SIECs pay to contest: Barriers or filters

As things stand, all state independent electoral commissions (SIECs) will adopt specific charges to candidates, an addition on top of the fees charged by the political parties. However, instead of worrying about what will not be overturned, the political parties should argue to realise the silver lining behind this dark cloud. The SIEC in Jigawa […]

As things stand, all state independent electoral commissions (SIECs) will adopt specific charges to candidates, an addition on top of the fees charged by the political parties. However, instead of worrying about what will not be overturned, the political parties should argue to realise the silver lining behind this dark cloud.

The SIEC in Jigawa State is charging the chairmanship position N5 million, while the councillorship is N2 million. In Plateau State, it is N1.2 million and N500,000 for the chairmanship and councillorship. In Kebbi State, it is N500,000 for chairmanship, N300,000 for vice chairmanship, and N200,000 for councillorship. In Kwara, it is N700,000 for the chairmanship, while councillorship pays N268,000. In Kogi State, the chairmanship and councillorship must pay N250,000 and N100,000, respectively. In Benue, the fee is N500,000 for chairmanship candidates and N250,000 for councillorship candidates. In Kaduna, it is N2 million and N500,000 for chairmanship and councillorship candidates. In Bauchi, the chairman, vice chairman and councillor candidates paid N300,000, N250,000 and N120,000, respectively.

Assuming a political party has candidates for all chairmanship and councillorship candidates, for example, in Kaduna, that party would have paid N173.5 million to the electoral commission. Given the vast amount of money the SIEC is going to receive, there is no excuse for the commission to worry about efficiency. Now, each SIEC is expected to utilise the generated funds for the common good. They can do so by learning and applying global good practices.

Introducing charges is not uncommon for electoral bodies around the world. But there is a rationale behind doing it. In many democracies around the world, rules exist to ensure that candidates who run for office are serious and credible contenders. Barriers to entry are introduced to discourage non-serious candidates or spoilers, who only create confusion on the ballot paper and weaken the electoral process.

• NIGERIA DAILY: How Nigeria Gears Up For A China-Powered Future
• Petrol price hike: Kaduna passengers abandon road for train

In the UK, the Representation of the People Act 1983 requires that candidates standing for election must deposit £500. This deposit is intended to deter frivolous candidates from cluttering the ballot. But the candidate will only be refunded their deposit if they win at least five per cent of the vote in the contested constituency.

In Canada, candidates are required to pay a deposit of CAD 1,000. The goal is to encourage candidates to file proper paperwork and discourage non-serious contenders. Candidates who receive at least 10 per cent of the vote or meet other administrative criteria get a refund. This ensures that serious candidates who perform well in the elections are not unfairly penalised.

India’s electoral system requires a deposit of INR 25,000 for candidates contesting. The forfeiture rule—if a candidate fails to secure at least one-sixth of the votes—deters unserious participants. In Malaysia and Singapore, candidates must deposit RM 10,000 and SGD 13,500, respectively, to run in elections. The deposit is forfeited if a candidate fails to win at least 12.5 per cent of the votes. The deposit acts as a deterrent to non-serious candidates. This rule reduces confusion on the ballot paper and ensures that only those with a significant base of support contest in elections.

Without this type of barrier, so many unserious or protest candidates join the electoral contest, making it difficult for voters to make informed choices. Having too many candidates increases the administrative burden, including the cost of printing ballots, logistics and managing electoral campaigns. Some individuals may even be sponsored by challenging incumbents to split the votes. Some contest for different motives—to raise political profile, publicity, or protests—rather than with the intention of representing constituents.

We have seen the latter situation in the 2023 elections, where LP and NNPP candidates were used as spoilers in various states. For example, the Kaduna State gubernatorial elections would have taken a different dimension if the LP candidate had been discouraged by similar charges imposed by SIEC. Most of the 50,000 voters who voted for the LP candidate were protest votes against the incumbent party, which would have gone to the runner-up—who lost by less than 11,000 votes.

So, as I said, there is a silver lining behind the SIEC charges—removing unserious candidates. The charges should have been refundable deposits with conditions which can be augmented in the future. Using lessons from recent elections, state electoral commissions must go further to ensure they achieve the full intentions of the policy.

A specific lesson is the case in Bauchi, where many political parties were unable to pay the charges set by the SIEC. The lack of payment makes these parties ineligible to field candidates to contest for chairmanship and councillorship elections in some LGs and wards. Instead of printing only eligible parties on the ballot papers for each councillorship and chairmanship election, the Bauchi SIEC went ahead to include all parties, including the ineligible parties, on the ballot paper. Their inclusion cluttered the ballot papers and confused the voters—a way of disenfranchisement. In fact, an ineligible LP candidate went on to secure the highest number of votes in the Bogoro councillorship election held in Lusa B Ward of Bogoro LGA.

This is the point where I will give unsolicited policy advice to the SIECs that are yet to conduct their elections. SIEC should de-clutter their ballot papers by printing only eligible parties that have paid the charges. It would be unfair for the eligible parties to be cluttered with ineligible parties, unless there is a hidden agenda to undermine them. It will also be harmful to the less-informed voters who trust the electoral process will be fair and rational.

For example, Kaduna State should print different ballot papers for all 255 contesting councillors across the 255 Wards and the chairmanship candidates across the 23 LGs. The ballot papers in each ward and LG should only include the eligible parties. If there are only two eligible political parties that have paid the charges, the SIEC should only present these parties on the ballot paper instead of all 18 parties.

This arrangement will give voters the opportunity to vote with a clear conscience. Having a cluttered ballot paper with ineligible parties only weakens the electoral process. It also disenfranchises the less informed voters who go out to exercise their civic rights with the intention of voting for a political party or individual of their choice, as it happened in Bauchi. Had there been a policy where such individuals were filtered out in a way only those with serious political aspirations contested, the 2023 elections would have been different.

Likewise, INEC could also adopt this strategy by requesting hefty deposits from political parties for contestants across constituencies. These deposits should come with conditions where refunds will be given as long as the candidate wins a decent fraction of the votes like it is done across the world. This can even help political alliances to work better, as only those who paid the deposits will appear on the ballot.

Charity begins at home, they say. SIEC is much closer to the people. Like so many reforms, SIEC can be the thermometer to test the applicability of INEC’s well-intended reforms.