By
Abiodun Ajijola
National
Coordinator, Election Monitor
With eighteen (18) days
left to the General Elections it is pertinent that all stakeholders ensure they
put in their best efforts to ensure that the elections are free, fair and
credible. However as the elections approach it is important that every attempt
to scuttle the elections must be resisted by every well meaning Nigerian and
election stakeholder. It is important to make a trajectory of some of the key
activities that have occurred in the past few months so as to understand if
there are any current threats to the 2019 Nigerian General Elections.
FAKE
NEWS
First is the barrage of fake news. Every political season has a
level of politicking and story-telling which is generally accepted to be part
of the electoral process (especially the campaigning season). However when the
gimmicks of actors in the political process are intentionally misleading it
becomes a cause for concern because misleading the electorate is akin to
creating crisis in the country. It is also quite unfortunate that a lot of the
false information has been directed at the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC). Clearly the agenda here is to discredit the nation’s
electoral body in order to cast a shadow on the legitimacy of the forthcoming
elections ever before they hold. One of the most widely circulated stories was
the accusation that INEC was registering minors in Kano. This took over social
media and became a source of national discourse. However INEC set up a
committee to investigate the issue and eventually came out to debunk the
claims. Click here to access the report: http://www.inecnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/qREPORT-OF-INVESTIGATION-KANSIEC-CHAIRMAN-COMMITTEE.pdf. INEC
also asked any political parties or stakeholders who had evidence of this to
bring it forward. No such evidence was produced despite each political party
having a digital copy of the entire nation’s voter register as of the time. To
go further, Kano had not had a continuous voter registration exercise since
2014 (since it had no off-cycle governorship election). At that time a
different INEC administration was in place preparing for the 2015 General
Elections. However the impression created by the drivers of this situation was
that the current INEC had being registering a plethora of minors in Kano.
Clearly the intent was to cast aspersions on INEC’s neutrality by advancing
that the Commission was trying to provide advantages to voters in a particular
part of the country thereby suggesting that INEC was partisan.
A second example is the
hysteria during the recently suspended Continuous Voter Registration (CVR)
exercise. There were many claims that INEC was being biased and deliberately
disenfranchising citizens from the southern part of the country. Once again
this was done with the sole intent of portraying INEC as biased.
It is quite ironical that
after the final figures for the 2017/2018 CVR results were released, the
Southern States had amongst the highest increases in new registrations. The
North Central was highest with 36.84% closely followed by the South East with
31.13% and South South with 27.66%.
For those saying INEC did
not do well in the voter registration it is important to realize that the CVR
figures jumped by over 44% from the registrations preceding the 2015 General
elections. In addition, Lagos overtook Kano to become the most populated state
in Nigeria in terms of voting population. For those claiming that INEC wants to
rig in favour of the incumbent government, it’s important to state that a comprehensive rigging plan would commence
from the voter registration. However the region that most favours the incumbent
(North West) recorded the lowest increase in voter registration (14.4%).
Considering that this region gave the incumbent the bulk of its votes in 2015,
it would make no sense to not attempt to pump up the registration figures in
this zone if INEC was truly working to rig for the incumbent. Once again this
shows that the allegations are baseless and targeted purely at undermining the
credibility of INEC and consequently the entire electoral process.
Another example of
intentional falsehood propagation is the article titled: SHOCKER: ‘13.5m Nigerians’ voted
manually in 2015 presidential poll — and APC got most of those votes (available at https://www.thecable.ng/shocker-13-5m-nigerians-voted-without-pvc-in-2015).
The above mentioned article makes a bold case that 13.5m Nigerians voted
manually in 2015 and that this largely favoured the All Progressives Congress
(APC), Nigeria’s ruling party. The main argument put forward is that the states
which were won by the APC had the highest number of PVC only accreditations
which it refers to as manual accreditations. The following paragraph is
lifted directly from the said article. “Out of this number, 10,184,720 votes are
from states won by Buhari and 3,351,591 votes came from states won by Jonathan,
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, representing 75 percent and 25
percent of accredited voters respectively.” This simplistic approach
gives an impression that one party overwhelmingly benefitted from manual
accreditation over others. However after taking a look and assessing the data
to see if this assertion is factual, accurate and representative of the actual
situation, it was found to be completely
false. The article refers to 13.5 million voters manually accredited in
2015 however the truth is that 8,103,011
voters were accredited manually.
