Amendment will enhance quality of elections — Itodo

Samson Itodo is a Nigerian lawyer, founder and executive director of Yiaga, Africa, a non governmental organisation for the promoting democracy in Africa. He explains why the proposal on holding elections early is apt, noting that it will enhance election process in Nigeria.   There’s a proposal before the National Assembly for the Electoral Act […]

Samson Itodo is a Nigerian lawyer, founder and executive director of Yiaga, Africa, a non governmental organisation for the promoting democracy in Africa. He explains why the proposal on holding elections early is apt, noting that it will enhance election process in Nigeria.

 

There’s a proposal before the National Assembly for the Electoral Act 2027 to ensure the next general elections is conducted in 2026. What is your view?

The proposal to adjust the timetable for elections is driven by two reasons: The first one is that there’s a great need to resolve all electoral disputes because the Constitution provides that elections shall take place not earlier than 150 days and not later than 30 days. 

What that means is that elections cannot hold 30 days before the end of the tenure of the incumbent. And why is that the case? There are instances where elections are not concluded on first ballot, and so you need to take a runoff. And so, when you get the runoff together, you discover that to avert constitutional crisis, it’s always good to give a vote. 

• Why we are proposing earlier conduct of elections — House c’ttee chair
• Tasks ahead new INEC chairman

It’s not the first time we’re having this proposal. It came up in the last amendment exercise, so it’s not new. It’s just that it did not pasts the last time but it is a proposal that enjoys support. 

If you want electoral disputes to end before swearing-in on May 29, first, if you factor in 121 days from the date of the occurrence of the course of action, then factor in 180 days, that’s six months, and then factor in the 60 days on appeal, and then 60 days in the Supreme Court, it takes you relatively about nine to ten months to conclude electoral disputes. So, if you do nine to ten months, and elections are due to hold in February, nine to ten months will mean that elections will hold in 2026.

So, the best thing to do is to abridge the number of days for either the litigation process at the tribunal level, or the second thing to do is to limit the jurisdiction. So, you adjust the elections.

 

At what point should they start, and what will be the court of finality? So, for pre-election matters, do they have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, or they can terminate at the court of appeal?

It will give us the time to resolve all electoral disputes before swearing-in, to avoid issues around the bandwagon effect that comes as a result of the different dates for elections, or to give the judiciary a space to assert its own independence. Because when incumbents come to office, as we have seen in the past, they use the first three or four months to engage the judiciary as a way of currying favour, whether through granting them increase in salaries or promotion. 

So, these conversations are a function of the fact that we have weak institutions, and these institutions are unable to withstand political pressure.

 

It means YIAGA Africa is in support of this amendment proposal?

Yeah, absolutely. YIAGA, Africa supports this, it aligns with some of the proposals that we have made. 

 

Did you put into consideration other bodies that will be involved in the election, political parties, INEC itself, the security agencies.  Do you think they have enough time to prepare? 

No, quite frankly, there is no time. And you know, that’s why we’ve been screaming and advocating that the entire process of amendment ends early. Because the situation we find ourselves is such that INEC is going to be under intense pressure to deliver. Two, the political parties would also have issues, you know, trying to organise themselves. Because if elections hold in November, it means we will have primaries earlier than we think. So that itself is problematic. The amendment process has several proposals. And we’re trying new things at the same time. 

We have to be careful so the system does not collapse or crash. There are innovations coming up, and we don’t have time. So, the earlier the National Assembly concludes the amendment, the better it is for everyone. They can pass the amendment and then move implementation to the next round of elections if it becomes too complicated.

Another fear people have is on governance itself. You know, once INEC blows the whistle, governance stops as everyone focuses on the election. If, it is held earlier, don’t you think it will impact negatively on governance?

Campaigns, vigorous campaigns started a few months ago. We’ve already started feeling like the elections are on. Why? Just because of the attitude of our political class. So, I think that governance has ended for the most part. This is just going to reinforce it.  Every action of government is now geared towards 2027. I do not know if it will make any difference because campaigns for 2027 started months ago with all sorts of endorsements. You move around cities across Nigeria, there are billboards. You even feel that the election …….

YIAGA Africa and other civil society, have called on INEC several times to wield the big stick to regulate this early commencement of campaigns. If this thing sails through now, it will make it worse. 

But you see, our duty is to continue to call the attention of stakeholders to perform their duty. Secondly, it is to continue to hold them to higher standards. For instance, why is it that the security agencies have not pulled down the billboards, you know, across the FCT or across states? It is not INEC’s duty to pull down those billboards. It is the security agencies, right?

The law needs to be strengthened to criminalise these campaigns by third parties. Because what the law says and what INEC’s guidelines says, even though there isn’t any ambiguity, there is a gap that is being exploited by political actors, and that’s something that we need to address.

 

Asides fitting into the legal requirement for participating in the election,  what other advantages does this proposal offer?

It provides clarity for INEC and other institutions, so they don’t also get distracted, you know, with the whole business of settling down. So, for instance, when you conduct elections early, once the elections are concluded, it’s all reverse logistics. There’s also the post-election dispute. 

It gives the institution the opportunity to conclude everything that it has to do with the post-election audit. And that can be done devoid of any sort of pressure or political interference. Secondly, it does provide some level of clarity, even for the other security agencies, because when you conclude an election, they have time to settle, and plan before swearing in. Once the disputes are being resolved, the coast becomes clearer for all the actors to know where they stand before they get into office. 

So, they begin on a clean slate.

 

If this bill sails through would you advise INEC to go ahead with registering new political parties?

If this bill passes, it will alter a lot of timelines. The first thing the lawmakers must ensure is that they have to cross-reference effectively, so that the time is not affected by other activities. For instance, the law says the registration of political parties must end 12 months before the date of an election. 

Merger must end nine months, right? So, if, for instance, the law is passed, say, in December, like the Senate amendment, will the president assent to it? Because it only takes a second to get the president to sign it. If it slows into a negative, the implication is that some of those activities, those timelines, would have been bridged. Therefore, some of these actions can no longer be implemented unless the lawmakers now change or amend the timeframe in the act.

So, they have to be conscious of the chain reaction, or what we call consequential amendments that would be required to be made in the law. If they don’t do that, we might head for a crisis, and perhaps we’ll end in the courts, because there is a conflict in the law. Without proper attention to cross-referencing, we might end up in the courts, and we now empower the courts to make some judicial pronouncements, which can also impact or lead to disruption of the entire electoral calendar activities.

 

What would be your advice to politicians in case this proposal comes through?

 I think the first thing they need to do is, study the law once this is passed, and check what is the implication of it for their own operations. So, they need to seek legal opinion, and then start preparing. They should not wait. If they have any issues with the law, they have the courts to adjudicate on matters of this nature. But first, they shouldn’t allow the law pass without engaging the National Assembly, and make their case. So, they have the opportunity to do that now, they don’t need to wait. 

The National Assembly members represent three sets of people, so they should engage them strategically, and make their case, and ensure that they direct attention to some of these issues.