A fresh row between state governors and members of the National Assembly is in the offing over the re-amended electoral bill, which has been presented to President Muhammadu Buhari for his assent. The governors, our correspondent learnt, are not happy with two new clauses introduced by the lawmakers. The resignation of appointed political office holders, such as ministers, commissioners, special advisers and others who are interested in contesting for elective positions before primaries preceding such elections is one of the clauses. Secondly, the lawmakers have also stipulated conditions for political parties interested in picking their candidates through the consensus option.

The two clauses were believed to have been inserted by the lawmakers to make it difficult for governors to impose their anointed candidates on political parties. The earlier proposals of the Electoral Bill rejected by President Buhari had made provisions for only the direct mode of primary for political parties to pick their candidates for various elective positions.

On the surface, the lawmakers acceded to the request of state governors to include the consensus option for political parties to choose candidates for elective positions. But, in doing so, they imposed some tough conditions that must be met by political parties before the consensus option can be adopted. Interestingly, the consensus option, which is now part of the proposals, was also not part of the recommendation by the National Assembly committee that worked on the bill. But, the lawmakers inserted it by introducing a new clause, which states that “a political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate”.

The new proposal on choosing a consensus candidate further states: “Where a political party is unable to secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for a consensus candidate, it shall revert to the choice of direct or indirect primary for the nomination of candidates for the aforesaid elective positions. A special convention or nomination congress shall be held to ratify the choice of consensus candidates at designated centres at the national, state, senatorial, federal and state constituencies, as the case may be.”

In the past, it was customary for appointed political office holders to remain in office while contesting for elective positions in their party’s primary. Thus, aside from state governors, some ministers who spoke to our correspondent in confidence expressed dissatisfaction with the clauses inserted into the re-amended bill. The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is also said to be uncomfortable with the re-amended bill.

The aggrieved parties have now resolved to take the battle to the president who will eventually decide whether to assent to the bill or reject it once again. The insertion of the two controversial clauses is a way of paying back the governors for piling pressure on the president to reject the direct mode of primary. Our source said: “The lawmakers equally unhappy with the way the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), the National Caretaker Committee of the All Progressives Congress (APC) led by Yobe State’s Governor Mai Mala Buni and the governors swayed the president to change his mind on direct primary.”

The rejection of the amendment to the 2010 Electoral Act by President Buhari forced the National Assembly to return to the drawing board to give Nigerians an electoral law that can stand the test of time. In the words of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila it will be an electoral act that Nigerians will be proud of. The president’s concern was particularly directed at Clause 84, which deals with the conduct of party primaries for the nomination of candidates for election. The lawmakers had passed the law stipulating only the direct mode of primary for political parties, but the president is of the view that the political parties should be allowed to choose what mode they want to adopt in selecting their candidates. Buhari wants the National Assembly to leave the choice to the parties.

On resumption from the Christmas break, the lawmakers got down to work to adjust the as earlier passed bill in line with the president’s observations. While the Senate chose to include indirect primary and consensus to the document, the House of Representatives added only the indirect primary. The House of Representatives later backtracked and included consensus just like the Senate. Gbajabiamila described the new version of the Electoral Act, which is being presented for the president’s assent, as “a brand new forward-thinking progressive electoral law”.

This is because it bars political parties from imposing conditions on candidates that may lead to their disqualification or pre-qualification outside the provisions of the constitution. It states that “a political party shall not impose nomination qualification or disqualification criteria, measures, or conditions on any aspirant or candidate for any election in its constitution, guidelines, or rules for nomination of candidates for elections, except as prescribed under Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177 and 187 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)”.

The lawmakers are not unaware of the fact that party leaders and the Governors can decide to choose whoever they want and declare the person a consensus candidate. So, they decided to impose stringent measures which the parties must comply with in deciding to adopt the consensus option. Arriving at a consensus will however not come without some conditions. The conditions for adopting a consensus candidate are contained in Clause 84(9 a-c) which was a new provision inserted in the document. It states that “A political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.”

It continues: “Where a political party is unable to secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for a consensus candidate, it shall revert to the choice of direct or indirect primary for the nomination of candidates for the aforesaid elective positions.” It also provides that in the event of a consensus candidate emerging, the parties must hold “a special convention or nomination congress shall be held to ratify the choice of consensus candidates at designated centres at the national, state, senatorial, federal and state constituencies, as the case may be”.

A close study of the amended law reveals that both the direct and indirect primary options are also not without conditions. It states that a political party that adopts the direct primary procedure shall ensure that all aspirants are given equal opportunity of being voted for by members of the party and shall adopt the procedure contained in the law. The conditions include: “In the case of presidential primaries, all registered members of the party shall vote for aspirants of their choice at a designated centre at each ward of the federation.” The procedure in paragraph (a) above of this subsection shall be adopted for direct primaries in respect of governorship, senatorial, federal and state constituencies.

Besides, the proposal goes on to say “special conventions or congresses shall be held to ratify the candidate with the highest number of votes at designated centres at the national, state, senatorial, federal and state constituencies, as the case may be.

