By Akpo Mudiaga-Odje

As a prelude to the forthcoming elections in Nigeria, a lot of political slogans and sobriquets have been coined to entice and/or lure voters into casting their preferences for some candidates and/or their respective political parties. One of such political coinages is the now much advertised “one man one vote” slogan.

This slogan is been brandished as the most potent arsenal against the hydra-headed scourge of election rigging in Nigeria. This discourse examines how legally effectual this new political concept of “one man one vote” is under our jurisprudence.

Elections As A Divine Political Activity.
That elections are actually accentuated from a divine Order, has been captured with brilliant clarity by the authors of Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (2003) Edition. In that seminal expose, the authors defined an election at page 473 as: “… the purpose or plan of God whereby He has determined to effect His will. Thus, election encompasses the entire range of divine activity”.

And they elucidated further that:  “The word “election” itself is derived from the Greek word, Klegomai, which means literally “to choose something for one self”. The above represents the divine background of an election as a concept of God Almighty in enthroning his will through his people. Accordingly, elections must be taken very seriously since it eventually transforms into the true political cliché, that “the voice of the people is the voice of God”.

In point of fact, our Constitution augments this principle by providing in Section 14 (2) (a) that: Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from who government through this constitution derives all its powers and authority”.

“One Man One Vote and Section 144 Of  The Electoral Act 2006 As Amended.

Indeed, our Constitution in various sections has set out the voting age to be eighteen years. The Electoral Act, 2006 as amended therefore provides the procedural and/or some substantive processes regulating elections in the country. These include party substitutions, voting procedures, affidavits of verification, filing of election petitions and lots more. Regrettably however, the sobriquet of one man one vote does not seem to be captured by either the Electoral Act or the Constitution as its being professed by our political leaders today. Agreed, the procedure for one man to vote in respect of any specific office is guaranteed. Yes that is the law. However, the challenge is how can the voter subsequently proceed to ignite the legal process to protect this right of equality of one man one vote? In otherwords, is there any legal authority for the voter to seek redress in a court of law to uphold his right of equality of “one man one vote”?

The rather very sad and regrettable answer to the above question is that there is no law that empowers or authorizes a voter to protect his so called one man one vote. Quite on the contrary, that power is given to a candidate who contested for an election or a political party. Thus Section 144 of the Electoral Act 2006 as amended provides for the person or institution that can bring election petition to challenge electoral fraud or irregularity. That section provides that: 144 (1) An election petition may be presented by one or more of the following persons: (a) a candidate in an election; (b) a  political party which participated in the election. See INEC vs. ACTION CONGRESS (2009) 2 NWLR (pt 1126) 524 At 589 paras D and 591 paras C. This is the tragedy of the Nigerian voter.

He is not recognized by law to protect his own vote. Neither can he proceed by way of an election petition to ensure that his vote even counts in the election. What this legal incubus i.e. the Electoral Act declares, is that it is only a validity nominated candidate or a political party can defend the political slogan of “one man one vote” Consequently, a voter, registered voter or any Nigerian citizen cannot petition a court of law in Nigeria to defend his one man one vote even in cases of brazen electoral malpractices; yet it is his vote that would eventually determine the electoral victory of a candidate.

The court in Anuzie vs. Obichere (2006) 8 NWLR (pt 981) 140 at pages 155_156 paras H-F  laid down the position of the law regarding complaint that a candidate did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at an election. Interestingly, Dongban-Mensum JCA observed in that case thus: “A complaint that a candidate did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election is an invitation to compare and contrast figures.  A tabulation of the registered voters, the total number of votes cast and the votes scored by each candidate is a prerequisite in establishing this complaint”.