
nullification of a previous one is not an
entirely new process that can be likened to
starting on a clean state, nevertheless, it is
also not the case of a fresh call to arms or a
scenario of clarion call of “to thy tents O
Isreal”. Rather, it is one of “as you were.”
From the brilliant pronouncements above,
why should INEC get itself involved in
monitoring an illegal primary election for the
APC purportedly held on January 19, 2016,
or any other party other than those
candidates who participated in the annuled
election excluding the PDP and its candidate,
Ekwunife, whose participation as an
unqualified candidate led to the
cancellation? To paraphrase Justice
Oredola, the Anambra Central Senatorial
District court-ordered fresh election
cannot be a fresh call to arms and clarion
call of: “To thy tents” all political parties.
It is unfortunate that INEC’s illegal clarion
calls have thrown these political parties into
a frenzy of organising primary elections for
the nomination of new candidates to
participate in the court-ordered fresh election
in Anambra Central Senatorial District.
The macabre dance of these political parties
in Anambra State has continued unabated,
notwithstanding the generally accepted fact
that the time for nomination of National
Assembly candidates elapsed since
December 2014.
WHY INEC MUST SHUN DOUBLE
STANDARDS
Meanwhile, INEC wrote a letter, dated
December 15, 2015, rejecting the nomination
of one Hamma Adama Ali Kumo, though it
made a u-turn, based on the advice of its
legal services department in the court
ordered re-run of Akko Federal Constituency
of Gombe State.
This was for an election that took place on
Wednesday, January 27, 2016. So, why would
the same Commission encourage new
primaries in respect of same court-ordered
election in Anambra?
INEC, as the constitutional watchdog of
political parties, must step in, as a matter of
urgency, and douse the confusion and
political tension in the state. The
Commission must make its position clear
regarding who are eligible candidates for the
fresh election.
INEC, initially, made its position clear
regarding Akko Federal Constituency of
Gombe State to the National Chairman of
APC that the submission of the name of a
new candidate for the court-ordered election
is “not acceptable” because “the period for
nomination of candidate for the election has
since elapsed,” but failed to follow it through
to a logical conclusion .
This, Sunday Vanguard discovered, through
an inside source in INEC headquarters in
Abuja, was based on the usual wrong advice
of the head of its legal department.
One Bawa heads the department. With INEC
Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakoob, not
being a lawyer, the legal services department
is expected to properly guide the
Commission. Interestingly, a committee,
set up within INEC, had suggested, some
time ago, that the department should be re-
organised for effectiveness. This was an
elegant euphemism for the redeployment of
the headship of the department but nothing
has changed and the malady continues.
The question now is, why would INEC fail to
similarly notify APC that the period for
nomination of candidates for the court-
ordered fresh election in Anambra Central
Senatorial District has elapsed? In addition,
why allow the APC to dance naked in
Anambra in the name of primary election
and cause palpable confusion in the
process? Or, does it mean that whilst the
period for nomination of candidates has
elapsed elsewhere, it has not elapsed in
Anambra Central Senatorial District?

If you ask them, they will say they are cutting costs.

when a dullard appoints so called "men of integrity" to head an organization where intelligence and organization are needed, this is what happens so am guessing literacy and intelligence actually trumps so called "integrity"

Op, mod or what's their names are hereby challenged to push this to front page.

Biased institutions, biased republic.

Meanwhile, I give a thumb up to the writer

fistonati:
Op, mod or what's their names are hereby challenged to push this to front page.

Biased institutions, biased republic.

Meanwhile, I give a thumb up to the writer

You should summon the frontpager...
Lalasticlala over to you...