BY JIDE AJANI

Nigerians, both at home and in Diaspora and, indeed, many foreign election observers, who monitored the recent   elections conducted in Kogi and Bayelsa states, are perturbed and left wondering whether it is the same Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that received worldwide commendation over the 2015 general elections that conducted the two inconclusive polls.

Attahiru Jega’s INEC oversaw an election which a sitting President lost.

Today’s INEC, as constituted by President Muhammadu Buhari and chaired by one Professor Mahmud Yakubu, is at best an embarrassment and, worse still, a danger to Nigeria’s democracy.   The new INEC Chairman, on his first day in office in full glare of journalists, declared that INEC’s job could be considered the simplest work to do and wondered aloud why people complain. After the  two inconclusive elections he organised, it is doubtful if he still holds such a glib view of the job description of INEC.

First, the new INEC leadership gambled with credibility and integrity when the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, exposed what it called a   “secret meeting” that was held with Buhari just days to the Kogi governorship election. The government, through the amiable Garba Shehu, owned up that it was true and that it was only a meeting for five minutes.

Tragically, Yakubu’s INEC denied it – that was a first error,   a signal to Nigerians on the type of the  leadership of the current INEC.   It also raised doubts on the credibility currency it possessed.

On the elections of Kogi and Bayelsa, INEC has been tested and found to have floundered in the subjective chimera of wilful human frailties   by using derivative guidelines that were inferior in content and letters to the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, to mask a convoluted decision influenced by religion and ethnicity. It declared Kogi election inconclusive, ordering a supplementary election. By INEC’s – and by implication, Buhari’s All Progressive Congress, APC’s wisdom – today, a candidate of a joint ticket that secured victory for its party is being forced and intimidated to accept a subordinate position for the outcome of a so-called supplementary election where Yahaya Bello, the substitute candidate, scored 6,885 of the less than 12,000 total votes cast.

FILE: President Muhammadu Buhari congratulating the National Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Mahmud Yakoob during the swear-in ceremony of the INEC Chairman and five National Commissioners at the Aso Chambers, State House, Abuja. Photo by Abayomi Adeshida 09/11/2015

In the Kogi gubernatorial election, the poll had closed, returns had been made, and collation completed. It must be emphatically stated that no election takes place in collation centers; all voting occurs at polling units, and results are declared there. Once results have been declared at polling units, only an election tribunal can change it as long as ballot snatching and other disruptions did not occur where the election took place in which case there are no results – as was the case penultimate Saturday in Southern ljaw in Bayelsa State. INEC ought to have made a return instead of planning another election for Southern ljaw where violence was deliberately orchestrated. Collation of results, while an important legal step, only adds up the results at the different levels and nothing more.

In Kogi, the results had all been collated, and the tally of votes for all candidates known, but cancellation of votes in some areas was used to execute an agenda that viciously did not want the declaration of a winner.

The Constitution is superior to any other law in any statute or guideline. Where the Constitution has specifically made provision for and provided details on how and the requirements to declare a person for the offices of President and Governor, no other law can add to it or subtract from those requirements as established by the Constitution. That perhaps was the reason the National Assembly, at Section 69 of the Electoral Act, deferred to the Constitution where it states: “In an election to the office of the President or Governor or, whether or not contested and in any contested election to any other elective office, the results shall be ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate and subject to provisions of Sections 133, 134 and 179 of the Constitution, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes shall be declared elected by the appropriate Returning Officer”.

There is no provision either in the Constitution or the Act where it is stated that where the number of votes in cancelled polling units or where election did not take place because politicians deliberately made it impossible through violence, the Returning Officer should declare elections inconclusive.

It is only in the INEC guidelines that you have it. How did INEC arrive at the decision to defer to its own derivative guideline that is totally inferior to the Constitution that has sufficiently covered the subject and the Electoral Act that deffered to the same provision of the Constitution?   How did INEC come to the conclusion that the Constitution, which elected lawmakers deferred to, should be inferior   to its guidelines?

In the case of Bayelsa, election results have been declared in seven LGAs, one LGA was turned into a minefield and a battleground, not through election purposes as required by civilized democratic practice, but through the regression into violent conflict, the type of contest for power that elections are intended to avoid. INEC ought to make a return   instead of rewarding those who messed up the process in Southern Ijaw with another election given that it had enough results from the seven LGAs to make a return in line with Section 179(2) of the Constitution, even though   election observers saw how military was alleged to be complicit in aiding thugs to cart away ballot boxes and papers for massive thumb-printing in secured private homes leading to the cancellation in Southern ljaw. That should not make the election inconclusive.

