Between the Umpire and the Parties

By Sam Onimisi
It is a rare occurrence to have a disagreement between the referee and the two teams in a contest; it’s much more common for one of the teams to accuse the referee than the two teams blaming the referee at the same time for the same offence. Well, it happened at Tinapa some weeks ago. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had a face-off with the registered political parties under the aegis of Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) in Calabar on Monday, July 4 at the serene but exquisite holiday resort, called Tinapa. The event was organized by IFES in conjunction with INEC to review the conduct and result of the 2011 general election and to make recommendations for a better conduct of future elections, but it was not to be.
The issues in contention are far different from the ones canvassed by the popular press and from the official angle and so, they need to be stated or restated for the public to know. And here they are. When Prof. Attahiru Jega was appointed as chairman of INEC exactly one year ago, he started rather on a wrong footing by holding consultation with groups and other stakeholders, ignoring the political parties. When he eventually decided to do so, he did it in a condescending manner, as if he was doing the parties a favour. This was pointed out to him for which he apologized. In that first parley with political parties, the possibility that INEC needed more time to be in position to conduct a good election in January 2011 was pointed to him by the parties.
Jega insisted that as far as he was concerned, there was no impediment to the conduct of the election in January. Barely six weeks later, Prof. Jega had to summon the parties to another meeting during which he enumerated the challenges facing his Commission which may necessitate extension of the timelines already issued by INEC. The political parties canvassed for and helped INEC to secure a three-month extension for the election. Even when he needed more money for the successful execution of his assignment, the parties rallied round him to get the National Assembly and the Executive to grant him his request.
The debacle of April 2nd during which the first set of election- the National Assembly - was haplessly bungled by INEC was as unpardonable as it was totally unexpected. This was because all that INEC wanted were given to them. They gave several assurances few days to the event that they were fully ready and equipped to deliver. What then happened? Jega managed to spin several excuses to explain why he failed. That failure was followed quickly with a more serious gaffe-his announcement post-poning the election by 48 hours- believing he could conduct the election on Monday the 4th April, oblivious of the fact that Sunday 3rd April was a nonworking day and that no party or candidate can deplore any resources in readiness for the following day. The IPAC had to summon a meeting with INEC to point out to Jega that it was virtually impossible to hold the election on April 4. It was during that meeting that it was agreed to postpone all elections by one week, the first being April 9, 2011. If Jega was left alone and not made to see the futility and disaster that are bound to destroy any attempt to hold the National Assembly election on April 4, the integrity of the 2011 general election would have been completed compromised. On the other hand, all political parties who fielded candidates had deployed party agents to the 120,000 polling booths across the country for the April 2nd botched National Assembly election at a gargantuan cost. Whereas, if the April 2nd election had held many political parties could have won seats into the National Assembly to reflect the multi-party system of the country. However, when it was finally held on April 9, many parties now lacked the financial resources to redeploy party agents to the polling booths again. Only the few parties that controlled some state governments had the resources to return to the polling pots. This was I huge sacrifice which INEC, the various governments and many Nigerians failed to appreciate.
Meanwhile, the parties stood steadfastly behind INEC throughout the election. IPAC had to set up a Media Centre through which the elections were observed and monitored, collaborating with INEC’s media centre to ensure a hitch-free exercise at the cost of the leadership of IPAC. Even after the general election, and especially when some of those who lost were calling for the head of Jega, the IPAC exercised restraints and appealed to its members to give peace a chance and to await its own report on the election. If all these were not supportive enough of INEC, one wonders how the parties could have helped the umpire to achieve its objectives. But for how long shall the parties be treated with contempt and looked down upon?
The raison – d’être for the existence of INEC is the political parties who have the duty of mobilizing the voting public and preparing candidates for the various elections. Without the parties, INEC would have no reason to exist and those who rule us today either as President, Governors or as Senators and Representatives were Parties’ candidates. Meaning that the political parties are the main or primary stakeholders in a democracy, and the one which the Umpire the INEC should co-operate with, consult and partner with to entrench democracy. But alas, this is not the case.
No political party has a minting machine and none received a dime from government or its agencies whether as grants or whatever. No corporate body donated any money to opposition political parties except those which control the federal government and some state governments. Majority of the parties has to scrape and scrap and sacrifice their leaders comfort to prepare and participate in the elections so as to provide alternative platform for Nigerians in the election. In so doing, INEC forced certain costs on the throats of the parties which were INEC’s statutory duties to perform. For instance, the Voters Register which was mandatory to be given to parties in hard copy was given in soft copies and the parties were forced to download and print hundreds of thousands of copies to the various constituencies. Again, INEC forms CF1 and CF2 for candidates to all elective offices were supposed to be supplied in hard copies to political parties. But Jega gave a N50 disc to each party to go and print out for their candidates or download and print from INEC’s website.
Worse still, and without prior notice and right in the midst of the process, INEC suddenly decreed that the forms must be returned in triplicates – meaning that political parties must now make photocopies of the multiple page forms to comply – all this at enormous costs. These then were the sore issues and the underlying matters which influenced the face-off in Calabar. INEC wanted the parties to join it in appraising the conduct and results of the general election, and the endorsement of the political parties are needed to really give INEC the imprimatur of a truly free and fair election – an approval which only the parties could honestly grant – being the primary stakeholders. But the parties refused to grant this approval on their death-bed, as it were. They are demanding that the bills which INEC forced on them through incompetence or mistake or impunity be refunded before they could endorse or validate the results. To say that the parties are making unreasonable demands is to stand the truth on its head. The INEC which admitted a surplus of over N7billion has the money, yet they made the parties to bear the costs which runs into hundred of millions of naira. Where there is a will and if mutual respect is displayed, the issues are not too difficult to resolve but not at the expense of one side to the dispute.