Electoral Act 2010: A Looming Legislative Robbery

Electoral Act 2010: A Looming Legislative Robbery
By Sam Onimisi

Unless there is an amendment of the Electoral Act 2010, the result of the 2011 general election and future elections would have been rigged before they are held. This is how and why. Section 87, sub-section 1-11 is the main problem I have with the electoral act. It stipulated that political parties seeking to nominate candidates for elections shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions. The obvious reasons for this provision are two: to ensure that all aspirants are given equal opportunity of being voted for by members of the Party; and to restore internal democracy within the political parties.

By the reason of the exploits of political god-fathers who often take delight in imposing their favoured acolytes on parties, and the consequent uproar and discord such impositions engendered, often leading to factionalization and instability, no one ordinarily should have any objection to this provision. But many are of the opinion that although god-fathers may be defeated through this law, money-bags would have been granted a blank cheque to underwrite the outcome of party primaries. More often than not, god-fathers doubles as moneybags and so, nothing will change as what is taken away from them by the right hand gets back to them through the left hand. So, where is the equal opportunity and what is the value of money-procured internal democracy? This leads us to the next question. What is the motive of the framers or the sponsors of this section of the law? Could it have been the freedom of choice of the party members and the electorate? Ostensibly so.

However, after an earnest study of the contextual framework of the National Assembly and the amendments to the Electoral Law, I am constrained to doubt the motive of the lawmakers and more inclined to believe that Section 87 as amended, is entirely a self-serving and an anti-democratic provisions inserted in the interest of the ruling party. You ask me why? The 2007 general election was acclaimed as the worst electoral heist ever in the history of this country and the culprits – Prof Maurice Iwu and his INEC and the beneficiaries (which includes most members of the National Assembly) never showed any repentance. They infact, did their worst to justify themselves through the manner they perverted subsequent bye-elections. And so, if they have an opportunity to make laws an election, won’t they do so with their self or party interest at heart? Have they ever regretted their action?

If we had prevented the National Assembly from amending the 2006 Electoral Act by reason of their aforesaid disability, perhaps we could have been saved from the quagmire we are saddled with. But how could we have done so? They are also amending the 1999 Constitution and there is no doubt that a lot of self-serving provisions will be inserted. How shall we react to it – knowing well that the effect will be worse on the polity? The entire project of amendment either to the Electoral Act or to the Constitution were deliberately delayed to deprive us the needed time to react or reject their proposed amendments before the next election were due. Those who are today insisting that May 29 is sacrosanct as the handing over date knew before now that there was a need to amend the 2006 Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution, didn’t they? What national emergency or disaster that prevented them from acting on time except selfish and party interests? Which left me with no option than to conclude that the amendments as contained in the Electoral Act 2010 are devoid of national interest and to that extent, are entirely otiose?

Now, let us look into the costs - the financial implementation of the Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010. To conduct or hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions throughout the country is a gargantuan project which could be under taken by only a few political parties. If the secret motive is to limit access of participation by opposition parties, then it has been achieved ab ini tio! If the sinister motive is to restrain or constrain the growth of democracy, then it has been accomplished by these provisions of the Act. To conduct primaries to nominate thousands of councilors, hundreds of local council chairmen, thousands of state legislators, hundreds of candidates for the National Assembly, hundreds of governorship aspirants and perhaps scores of presidential candidates is so cost - prohibitive that the expected benefit – internal party democracy – pales into an exercise in delusion. Mark you, it doesn’t end in primaries. Congresses, conventions, special conventions and National Conventions must be held for the ratification of the candidates with the highest numbers of votes cast. Why must this process be adopted?

My submission is that the sponsors of the Bill had ulterior motive and were never interested in internal party democracy. They are interested only in the envisaged victory of the party in power and their assured return to the National Assembly. Except the PDP, and perhaps to some extent, the ANPP and the ACN, no other party has the financial resources to implement. Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010. Meaning that 60 out of the 63 political parties will not be able to present candidates for all elective offices in 2011. The Anambra State bye-election of early this year where the PDP alone had over 30 aspirants for whom primaries were attempted; an exercise that the party couldn’t accomplish but ended up imposing a candidate, is a pointer to the utter confusion this section of the Electoral Act will generate.

Meanwhile, members of the National Assembly, the entirety of who are elected on the platform of the PDP, ANPP and ACN, have made so much money in the almost four years since their election in 2007; that they can underwrite the expenses of their primaries and defeat their challengers within their parties or opponents from other parties with no financial strain at all. What with their quarterly income package of N35 million per House member and N45 million per Senate member respectively. By April 2011 when election may be held, each House member would have earned N560 million as against the sum of N720 million per Senate members; and this means that for four legislative years, the 360 member of the House of Representatives would have earned N201.6 billion while the 109 Senators would have raked in some N78.5 billion – giving a total of N280.1 billion!! Am I not conservative in my estimation? Now hear Prof. Itse Sagay, a legal luminary and professor of law: “A Senator earns N240 million in salaries and allowances while his House of Representatives counterpart earns about N204 million per annum.” Compared to law-makers in the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, we have the following picture:-

UK Parliamentarian - $102,000 = N14.28million per annum
US Senator - $174,000 = N24.36million per annum
Nigerian Senator - $1.7million = N240million per annum

So when you hear our legislators talking of ‘internal democracy’ or ‘equal opportunity’ for aspirants, these are the dummies sold to Nigerians to enable the 469 ‘honourables’ and ‘distinguished’ individuals secure return tickets to the National Assembly. Since this advantage is obtained by causa falsa, it is secured by fraud and it ought not to stand, unless and until legitimized through a referendum. Otherwise, it stands as legislative robbery! T-u-f-e-n-e-v-e!!