How did INEC come to such a procedure where in   Section 179 of the Constitution, which the lawmakers, who have the powers to amend the Electoral Act, sacredly deferred to, that INEC relied on to declare the elections both in Kogi and now Bayelsa inconclusive? Where did INEC get the advice to rely on its guidelines on a matter that the Constitution has clearly provided for that it should apply?   If elections have been conducted in all states   in the country, is this how   results would be held hostage by violent conflict and the polls declared inconclusive across the country? Again, should election managers rely on INEC guidelines on a subject-matter the Electoral Act or the Constitution has specifically provided for in declaring presidential and governorship election results?

It is very unfortunate that INEC, that has been making steady progress since 2011 up till 2015, is now on the path of regression and a shadow of its enviable, trustworthy commission under Professor Jega – even though Jega was not perfect.   When you constitute a sensitive body like INEC, with untested hands or some people with notorious public record, deficient in paragraph 14(2b) of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution that stipulates that anyone who shall be appointed as

Nigerians, both at home and in Diaspora and, indeed, many foreign election observers, who monitored the recent   elections conducted in Kogi and Bayelsa states, are perturbed and left wondering whether it is the same Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that received worldwide commendation over the 2015 general elections that conducted the two inconclusive polls.

Wada and late Audu

Attahiru Jega’s INEC oversaw an election which a sitting President lost.

Today’s INEC, as constituted by President Muhammadu Buhari and chaired by one Professor Mahmud Yakubu, is at best an embarrassment and, worse still, a danger to Nigeria’s democracy.   The new INEC Chairman, on his first day in office in full glare of journalists, declared that INEC’s job could be considered the simplest work to do and wondered aloud why people complain. After the  two inconclusive elections he organised, it is doubtful if he still holds such a glib view of the job description of INEC.

First, the new INEC leadership gambled with credibility and integrity when the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, exposed what it called a   “secret meeting” that was held with Buhari just days to the Kogi governorship election. The government, through the amiable Garba Shehu, owned up that it was true and that it was only a meeting for five minutes.

Tragically, Yakubu’s INEC denied it – that was a first error,   a signal to Nigerians on the type of the  leadership of the current INEC.   It also raised doubts on the credibility currency it possessed.

On the elections of Kogi and Bayelsa, INEC has been tested and found to have floundered in the subjective chimera of wilful human frailties   by using derivative guidelines that were inferior in content and letters to the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, to mask a convoluted decision influenced by religion and ethnicity. It declared Kogi election inconclusive, ordering a supplementary election. By INEC’s – and by implication, Buhari’s All Progressive Congress, APC’s wisdom – today, a candidate of a joint ticket that secured victory for its party is being forced and intimidated to accept a subordinate position for the outcome of a so-called supplementary election where Yahaya Bello, the substitute candidate, scored 6,885 of the less than 12,000 total votes cast.

In the Kogi gubernatorial election, the poll had closed, returns had been made, and collation completed. It must be emphatically stated that no election takes place in collation centers; all voting occurs at polling units, and results are declared there. Once results have been declared at polling units, only an election tribunal can change it as long as ballot snatching and other disruptions did not occur where the election took place in which case there are no results – as was the case penultimate Saturday in Southern ljaw in Bayelsa State. INEC ought to have made a return instead of planning another election for Southern ljaw where violence was deliberately orchestrated. Collation of results, while an important legal step, only adds up the results at the different levels and nothing more.

In Kogi, the results had all been collated, and the tally of votes for all candidates known, but cancellation of votes in some areas was used to execute an agenda that viciously did not want the declaration of a winner.

The Constitution is superior to any other law in any statute or guideline. Where the Constitution has specifically made provision for and provided details on how and the requirements to declare a person for the offices of President and Governor, no other law can add to it or subtract from those requirements as established by the Constitution. That perhaps was the reason the National Assembly, at Section 69 of the Electoral Act, deferred to the Constitution where it states: “In an election to the office of the President or Governor or, whether or not contested and in any contested election to any other elective office, the results shall be ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate and subject to provisions of Sections 133, 134 and 179 of the Constitution, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes shall be declared elected by the appropriate Returning Officer”.

There is no provision either in the Constitution or the Act where it is stated that where the number of votes in cancelled polling units or where election did not take place because politicians deliberately made it impossible through violence, the Returning Officer should declare elections inconclusive.

It is only in the INEC guidelines that you have it. How did INEC arrive at the decision to defer to its own derivative guideline that is totally inferior to the Constitution that has sufficiently covered the subject and the Electoral Act that deffered to the same provision of the Constitution?   How did INEC come to the conclusion that the Constitution, which elected lawmakers deferred to, should be inferior   to its guidelines?