Looking at the data further it is clear that following the argument of the
mentioned article the six of the top ten states that were involved in manual
accreditation were won by the PDP, Nigeria’s current main opposition party. In
addition there were a total of 5,389,648
accredited by voters in states won by the PDP is equivalent to 66.5% while a total of 2,713,363 voters were accredited in
states won by the APC which translates to 33.5%
of the total manual accreditations. It can be seen that this is clearly
opposite to what the article in question intended to pass across. Click here to
read the full analysis: http://electionmonitorng.blogspot.com/2019/01/re-shocker-135m-nigerians-voted.html.
Clearly fake news is designed to build up wrong perceptions, emotions and
beliefs amongst citizens ultimately positioning some citizens to believe that
the elections have already been rigged and as such efforts made to ensure
transparent elections could end up being futile if these false views are
sustained. Fake News is one of the most potent threats to the 2019 Nigerian
General Elections and must be tackled aggressively and honestly by all
stakeholders.
DELAYED INEC BUDGET
The second critical issue
was the delayed INEC budget.
According to public reports INEC submitted the budget for the 2019 Nigerian
General Elections in the first quarter of 2018. However there was no way to
treat this budget outside the 2018 National Budget which was not passed until
16th May 2018 and signed into law on 20th June 2018. A
supplementary budget and virement request was made to the National Assembly on
the 11th July 2018. The INEC budget was not finally passed by the
National Assembly until mid-November 2018
and later transmitted to the president. INEC clearly received its funds
at the end of 2018 for an election scheduled to hold in mid-February 2019. Were
it not for the resourcefulness and wisdom of the current INEC leadership headed
by Professor Mahmood Yakubu, this budget delay could in itself have derailed
the entire electoral process. This is because according to INEC’s Election
Project Plan there are certain activities which need to be carried out well in
advance of the elections especially as relates to procurement amongst others.
Click the following links to learn more about the INEC Budget Delay:
2018 Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill
The third very significant
issue is the 2018 Electoral Act
(Amendment) Bill. The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 had been the source
of much controversy and had traversed back and forth between the National
Assembly (NASS) and the Presidency. The first version which had 43 clauses was
transmitted on January 19th 2018 and later rejected on March
8th 2018 because of issues with Sections 25, 138 and 152(3)-(5). Clearly
reordering the sequence of elections after INEC had released its election
timetable was inappropriate. The second version which had 41 clauses was
transmitted on the 27th June 2018 but was later rejected due to drafting
errors. The third version which had just 15 clauses was transmitted on
3rd August and rejected on the 30th August 2018 as a result of
drafting and cross-referencing errors in addition to issues with sections
18(1-2), 31, 34, 85(1) and 87(14). This version also had no provision for the
use of smart card readers. The fourth version was transmitted on the 7th
November 2018 and rejected on the 6th December 2018. The president’s
letter cited confusion and disruption would likely occur if the Bill was signed
in that way amongst other observations. It is instructive to note that as of
the time the Bill was transmitted to the president (7th November
2018) campaigning had not commenced for any office. In fact campaigns would
only commence on the 18th November 2018 (Presidential and NASS
elections). The implication is that if the president had signed the Bill into
law anytime before the 18th November (11 days time period) it would
certainly have meant that campaigns should last for 150days (as this was the
provision in the Bill up from 90 days in the Principal Act). If the bill was
signed into law before December 1st 2018, it would have without any
controversy meant that State Governorship and House of Assembly elections would
last for 150 days. However if signed into law between the 1st and 6th
December, 2018 there would have been the controversy of whether to apply 90days
(existing electoral Act, 2010 as amended) or 150 days which would have been
reflective of the proposed Bill. This would clearly result in confusion since the campaigning was an
ongoing process yet to be concluded.
Since campaigns for
Presidential and National Assembly elections commenced on the 18th November
2018 while campaigning for the Governorship, State Houses of Assembly
and FCT Area Council elections commenced on the 1st December
2018. Adding 150 days to these two dates would give dates
of Wednesday, 17 April 2019 and Tuesday, 30 April
2019. It is important to note that Section 25 of the
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), empowers the Commission to appoint date not
earlier than 150 days but not later than 30 days before
the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office. This
means that the earliest date for the 2019 General Elections would be Sunday
30th December 2018 while the last possible date would
be Monday, 29th April 2019. If the 4th
Version of the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill 2018 were signed as it was the
window to hold the 2019 General Elections would be between the 17th to
29th April, 2019 to ensure that both limits are
satisfied.