Similarly, those who choose to adopt indirect primary are also required to meet certain conditions designed to make the process democratic. Clause 84 (5), indicates that any political party that adopts the system of the indirect primary for the choice of its candidate shall adopt the following procedure: “In the case of nominations to the position of a presidential candidate, the political party shall hold a special presidential convention at a designated centre in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) or any other place within the federation that is agreed to by the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party where delegates shall vote for aspirants of their choice; and the aspirant with the highest number of votes cast at the end of voting shall be declared the winner of the presidential primary of the political party and that aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to the commission as the candidate of the party.”

The lawmakers also took note of the fact that political parties could have only one aspirant contesting an election and therefore set out conditions that must also be met under the Electoral Act. It states: “Where there is only one aspirant or a consensus candidate in a political party for any of the elective positions mentioned in Subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) and (d), the party shall convene a special convention or congress at a designated centre on a specified date for the confirmation of such aspirant and the name of the aspirant shall be forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the candidate of the party.” It also states that whatever mode of primary a political party adopts, it must be spelt out in its constitution, as well as the guidelines to be adopted for the election of delegates in the case of an indirect primary. For both consensus and direct primary, the parties are required to hold a special convention in a designated place to ratify the candidate so chosen.

Conscious of the criticism that trailed the adoption of consensus option by the Senate earlier, spokesman of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu said the position of the House was allowed by its rules. He added that Nigerians should be happy that the three options contained in the law have democratic tenets attached to them. He believes that the House was not engaged in any war with the executive arm of government or into acrimony with the Senate, but working for the overall interest of Nigerians.

Kalu said since there will be no need for a conference committee between the Senate and the House, the clerk to the National Assembly will be expected to transmit the bill to the president within the shortest possible time for assent. He dismissed insinuations that the House may have done the biddings of the president, adding that both chambers of the National Assembly have been discussing with Nigerians and party leaders since the adoption of both direct and indirect primary. He said party leaders insisted that the National Assembly should make all options available so that they can choose the one they want, based on their peculiarities.

The House of Reps spokesman dismissed insinuations that the National Assembly is a rubber-stamp parliament that is merely danced to the tunes of the president by agreeing to include indirect primary and later consensus to the Electoral Act, rather than override the president’s veto to the bill. He said the House was not engaged in an ego war with the president over his refusal to sign the recent Electoral Act amendment bill passed by the National Assembly, and that it is also not in a supremacy battle with the Senate.

In his words, “the parliament decided not to override the president’s veto in the overall interest of democracy and democratic reforms in the country”. He said while the National Assembly is conscious of the powers conferred on it by Section 58(5) of the constitution to override the president’s veto, it would require a two-thirds majority of elected members to achieve. He added that it was the general belief of members that the House should not insist on its position to the detriment of the benefits of the bill.

He said: “It is very obvious that it is the desire of Nigerians to move this electoral bill from where it is now to where it ought to be to a reasonable extent. It is based on that clause of this Electoral Act amendment bill passed through the approval of this House and the Senate. But only one clause suffered when it was transmitted to the executive. Within the provision of Chapter 5 of the constitution, specifically Section 58, Subsection 4, the president has the right to withdraw his assent on a bill transmitted from the National Assembly. So, it is within his right to do that. However, it is not mentioned in the constitution that he should give reasons. But, being democratic, he was able to give reasons why he withdrew his assent. This bothers on security, intra-party litigations among others. We promised Nigerians that we are going to look at the letter from the president and know whether the reasons are cogent enough for us to adopt one of the options open to us.

“It is not an ego war or that anybody is trying to prove anything. That is what is beneficial to all at the moment. We may not get it right at a go, but we are heading towards advancing the course of our democracy. The House is not pandering to the whims and caprices of any individual; we acted to save our democracy. The president was specific on what he wanted and the constitution allows us to override him with a two-thirds majority. Nigerians want a perfect electoral reform and what we have done is that out of the entire law, only one clause had issues. So, adjusting that one and moving on is saving our democracy from where we used to be to where we hope to be. What we did was not a result of the whims and caprices of the president. Remember that there have been a lot of engagements during the holiday and our stakeholders said that instead of sticking to this direct primary alone and leaving out the benefits in the law, let it go in line with the reforms we are looking for.”

One aspect of the bill that many are not comfortable with is the clause that implies that only those who took part in the nomination process and the primaries could challenge the outcome in court; unlike what is currently obtainable where all party members can challenge the candidacy of any party member. It states that “notwithstanding the provisions of this bill or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this bill and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply for redress to the Federal High Court, a state High Court or the FCT within whose territorial jurisdiction the primary election was conducted”. It strips the court the power to stop the conduct of party primaries, saying “nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of a primary or general election or the processes thereof under this bill pending the determination of the suit.”

Kwanza:


https://thenationonlineng.net/fresh-hurdles-for-re-worked-electoral-bill/

Validated:
Another ploy by APC to scuttle electronic transmission of results come 2023.

meetme01:
NASS did a very good job with those clauses to check mate godfathers. A good one for our democracy but these old mofos will not allow it work. They have no other job than politicking.

meetme01:
NASS did a very good job with those clauses to check mate godfathers. A good one for our democracy but these old mofos will not allow it work. They have no other job than politicking.

Validated:
Another ploy by APC to scuttle electronic transmission of results come 2023.

meetme01:
NASS did a very good job with those clauses to check mate godfathers. A good one for our democracy but these old mofos will not allow it work. They have no other job than politicking.