In the case of Bayelsa, election results have been declared in seven LGAs, one LGA was turned into a minefield and a battleground, not through election purposes as required by civilized democratic practice, but through the regression into violent conflict, the type of contest for power that elections are intended to avoid. INEC ought to make a return   instead of rewarding those who messed up the process in Southern Ijaw with another election given that it had enough results from the seven LGAs to make a return in line with Section 179(2) of the Constitution, even though   election observers saw how military was alleged to be complicit in aiding thugs to cart away ballot boxes and papers for massive thumb-printing in secured private homes leading to the cancellation in Southern ljaw. That should not make the election inconclusive.   How did INEC come to such a procedure where in   Section 179 of the Constitution, which the lawmakers, who have the powers to amend the Electoral Act, sacredly deferred to, that INEC relied on to declare the elections both in Kogi and now Bayelsa inconclusive? Where did INEC get the advice to rely on its guidelines on a matter that the Constitution has clearly provided for that it should apply?   If elections have been conducted in all states   in the country, is this how   results would be held hostage by violent conflict and the polls declared inconclusive across the country? Again, should election managers rely on INEC guidelines on a subject-matter the Electoral Act or the Constitution has specifically provided for in declaring presidential and governorship election results?

It is very unfortunate that INEC, that has been making steady progress since 2011 up till 2015, is now on the path of regression and a shadow of its enviable, trustworthy commission under Professor Jega – even though Jega was not perfect.   When you constitute a sensitive body like INEC, with untested hands or some people with notorious public record, deficient in paragraph 14(2b) of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution that stipulates that anyone who shall be appointed as INEC Commissioner must “be non-partisan and a person of unquestionable integrity”, what you get is the type of inconclusive elections INEC is giving to Nigerians.   Worse still and, unfortunately, the Nigerian public was given a shock treatment with the appointment of two people who are still subject of social media discuss over their alleged questionable records and integrity and this has impacted negatively on public trust of the present INEC.

The import of recent inconsistencies in electoral decision-making, which has led to elections that have become the subject of legal hermeneutic pugilism, is clear to those who have been calling on the government to properly constitute INEC with its full complement of Board members, which is 13 as required by law and not seven and five, which is the required quorum when a full Board is constituted. How can it be explained that clearly seven months after President Buhari was sworn-in, he is unable to constitute the Board of 13 and some 18 states of Nigeria have no Resident Electoral Commissioners, RECs, to man INEC offices nationwide?

All through   the periods of this crisis of inconclusive elections in both Kogi and Bayelsa States, the leadership of INEC, as embodied by the Chairman, was “missing in action” – neither he nor his colleagues – National Commissioners – provided   authoritative pronouncement on the position of the Commission, nor did he affirm the voice of the field officers who made pronouncements making Nigerians to wonder if there is leadership in INEC. The string of inconclusive elections conducted by this new leadership clearly portends looming disaster when multiple elections will be conducted in 2019. That is why Nigerians must continue to ask again and again   why   this current regime has continued to pay such nonchalant attention to a properly constituted INEC? Given the foundational role INEC plays in determining whether we live in peace or in pieces, why is this regime toying with the foundations of our democracy?

Timipre Sylva and Seriake Dickson

How did INEC move from a proud institution that calls all parties for open consultation meetings before election, to a scrounging Commission that would now hold secret meeting at the Villa   with elected party representatives that would participate in the same election prior to the election itself? Can the current INEC, under legal scrutiny, justify its authority to conduct elections and take weighty electoral decisions without being fully constituted? What are the decisional processes for over-riding the Constitution and the Electoral Act as INEC has done on both occasions in Kogi and Bayelsa? Does the current INEC Board, as constituted, have powers so to do? And, more importantly, how can INEC restore its fast eroding public trust, integrity and autonomy as a guiding light   for the conduct of election instead of a floundering Commission? Surely, how the Buhari regime and INEC authorities address these questions before the   next sets of elections in 2016   and the 2019 general elections will determine the sanity of the polity and the direction Nigeria is heading.

If the body language of the government regarding election management is anything to go by, it may be concluded, rightly or wrongly, that election quality and election integrity are not the priorities of the government, whereas these were the main reasons the President was able to gain political power after over a decade of political competition.

It is, indeed, a shocking embarrassment to discover that a President, who benefited from good governance and best global practices in election management, needed the legal advocacy of the civil society and, even more specifically, Sunday Vanguard, to be reminded that a subsisting court order requires that INEC needs a Board to conduct elections. Worse still, now, and despite that reminder, Mr. President has only made half-hearted attempt to constitute the Board – he has appointed only half the constitutionally required Board.

A government, which is not proactive in ensuring that the structures of election management conforms with the enabling legal framework by properly constituting the structures of electoral governance, is subconsciously sending a wrong signal that it may not be trusted to observe the principle underpinning free and fair elections.   President Buhari does not need this baggage.

Nigerians should not be made to begin to doubt the sincerity and honesty of the President in the area of free elections.

What has happened in Kogi and Bayelsa States constitute, in the main, a travesty.