It is also
expected that the dates are chosen so as to allow for a run-off where required.
On the 9th June 2018, President Muhammadu Buhari assented to the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No.
9) Bill, 2017. This Bill alters the provisions of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to provide the Independent National
Electoral Commission with sufficient time to conduct bye-elections and provide
grounds for de-registration of political parties. This Bill was earlier
passed by the Senate on 26th July, 2017 and Federal House of Representatives on
the 3rd October, 2017. The Bill increases the time frame for the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct bye-elections in default of a
candidate being duly elected in Presidential and Governorship elections
from 7 days to 21 days. The implication is that in-order to make
provision for a possible run-off, the last possible date of the elections would
be Monday 8th April, 2019. It is clear
that this date falls outside the 17th to 29th April
2019 band. Kindly click the following link to access the full analysis of the
dangers for the fourth version of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018: http://electionmonitorng.blogspot.com/2018/11/press-statement-4th-version-of.html
The implication of this
is that signing the fourth version of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill would
have truncated Nigeria’s current democracy by making it impossible to conduct
the 2019 General Elections. It is quite surprising why so many interest groups
(local and foreign) vehemently insisted that the Bill be signed into law with
its inherent flaws. It is important to note the same sort of mass pressure
(much from well informed Nigerians) was mounted for the signing of the 3rd
version which had only 15 clauses and without the smart card reader. When exposed
some said it was a mistake or that there were just minor errors (senior lawyers
and legislators were involved in this). Clearly one cannot believe that such
mass pressure was as a result of ignorance therefore it becomes imperative to
consider a deliberate attempt to get a bill signed into law which would create
electoral crisis.
ATTEMPT AT PREVENTING THE RELEASE OF INEC regulations
and guidelines for the conduct of the general elections
Another attempt to undermine
the 2019 General Elections was to frustrate INEC from issuing its Regulations and Guidelines for conduct of
the general elections. In the past
few weeks there have been attempts by some political actors to prevent INEC
from using the updated regulations and guidelines for the conduct of the 2019
General Elections. While INEC has made every effort to get stakeholders on
board (political parties, civil society, media etc) it was strange that some
political actors were bent on preventing INEC from carrying out its
constitutionally provided function of creation of guidelines for the purpose of
conducting elections. These political parties even proceeded to court to stop
INEC from releasing the said Guidelines just over 30 days to the General
Elections. INEC however came out to clearly state that it had engaged diverse
stakeholders and ensured that the Guidelines were in the best interest of the
electoral process.
The major bone of
contention was INEC’s insistence of using the Continuous Voting and
Accreditation system. It is important to ask why a procedure which has been in
place since 2016 is just been challenged in 2019 just under a month to the
first set of elections. It is also instructive to note that this procedure has
been used to conduct elections in 6 off-cycle governorship elections as well as
over 190 constituency elections since 2015. A plethora of political parties
have been involved in these elections and at no time was there any suggestion
that this procedure was in any way adverse to the conduct of free, fair and
credible elections. Therefore INEC cannot be blamed for going ahead with this
procedure going into the 2019 Nigerian General Elections.
The INEC bulletin below dated
26th April 2016 Volume 1, No. 840
clearly shows the Commission’s intention to deploy Simultaneous Accreditation
and Voting system in subsequent elections.
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
DAILY
BULLETIN
VOLUME: 1 N0.: 840 DATE:
27 / 04 / 2016
INEC RELEASES SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS FOR
CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has
released additional guidelines to the existing 2015 Guidelines and
Regulations for the conduct of elections in the country.
Having approved the pilot of the Continuous Accreditation and
Voting Procedure at elections, for the time being, the Commission has decided
that the following shall constitute a supplement to the existing guidelines and
regulations at elections.
The Commission stressed that: “all procedures specified in the Guidelines
and Regulations for the Conduct of the 2015 General Elections remain
in effect with the following exceptions:
a) Voting shall be by the Continuous
Accreditation and Voting System;
b) The accreditation process shall comprise
authentication and verification of voters using the Smart Card Reader (SCR),
checking of the Register of Voters, and inking of the cuticle of the specified
finger;
c) The ballot paper shall be issued in the
prescribed manner by the Presiding Officer of a Polling Unit/Voting Point
(Settlement) of the FCT, and the Assistant Presiding Officer, APO (VP), in the
case of a Voting Point (VP).
d) Accreditation and Voting shall commence at
8.00 am and close at 2.00 p.m. provided that any voters already in the queue
shall be granted access to Accreditation and Voting in the prescribed manner.
e) The Polling Unit layout shall require the
Presiding Officer to sit next to the APO II;
f) The Presiding Officer shall act
as the Overseer.
