War against vote robbery

This is particularly true of the area dealing with the appointment of INEC officials, a power hitherto vested on the President. Realising the use to which some of the officials were put by Obasanjo, the Uwais report suggests that next time around, the Judiciary and the National Council of State, whose chair is the President, […]

This is particularly true of the area dealing with the appointment of INEC officials, a power hitherto vested on the President. Realising the use to which some of the officials were put by Obasanjo, the Uwais report suggests that next time around, the Judiciary and the National Council of State, whose chair is the President, should have some say in the matter as a means of insulating INEC from unnecessary executive interference.

In its white paper on the report, the administration kicked against this on largely three grounds. The first was that it was never done anywhere in the world and so then Nigeria cannot be an exception. The second argument was that by bringing the judiciary into the matter, the principle of separation of power, under the presidential system, would be muzzled up. And third was that it offends the provisions of the Constitution in terms of the executive powers of the President.

It is important to examine these positions one by one, starting with the last. The electoral reform agenda, as envisaged by the Uwais report, can only succeed with some constitutional changes and modifications here and there. Indeed, the report contains areas needing such retouching as appropriate. It is therefore not tenable to resist changes in areas related to presidential powers, touching only other areas. There is no one portion of the Constitution that should be considered more important than the other only on the basis that it protects presidential power. If it is good to change other areas in order to achieve the onerous goal of free and fair election, so should it apply to areas dealing with the office of the president more so that the office is central to our gross mismanagement of the electoral system as witnessed during the Obasanjo era.

The other point, that bringing the judiciary into the matter would disturb the principle of separation of power is also not tenable. Presently, it is the president who appoints some high level judicial officers on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council NJC. This is similar to what the Uwais committee recommended, which is basically that NJC recommends at lest three names to the National Council of State NCS, whose chair is the president, among whom one is picket as INEC chair.

So, if in appointing judicial officers by the president no one argues that it amounts to an offence against the principles of separation of powers, how does a similar recommendation by NJC to NCS amount to muzzling up the principle when the same process applies? We may as well ask the president to hands off the appointment of some judicial officers on the recommendation of the NJC, so as to insulate the judiciary form executive interference.

The truth about this principle is that it overlaps in several areas. Strictly speaking, the president nominates ministers whose appointment is confirmed by the Senate. Here, there is a crossing of functions between the executive and the judiciary. This is also the case in law making and budgetary matters. So, there is no strict separation of powers as some want us to believe.

The third argument is that there is nowhere election officials are not appointed by the President. That this is not being done in other countries. As true as this may be, it is conveniently not being said that presidents in those other countries do not use their democratic institutions the way ours have been using them to the advantage of their own parties . We all saw how they were so misused in 2003, 2007 and during the Ekiti re-run governorship election. While in other countries they are truly public institutions, here they are treated as the property of the party in power .This the case with all of them, including the media.

   Furthermore, they don’t have this archaic turn by turn arrangement as we do. If this suits our own sectarian sentiments others find it primitive.

  The point here is that each political entity operates what is good for it and not that it does so because others do or don’t. Clearly, experience has shown that our leaders have proved incapable of   being fair to all shades of political opinions when it comes to electoral matters and so the need to try alternatives.

To be continued