INEC’S Many Battle Fields and Foreign Policy Implications
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is currently challenged by one major war and several battles, all occurring simultaneously in different battle fields.As clearly shown in its official name, the INEC has mandate to administer elections in Nigeria. It is established and designed to be in charge of election in all its ramifications. For instance, as provided in Section 15, Part 1 of the Third Schedule of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended and also in Section 2 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, the INEC is required to ‘organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a State and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each State of the Federation.’ It is also mandated to monitor the organization and operations of the political parties; arrange for the annual examination and auditing of the funds and accounts of political parties; arrange and conduct the registration of persons qualified to vote; as well as monitor political campaigns and provide rules and regulations, etc. Consequently, to be able to execute its mandate, its major preoccupation cannot but be to fight against anything that has the potential to constitute an obstacle against the holding of any election over which it has exclusive competence. This is the first and main war to contend with.
Related to this main war is the issue of battle fields, that is, where the battle has to be fought, won or lost. When battle fields are well known, and particularly when the enemy targets are also well known war strategies are easier to articulate and implement. However, the INEC has a constitutional mandate to organize elections with multidimensional operational implications. The INEC has to do battle in many fields, at the same time, and for the purposes of ensuring success of the 2015 General elections.
Insecurity-induced Battle
The first battle field is that of insecurity. The fear of possible violence surely influenced the postponement of the February 14 and 28 elections to March 28 and April 11, 2015. One main evidence for this is best explained by the fact that the INEC was never under any obligation to postpone the elections.As noted earlier in this column and as contained in Section 26(1) of the 2010 Electoral Law, ‘where a date has been appointed for the holding of an election, and there is reason to believe that a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur if the election is preceded with on that date or it is impossible to conduct the elections as a result of natural disasters or other emergencies, the Commission MAY postpone the election and shall in respect of the area or areas concerned appoint another date for the holding of the postponed election, provided that such reason for the postponement is cogent and verifiable.’ In this regard, there can be only two considerations for possible postponement of elections in Nigeria: breach of the peace and existence of emergencies, evidences of both of which must be verifiable. There is no difficulty in verifying the existence of an emergency. The Boko Haram saga constitutes a national emergency in whichever way it is to be looked at.An emergency is defined as a sudden situation requiring an immediate or prompt action and solution. Even if boko haramism is no longer sudden in nature, it has consistently over the years created several situations of emergencies with its many reckless bomb attacks on non-combatants and innocent children.
As regards the condition of breach of the peace, there is no longer any need disputing the obvious: that expected voters are not preparing for any credible election but for political violence and war. How do we explain that political flag-bearers are stoned, attacked with bombs during lawful campaigns? How do we also explain promises by political officials openly telling other Nigerians that in the event of rigging, a parallel government would be set-up? Is the definition of rigging a function of winning and losing? In other words, if a party wins, there is no rigging but there is rigging when the party loses. What justifies the self-given belief that the PDP or the APC or any other party will win the forthcoming elections? Even if there are opinion polls suggesting that a particular political party would win, not until there has been an election and the votes are full counted and the election results have been officially made known and accepted, no one can ascribe to himself any electoral victory.
The point being made here is that there are pointers to possible electoral disorderliness to which the security agencies drew attention and on the basis of which the INEC has considered and postponed the elections. The postponement has remained the basis of the battle between politicians and the INEC and the missiles regularly thrown at the INEC since the shift in date.
Insecurity and Interference
If we do admit that the fear of insecurity prompted the INEC to legitimately postpone the February 2015 elections, then there cannot be any good or legitimate basis for any international interference in what clearly falls within the domestic competence of the Government of Nigeria, and particularly in that of the INEC. Many countries have expressed disappointment about the postponement and have not only accused the INEC of probably nursing a hidden agenda but also planning to rig the elections in favour of the APC. Whatever is the merit or demerit of the accusations, the critical implication is that the postponement has generated a debate on interference by foreign countries in Nigeria’s domestic affairs.
True enough, the conduct and management of international affairs is ridden with interference. However, a distinction between admissible and inadmissible interference is often made in international relations. Interference taking the form of an intervention (involving use of force), interference-induced by partisanship, interference driven by vertical instructions, etc are generally inadmissible. On the contrary, invited interference, based on the recognition of the principle of sovereign equality, etc are acceptable.
The major implication of foreign interference, especially in terms of the condemnation of INEC’s decision to postpone the February elections is that the INEC freely took its decision on the basis of the country’s electoral law, meaning that the postponement was lawful. Consequently, condemning the INEC and its decision is necessarily also querying the legitimacy of the laws of Nigeria as a corporate body. Even if we take the advisory of the interfering countries in the spirit of beneficial interests, the interference should not always take the format of a vertical and descending order simply because Nigeria is also a sovereign Member State of the international community without which a vacuum cannot but be created.
The business of election organization is basically the responsibility of the INEC. If several regional organizations, such as the EU, ECOWAS, AU, etc, have accredited election monitors to Nigeria, there is no basis to talk about interference because the accreditation was done with the consent of the Government of Nigeria. In the same vein at the domestic level, if any political party is proposing to put in place an alternate parallel government, the party is not only interfering in the electoral processes of the INEC but also threading the path of treasonable felony. Thus there must have been evidence of rigging first, followed by exhaustion of court processes for determination of all allegations before any political party can complain.As civilian coups are not provided for in the Constitution, what would happen to the INEC in the event of a parallel government? This is another battle with which the INEC has to wrestle.
INEC without its Chairman
Prof. Attahiru Jega is the Chairman of the INEC. Some political stakeholders have been asking for his resignation, alleging various reasons. The open letter to Professor Jega by the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly (SNPA), published in the Daily Trust of Friday, February 20, 2015, p.59 was a case in point. The open letter was signed for the South East by Dr. Ifedi Okwenna who is the Coordinating Secretary of SNPA. Dr. Ayakeme Whisky, the Secretary for South-South and Senator Dr. Femi Okurounmu, Secretary for South West, signed respectively for their regions.