The Simultaneous
Accreditation and Voting system has several advantages some of which are listed
below:
- Faster Election Day closing times.
- Voter inclusion (significantly increase the number of people who vote after accreditation. In 2015 seven percent (7%) of accredited voters (i.e. 2,222,254 people) did not come back to vote after they were accredited).
- INEC Smart Card Reader shows the number of accreditations at any point in time (thus no fear of not being able to know the number of accreditations).
- Voters who have used the system have all said that they prefer it from surveys conducted in recent elections. The desires of voters should be placed above all other stakeholders.
Election
Monitor believes that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has
not erred by maintaining Simultaneous Accreditation and Voting system in its Regulations
and Guidelines for the 2019 General Elections in Nigeria. Election Monitor
expects this procedure to actually make the upcoming elections much more
credible and efficient.
SECURITY THREATS
Another
significant threat to the 2019 General Elections is the recent information made
public by the Federal Government that there is credible intelligence to show
that there are plans by some people to scuttle the elections deploying widespread
violence. In addition, there have been claims by the opposition that there are
plans to engineer inclonclusive elections in some states. Both of these portend
great danger for the elections and Nigeria’s democracy. Some have waved off
these findings as mere politics between parties. However this should not be
seen as politics at all, because if there is any truth in them, then all
Nigerians and indeed the international community should be concerned. While it
is clear that there has been a significant upsurge in armed banditry (majorly
in the northern part of the country) it is not clear exactly what the real
intension of these armed bandits are considering the fact that they are very
well trained and equipped and not conventional armed robbers. The spike of
their activities during the political season would also lend credence to the
belief that they may have some political leaning or be operating to achieve a
political outcome. There has also been a
deliberate attempt to use violence to create an election inconclusive as seen
in the 2016 Bayelsa State Governorship Rerun Election.
The Bayelsa State
Governorship Rerun Election of 9th January 2016 is an example. The
Re-run occurred as a result of the violence which occurred on the 5th
December 2015 Bayelsa Governorship Election. There were 157,490 registered voters who were affected by cancellations and
Southern Ijaw LGA was unable to hold elections in its entirety.
The Summary of results for
the two leading parties in the 2015/2016 Bayelsa Governorship Election and
Re-run are:
APC
|
PDP
|
|
Sunday 6th
December 2015 (first election)
|
72,594
|
105,748
|
Saturday January 9th
2016 (re-run election)
|
14,258
|
29,250
|
Total
|
86,852
|
134,998
|
u Difference
between two leading parties – 48, 146
u Number
of Cancellations (breakdown in table
below) – 53, 959
u The
Election was determined conclusive even though technically it satisfied the
conditions of an inconclusive election (there would most likely have been a
break down in law and order if the election was not declared conclusive that
night).
LGA CODE
|
Number of Cancellations RA
|
PUs
|
Registered Voters affected by the cancellations
|
|
Brass
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Ekeremor
|
2
|
5
|
17
|
6600
|
Nembe
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
883
|
Ogbia
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
1854
|
Sagbama
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
|
Southern
Ijaw
|
7
|
120
|
39679
|
|
Yenegoa
|
8
|
6
|
11
|
4943
|
7
|
16
|
160
|
53959
|
Why is this important?
u Date of expiration of the serving governor’s first term – 14th February 2016
u Last
Date that INEC can conduct elections in Bayelsa – 14th
January 2016
u The
results of the Rerun were released on the 10th
January 2016.
u There
were cancellations in 4 LGAs, 16 RAs/Wards and 160 polling units with 120
polling units in Southern Ijaw LGA alone.
u Due
to the violence witnessed during the election re-run it would have been very
difficult for INEC to conduct another re-run before the 14th January
(4 days allowance).
u This
would have lead to certain unrest and crisis in the state because the governor
would have to leave office after the expiration of his tenure even though the
election was not concluded. This would have lead to a constitutional crisis and
certain violence especially being that the governor was having a significant
lead as of the 10th January 2016.
One
of the key learning points from the 2016 Bayelsa Governorship Re-run Election
is that a candidate who is less likely to win an election would more likely
pursue a destructive strategy as a constitutional crisis would never be the
desire of a candidate who is more confident of winning an election.
It
is important that Nigerians take the security threats very seriously and put
pressure on all stakeholders to ensure that there is peace before, during and
after the 2019 General Elections. Deliberate, simultaneous and nationwide
violent attacks could be devastating and such coordination of violence cannot
be suppressed by the security agencies alone. The citizens must also reject it
but this is only possible if they are sensitized that there is a potential for
it to occur and educated on how they can support the security agencies to
prevent it.
neutrality of the security agencies and the judiciary
The
last issue to be considered in this particular write-up is the neutrality of the security agencies and the judiciary. While
there has been public outcry (local and international) about the need for
non-partisan security agencies in the upcoming elections, it is important that
efforts are sustained to ensure that security forces are not used to favour any
political party during the 2019 General Elections. The negative perceptions of
the 2018 Osun re-run governorship election were basically as a result of
security agencies failing to act professionally and neutrally and not a failure
of INEC. However, progress is being made in this respect with the refusal of
the president to extend the tenure of the immediate past Inspector General of
Police, Ibrahim Kpotum Idris and appoint a non-controversial replacement Mohammed
Abubakar Adamu. This has calmed many stakeholders and increased hopes of a
neutral police force in the elections. While stakeholders continue to reiterate
the need for neutral security agencies during elections there is very little
focus on the neutrality of the judiciary which play a very critical role in
elections in Nigeria. However the recent suspension of the Chief Justice of
Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen has put the nation’s judiciary and
electoral process in the spotlight with some foreign governments weighing in on
the move as well.
Suffice
it to say that the issue is not as simple as it may appear, however there have
been reports and allegations that the judicial system has been used severally
to undermine the nation’s electoral process by providing judgments to the
highest bidder in some cases and not necessarily the rightful winner of an
election. Even where in 2007 the sitting Late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua
publicly acceded to the flaws in the election that brought him into office, he
still won the election petition instituted against him. This also shows up in
the ‘go
to court’ syndrome where politicians who have rigged elections tell
their opponents to go to court. This they do because they believe nothing would
change even after the matter has gone through the legal process. Unfortunately the
percentage of cases where elections have been successfully overturned in the
judiciary is dismally low as compared to the percentage of election petition
cases that have been instituted in the country. This is so, even in some
elections where all well meaning stakeholders observed such elections as not
free, fair or credible. This has made some politicians and stakeholders lose
confidence in the judiciary in determining election petition cases and as such
leads to increased desperation during elections including a rise in vote buying
since the person who wins on Election Day has all the advantages irrespective
of how he or she won.
It
is this loss in confidence of the role of the judiciary in the electoral
process that makes it paramount that everything is done to build the confidence
of Nigerians and indeed the international community in the Nigerian judicial
system. This is key because if the country gets to the point (many people
believe this is already the case) where people completely lose confidence in
the nation’s judiciary this would have grave implications for sustaining
Nigeria’s democracy. For this reason every effort must be made to ensure that
the judiciary performs its functions in a transparent and non-partisan manner.
When considering this it becomes important to look at the current suspension of
Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen beyond his person but its implication on the nation’s
electoral process.
There are reports that a petition was made
against the Hon. Justice Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). The
bone of contention it seems is the non-declaration of some bank accounts which
contravenes the code of conduct rules for public officials. There are also
reports that the suspended CJN admitted in writing that he forgot to make some
declarations and that it was a mistake. Consequently he was to be arraigned
before the CCT. This lead to a flurry of judgments clearly instituted to
frustrate and delay the process of arraigning the CJN. While this is common
amongst lawyers (especially in Nigeria), it is however unbecoming for a CJN
because he is not just any citizen but is the face on an entire arm of
government. In addition the CJN heads the Supreme Court which is the last port
for election petition tribunals for the offices of governor and president. The
implication of this is that if a judge has undeclared bank accounts with huge sums
of money vastly exceeding his official income there is the possibility that
some of these funds could have been obtained in an illicit manner most likely
given for a favour. Such a favour would most likely be related to the primary function
as a judge. As a result of this it becomes precarious for such a judge who
would clearly have sympathies to administer a critical component of the
electoral process. It is only when one looks beyond the personality involved to
the larger electoral process that it becomes very clear why Hon. Justice
Onnoghen’s continued stay was precarious. What would have been expected is a
recusal at least (a resignation may not have been necessary initially) from any
judicial/election related activity until the cases have been determined. This
would have been the best way to put the country first and secure the
credibility of the electoral process.