In the full-page open letter, Prof. Jega and his Commission was basically accused of not admitting that the INEC was still not fully prepared for the election by the time he was declaring full readiness for the elections. In other words, the accusation was that he should have been bold enough to tell the truth rather than hiding under the excuses of the security agencies. This allegation cannot hold objectively for the simple reasons of insecurity already explicated above. Who is disputing the fact that there is a military insurgency in the North East of Nigeria? Who says that there is no militancy in the Niger Delta region? What about the disputes between pastoralists and crop farmers? Why is it that Nigerians have, in spite of the non-violence pact done by the various party leaders, electoral campaigns are still characterized by violence? If truth be told, why are candidate Goodluck Jonathan’s campaigns in the North greeted with violent reactions and those of candidate Muhammadu Buhari are not? In probably reciprocal terms, what about the reports on explosions disrupting the APC rally in Okrika? As reported by Victor Edozie of Daily Trust, on Tuesday, February 17, ‘All Progressives Congress rally in Okrika, Rivers State, was disrupted several times… by intermittent blasts and gunshots. This would be the fourth time that APC rally was attacked or stopped from going ahead in Okrika, the home town of First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.Are these cases not pointers to possible breach of the peace? In the event of any controversial election result, how are people expected to react?
At the level of national security, the INEC should not be faulted for reasons of force majeure and also because the decision to postpone was also lawful. However, regarding allegations at the level of incompetent partisanship, the INEC is actually required to be a referee or a mediator. The SNPA has alleged that ‘nearly 20 million Nigerians who registered to vote were yet to collect their PVCs and that you (INEC) were even yet to take delivery of some PVCs’ which were ‘belatedly sent for printing in China.’ The issue of INEC staff seizing and destroying about 2.7 million cards belonging mainly to non-indigenes in Lagos State, the delivery of PVCs in Northern Nigeria to Emirs, District Heads and top politicians, thus denying ‘millions of non-indigenes, especially southerners residing in the North’ of their PVCs, as well as the question of ‘millions of southerners residing and registered to vote in the North, but have relocated back to the south as a result of Boko Haram activities and political intimidation and coercion, would not have the opportunity to vote; etc, are issues of major concern.
As noted in this column earlier, as much as we have every reason not to doubt the integrity of the leaders of the SNPA, so is there every reason to believe too that Prof. Jega cannot but have reasons to defend whatever allegations brought against him. Therefore, before the quest for his resignation, he should be allowed room and time for self-defense. This is also part of democracy. The position of this article is that both the SNPA and Prof. Jega are hypothetically right. The SNPA has actually drawn the battle line with its open letter and own version of the truth. It is the INEC and Prof. Jega that should now be allowed to give their own side of the truth. It is after the presentation of both versions of the truth that quest for possible resignation and the SNPA’s compulsion ‘to put to the public domain with full proof’ of the alleged ‘many atrocities as a tribalised public administrator as well as taking other steps’ to force compliance can be taken to the altar of supplication for further prayers. In this regard, the battle for the INEC is not the allegations per se but the likely outcome of the management of the allegations. If Prof. Jega resigns or is removed, what is the guarantee that there will be a holier-than-thou chairman? Is it in the national interest at this juncture to remove him?
Card Readers and Foreign Policy Implications
Within the alleged non-readiness of the INEC for the February elections, the issue of Card Reader Machines was raised. Many politicians of note have asked for the non-use of the card readers in the forthcoming elections. The Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba, not only noted on Tuesday, February 17 that the deployment of the card readers was contrary to section 52 of the Electoral Act 2010 but also requested that the card readers should be brought to the Senate in order to ‘demonstrate how it works.’ In fact, the Senate President, David Mark also requested his co-senators to come with their PVCs on Wednesday, February 18 by 11 am to enable them test the card readers.
From the perspectives of Prof. Jega, the deployment of the card readers was legal and there would be no going back on them.As he put it, ‘Section 52(2) of the Electoral Act quoted by the Senate Leader only prohibited the use of electronic voting machines’ and that Section 49 of the same law requires that any persons intending to vote must submit themselves for accreditation.’ Perhaps more interestingly, Prof. Jega reportedly noted that card readers were used in Ghana, Kenya, and other African countries and that the INEC is ‘on solid legal sound.’ This argument is valid and tenable especially for the nuisance value of the PVCs in the event of their theft or snatching as accreditation processes require biometric data of their holders. The mother of all battles for the INEC is the non-consideration of a force majeure-induced need to postpone the election. True, such postponement will be illegal, but what happens if such a situation of force majeure arises? As at today, opinion polls says the PDP is likely to win the election by very little margin on the basis of one man one vote. If the PDP wins, will there be a parallel government? If yes, how will the international community see Nigeria? This brings in the question of and implications for foreign policy.
First, a perception though may be wrong, cannot but emerge that Nigeria is not a stable polity. Nigeria will then have the potential of being categorized into the group of politically unstable countries. This classification cannot but also adversely affect the flows of new investments into Nigeria. Secondly, the international election monitors may have more testimonies to give against Nigeria beyond election monitoring observations. Thirdly, the economic health of the country, which is currently in bad shape, is likely to be worsened. Fourthly, even though Nigeria’s international image might be helped by the fact that a stronger opposition party, the APC, has emerged, thus strengthening democracy and particularly laying a foundation for a two-party system, there is no disputing the fact that the aggressiveness with which party politics is being played in Nigeria may undeservedly disintegrate the country.As the war prepared for is different for an imposed war, politicians should always make haste slowly.