Many
have insisted that the matter should have been brought to the National Judicial
Council (NJC) in the first instance. However, the NJC was to sit on the 15th
January 2019 but this sitting was suspended indefinitely by the same CJN, Hon.
Justice Onnoghen. At this point approaching the NJC would not be feasible even
though other members of the NJC could have still convened without the Chairman
they clearly were not ready to do so otherwise they would have still sat on the
15th January 2019. However after the current suspension of the CJN,
the NJC suddenly realizes that it can hold an emergency meeting which would
have prevented the current situation in the first place. So the nation is
presented with an imbroglio. There is credible evidence to show that the CJN is
having funds significantly beyond his means which he has admitted that he has
failed to declare, however the same CJN with support from his colleagues is
making it ‘impossible’ to prosecute him. Add this to the fact that he is not
willing to recuse himself of judicial activities has created a situation not
anticipated by the framers of the Nigerian Constitution. The implication of
this is that the ‘CJN cannot be successfully tried’ as any other Nigerian
without immunity would be.
It
is important to consider the wider picture so as to make the right
interventions. Unfortunately many stakeholders have come down hard on the
suspension of Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen but these same stakeholders remained
quiet when he suspended NJC meetings indefinitely. The irony is that some of
his lawyers are saying that his case should have first been brought up before
the NJC before the CCT. So with the indefinite suspension of the NJC what
happens next? Clearly the meaning of this is not positive for the Nigerian
judiciary and the electoral process. While the president’s actions may be seen
as controversial and rightly so, it would be unfair and myopic to only focus on
the president’s action without looking at the suspended CJN’s actions which created
the platform for the impasse in the first place.
Election
Monitor urges support for Nigeria’s electoral process to meet global best
practices. However, Election Monitor encourages stakeholders to speak out about
causes as well, and the unwanted effects may never materialize. While the
timing of the suspension of the CJN is important it is also pertinent to
understand that if the whole process came into being in early January 2019, it
means there was very little to be done about it because the elections were
already close. Would it be better to allow things be even when there could be
partisanship which would affect the credibility of the forthcoming elections?
In this situation the timing is a matter of serendipity and most likely not the
intentional making of any particular party. For example if information is
discovered that a candidate for an election is not eligible, it doesn’t and
should not matter that the evidence was discovered on the eve of the deadline
for submission of nominations of candidates. What should matter is that the
information is acted upon in a timely manner so as not to further jeopardize
the electoral process.
The
National Assembly is slated to reconvene on Tuesday 29th January
2019 to deliberate the suspension of Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen (there are
speculations as of the time of writing this article that this may be postponed
so that the NASS can get the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the suspension
of the CJN). It is quite interesting that the same National Assembly refused to
reconvene to pass the INEC budget despite hues and cries being made for it do
so. The NASS even went further by extending its recess from the 25th
September to 9th October 2018. So the alacrity with which the
National Assembly is being reconvened is quite surprising considering that
passing an election budget is also a very critical national activity. In
addition the suspension of plenary of the NASS on 24th January 2019
till 19th February 2019 seems also strange considering that the NASS
is critical in the full removal of a serving CJN from office. How come both the
NASS and NJC were suspended till after the 2019 Presidential Election? So many
questions remain unanswered.
It
is in this light that Election Monitor recommends that stakeholders should
avoid sensationalism, undue emotion and intentional spreading of false and
misleading information. To build a better and more effective electoral process,
the whole process needs to be considered. Every controversial action should
receive the same level of attention. If stakeholders had condemned vehemently
the indefinite suspension of the NJC by Hon. Justice Onnoghen, perhaps we would
not be in a situation today where other controversial actions have also taken
place.
However
what is truly important is for stakeholders to be not only proactive but
ultimately consider the larger picture which is most significant to Nigerians.
Conclusion
In summary from all the
points delineated in this article, it is clear that there is a consistent, well
organized, planned and sustained attempt to scuttle the 2019 Nigerian General
Elections which has grave implications for sustaining the nation’s democracy.
Election Monitor calls on all well meaning Nigerians and the international
community to reject any attempt to prevent the 2019 general elections from holding
and resist all activities which may be concealed or disguised as populist,
interventionist or reactionary which are just veiled attempts to truncate the
nation’s hard earned democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment