The Pacesetter Frontier Magazine

Tag: Electoral Bill

  • Why Senators rejected Buhari’s Electoral Bill ammendment – Abaribe

    SENATE Minority Leader, Senator Enyinnaya Harcourt Abaribe, PDP Abia, has given reasons the Senate rejected President Muhammadu Buhari’s bill to amend Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022 that was recently passed into law.

    According to him, amending the section would be going against the civil service norms and would be injurious to the well-being of the society.

    While signing the 2022 Electoral Amendment Bill on February 25, President Buhari complained that the provision constituted fundamental defect, saying it was in conflict with extant constitutional provisions.

    He said Section 84 (12) constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of any political party.

    The section reads: “No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”

    He stated that the provision introduced qualification and disqualification criteria that wad ultra vires the Constitution by way of importing blanket restriction and disqualification.

    Shortly after signing the Bill into law, President Buhari sent an amendment to the National Assembly, which the Senate refused to pass into law last week.

    Speaking on the issue, weekend, Abaribe, who is angling to succeed Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State in 2023, said the Electoral Act is a piece of good legislation that is meant to cure the ills of previous electoral acts and makes rigging of elections almost impossible.

    Aside providing for direct transmission of results from polling booths, it empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to reject results its officers announced under duress.

    On the controversies trailing Section 84 (12), Abaribe said the section codifies what already is supposed to be the norm in our civil service and society.

    “Before, the norm is if you want to run for office, you resign. Now, people stay in office and use state resources to run for office and the office suffers. No law is made to be retrogressive. It did not say you should resign three months to the elections. It says if you want to be a delegate, you will have to resign. The stipulation as to time is what is in the Civil Service Rule, that is 30 days before primaries or congresses you ought to resign.

    “The parties have not set their dates for primaries. When they do, the 30 days will now set in. The President says it conflicts with the Constitution. We don’t know what he meant. What we know is that if you are in office and running without resigning, your office will suffer. When we got his letter, we said he must have been misadvised by some people.”

    On Abia, he said currently he is the most experienced and capable person to take the state to greater heights after Ikpeazu’s tenure.

    (Vanguard)

  • Pressure on Buhari to reject reworked Electoral Bill

     

    President Muhammadu Buhari is under pressure to reject the reworked Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022, it was learnt yesterday.

    Sources said those pushing against presidential assent to the bill anchor their argument on “certain anti-democratic and discriminatory clauses”.

    But, if signed and it becomes law, political parties will be expected to submit the names of their presidential candidates by August 18 — six months before the date of the presidential election.

    According to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) timetable, the presidential election will hold on February 18, 2023.

    Going by the provision of the reworked bill sighted by The Nation, on the date of submission of names of candidates, primaries for National Assembly, governorship and presidential candidates will hold between July and mid-August.

    A source said: “The President may still reject the bill because of ‘vendetta and anti-democratic clauses’ in the reworked Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022.

    “We may end up using the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) for the 2023 general election because of strange clauses.

    “For instance, it is illegal to exclude political office holders from primaries. By implication, ministers, commissioners and others cannot participate in the electoral process.

    “Also, the nation does not have the wherewithal for the use of the electronic voting machine. Most politicians in the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are uncomfortable with it.”

    He added: “The consensus clause is cumbersome and an attempt to hit back at state governors who used to impose candidates. So, we should expect a likely rejection of the bill by the President.”

    Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami (SAN) said he received the reworked bill sent to him by the President for his advice, on Monday. He said he would propose to the President to sign the bill if the content is in the national interest.

    According to other provisions in the bill, the electoral commission may use an electronic voting machine or any other voting device for the election.

    Ministers, commissioners and other political appointees are barred from serving as poll agents during the election.

    Besides, no political appointee at any level, be it a minister, commissioner or board chairman, can vote or be voted for during primaries.

    They are mandated to resign before the primaries of their parties.

    The election expenses for elective offices are pegged as follows: presidential, N5billion; governorship, N1billion; Senate and House of Representatives, N100million and N70million; House of Assembly, N30million; chairmanship election into an area council, N30million; and councillorship, N5million.

    No individual or other entity shall donate to a candidate more than N50million.

    Section 29 (1-3) of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 is explicit on the deadline for the submission of the list of candidates.

    The section says: “Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.

    “The list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of a state, or Federal Capital Territory, indicating that he or she has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.

    “The Commission shall, within seven days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election.”

    Regarding mode of primaries, Section 84 (1) recommends: “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which shall be monitored by the Commission.

    “(2) The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct, indirect primaries or consensus.”

    The conditions for consensus are as follows:

    A political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.

    Where a political party is unable to secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the purpose of a consensus candidate, it shall revert to the choice of direct or indirect primaries for the nomination of candidates for the aforesaid elective positions.

    A special convention or nomination congress shall be held to ratify the choice of consensus candidates at designated centres at the national, state, senatorial, federal and state constituencies, as the case may be.

    Section 84(10-13) limits courts from either stopping party primaries or elections from holding.

    The section prevents political office holders at any level from participating or contesting for nomination into any elective office during primaries at the national convention or state congress.

    It claims: “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”

     

    (TheNation)

  • INEC urges FG to pass amended electoral bill

     

    Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), yesterday, called on both chambers of the National Assembly to harmonise and speedily pass the amended Electoral Act Bill.

    INEC said it was already racing against time with regard to preparations for the 2023 general election, noting that the framework was needed to back up its actions.

    National Commissioner, Information and Voter Education (IVEC), Festus Okoye, made the call in Asaba, Delta State, on the sidelines of the opening of a two-day capacity building workshop for heads of Voter Education and Publicity (VEP) and Public Affairs Officers of INEC from the 17 southern states.

    The workshop was organised with support from the European Centre for Electoral Support (ACES) and the European Union. Okoye, who declared it open, told newsmen that the commission was determined to deepen democracy through a technologically-driven electoral process in 2023 and beyond.

    Explaining why the bill needed to be urgently passed and signed into law, Okoye said there was a provision in the proposed law for 360-day notice of elections before the commencement of polls.

    “And you know, INEC has already fixed February 18, 2023 as date of election, so when you count backwards, you will see there is a limited time within which we have to give the notice of election based on the new bill. The bill also makes it mandatory that election funds shall be released to the commission at least 12 months before any election.

    “So, we are desirous for the bill so that whatever fund is due to the commission for the purpose of procurement can be released so that we can procure ballot boxes on time, procure cubicles, procure additional BVAS and procure any other thing we need to procure on time and begin to prepare well for the conduct of the election.

    “Also, under the new bill, political parties are obligated to submit list and personal particulars of their nominated candidates at least 180 days to the election. The implication is that parties must conclude their primaries ahead of time, at least six months to election for them to remain within the framework.

    “National Assembly is aware of this, and we are confident as a commission, that whatever issues are involved relating to why the bill has not been passed would be resolved any moment from now. There are so many provisions in the bill that would impact fundamentally on the electoral process,” Okoye said.

    Addressing participants while declaring the workshop open, Okoye urged them to, as a matter of importance, assist their resident electoral commissioners (RECs) to engage the media.

    “Running away from the media will not make them go away. Engage the media within the ambit of your own ability and expertise. You must not be an orator. You must not be charismatic. Your business is communication and you must communicate in knowledge and humility,” he said.

    Project Coordinator, ECES, Hamza Fassi-Fihri, expressed the agency’s commitment to ensuring an efficient and seamless communication system in the nation’s electoral process.

    The REC in charge of Delta State, Monday Udo-Tom, expressed optimism that the outcome of the workshop would enhance INEC’s communication and perception management strategy, and also enrich the electoral process.

     

    (Sun)

  • New Electoral Bill bars voters from contesting candidate’s certificate

    A new amendment to the Electoral Act has precluded the possibility of voters challenging credentials submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission by candidates, The PUNCH has learnt.

    The proposed law, if signed by the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), will allow only those who participated in the party primary to challenge in court, the school certificates, the birth certificate and other credentials of a co-contestant.

    Currently, Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act reads, “Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or the FCT (Federal Capital Territory) against such a person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

    However, the new amendment reads, “Any aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party’s candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election is false, may file a suit at the Federal High Court against that candidate seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

    Currently, all Nigerians are allowed to challenge the credentials of candidates of any political party. This has been reaffirmed by several court judgments.

    For instance, in the case of Lawrence v PDP & Ors (2017), the Supreme Court in a judgment read by Justice Walter Onnoghen said, “From the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended supra, it is not in doubt that it confers locus standi on ‘any person’ whether a member of a political party or not to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court in accordance with the said provisions and the court has the requisite vires to hear and determine his case.”

    Agreeing with the judgment, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun said, “Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, empowers any person with reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate is false to institute an action before any of the High Courts to seek a declaration that such information is false.”

    In 2019, the PDP and its governorship candidate in Bayelsa State, Douye Diri; filed a suit against the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress, David Lyon; and his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, seeking their disqualification because of the questionable school certificate of Degi-Eremienyo.

    The Supreme Court agreed with the PDP and disqualified the APC despite the fact that the APC had already been declared winner of the election by INEC.

    Should this new amendment to the Electoral Act be signed into law, the Bayelsa scenario may not be possible.

    New provision will be challenged, N’Assembly can’t masquerade those seeking office, says SAN

    A human rights lawyer, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), told one of our correspondents in a chat that the amendment should not be allowed to stand.

    Adegboruwa said such an amendment was antithetical to the Freedom of Information Act and the spirit of transparency even as he argued that the Supreme Court had at several times guaranteed the rights of Nigerians to challenge the qualifications of candidates.

    He added, “I believe that the people seeking to occupy public office seek to occupy a position of trust and to that extent, once you have ventured into a contest for a position of public trust, your life is open and there is nothing to hide again.

    “I think there are many Supreme Court judgements that have stated that it is not only those who are vying for a particular office that can question the credentials of a candidate. So, it is already settled in law that the locus to challenge the qualification of any candidate whether academic or otherwise is open to anybody who has reason to believe that a candidate has not told the truth.

    “I think it is too late for the National Assembly to masquerade those seeking office. That new provision will be challenged and I don’t think it can see the light of day.”

    Also in a chat with our correspondent, activist, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), argued that the provision, if allowed to scale through, would be a nullity.

    Falana stated, “That provision will be illegal because anybody can demand from INEC under the FoI Act the form submitted by anybody and once you have that, you can go to court?

    “That provision cannot remove my right to go to court. You can even report to the police or even prosecute the person by yourself. There is a provision for that in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. This new amendment will not help them.

    “A lot of them have forged certificates and that is why they are doing it but it cannot help them. Even the constitution says anyone who presents to INEC a forged certificate has committed an offence. So, they cannot help themselves.”

    A former INEC Director for Voter Education and Publicity, Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, argued that the new provision would allow the wrong persons to win elections.

    “As the law stands, if any candidate fills Form CF 004 for his personal particulars, anybody can go to court, file a case and say such a person is not qualified. In the new amendment, they have limited to only those who contested the primaries with that person is qualified.

    “But it allows the wrong people to scale through and become elected officers. These are issues that we need to look at. This is one of the ugly aspects of the bill,” Osaze-Uzzi stated.

    Sectional unconstitutional – CSO

    The Convener, Coalition in Defence of Nigerian Democracy and Constitution, Ariyo- Dare Atoye described the section as unconstitutional.

    He added that besides, any party who fails to field unqualified candidates would surely face the consequences.

    Atoye said, “If there’s a provision in the Electoral Act that says that voters cannot sue, that is provision is unconstitutional. However, such a section should not be a source of worry for Nigerians, because it is always the responsibility of the political parties to field aspirants and candidates, the public has the responsibility to vote or not to vote an aspirant they think they have concern about. and if a party has run the risk of fielding a candidate with unqualified credentials should suffer from such an abnormality either from within or by a challenging party.

    It will place responsibilities on politicians – Group

    The Director, Center for Transparency Advocacy, Faith Nwadishi, said the section of the bill, if signed, would place more responsibilities on politicians who she described as lazy.

    She said, “The process already is cumbersome and the judiciary is already messing up the entire process, these are mainly pre-election matters and if they are not dispensed off quickly, let it be the responsibility of those who are contesting that election. In fact, the politicians have become too lazy in our electoral process, they are the ones who should do the most work, they are the biggest beneficiary. What I think the bill would do is to give more responsibility of scrutiny to the contestants.

    “As it is now, the citizen can draw the attention of whoever is contesting and let whoever is interested to take the matter to court , they should also ensure a thorough check on those contesting so that at the end of the day their votes would not be wasted like in Bayelsa.”

    It is not democratic – IPAC

    On his part, the National Treasurer, Inter-Party Advisory Council, Obidike Okolo, in an interview with The PUNCH said the provision was not democratic.

    He said, “That provision, if passed is not democratic because it does not connote democracy. If a person presents certificate, anybody who is a Nigerian should be able to challenge such information given because the person who is presenting such information or certificate is not going to serve just those who contested primaries with him. He is going to serve the generality of Nigerians, especially even more when the person is giving such information under oath.

    “So, it is like perjury and at the end of the day if you give false information and if you commit perjury, it’s crime against the state.

    “The state is a representative of the people and it is actually a crime against the Nigerian people. So, why shouldn’t Nigerians be entitled to challenge any information if they feel somebody has given false information? So, we do not support that kind of law and that aspect should be expunged, that’s our opinion.”

    (Punch)

  • Electoral Bill: National Assembly reverses self one month after Buhari rejected the 2021 Electoral Amendment Bill

    One month after President Muhammadu Buhari rejected the 2021 Electoral Amendment Bill, over the removal of indirect primaries, the Senate, yesterday, passed an amended version with the inclusion of direct, indirect and consensus mode of electing candidates by political parties for elective positions in the 2023 general elections..

    This came as the House of Representatives reintroduced the Bill and approved direct and indirect primaries.

    Citing the humongous cost of conducting direct primary by the various political parties and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Buhari, in December, 2021, vetoed the Amendment Bill.

    Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, had at the plenary, on Tuesday, said the House would revisit the rejected Bill and do the needful because of its importance to the 2023 general elections.Consequently, the Bill was reintroduced at the Plenary, yesterday.

    Shortly after the bill was passed afresh, he explained that apart from Section 84(2), which deals with mode of primaries, nothing else was changed in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, which was first passed in November 2021.

    Earlier, the House had adopted a motion by the chairman of Committee on Rules and Business, Abubakar Fulata, for the recommittal of the bill to Committee of the Whole, to enable the parliament tinker with the proposed legislation, in line with the observation raised by President Buhari.

    However, immediately the bill was passed, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) member from Rivers State, Awaji-Inombek Abiante, raised an observation that clause 4(A), which stipulates that political parties would hold special convention across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory(FCT) where delegates would vote for their preferred president was still retained in the bill. He said he was suspicious that the clause was intended to scuttle the signing of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill by President Buhari. Consequently, he demanded that all the clauses should be taken one after the day to enable members make input.

    Nevertheless, the House spokesman, Benjamin Kalu, at a press briefing, explained that the House rules does not permit it to dabble into other parts of the bill other than parts pointed out by the president.

    Source: www.sunnewsonline.com

  • State Governors oppose direct primaries ammendment in the Electoral Bill

     

    Civil society groups on electoral reforms have said that state governors opposed to certain amendments in the Electoral Bill cannot dictate to the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.).

     

    They described the position of some governors on the mode of primary and other items in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill as “unpopular and narrow,” stating that their interest should not override the public interest.

     

    The CSOs stated this in a statement titled, ‘Electoral Act: Governors cannot dictate to Buhari,’ issued on Sunday by the Executive Director, Adopt A Goal for Development Initiative, Ariyo-Dare Atoye, and endorsed by the Centre for Liberty, Raising New Voices, Youth and Students Advocates for Development Initiative, The Nigerian Alliance, The Art and Civics Table and Speak Out Africa Initiative.

    The coalition observed that since the President could not dictate to the governors what they do with bills passed at the state level, it was also his prerogative to sign the Electoral Bill into law based on popular demand.

     

    The CSOs also urged the governors not to obstruct the popular will of Nigerians on the bill, but they should concentrate on rebuilding their parties, ensuring internal party reforms, digitisation of membership registration and dues payments.

     

    The statement read in part, “The position of some of our governors on the new Electoral Act Amendment Bill is unpopular and narrow, and it conflicts with the public interest of Nigerians.

     

    Read AlsoWe must uphold family values to rebuild society -BuhariTwo months after, N’Assembly yet to pass Buhari’s amendments to PIAProffer solutions to herdsmen/farmers crisis, Buhari tells FUTA

     

    “Our governors should not serve as obstacles or constitute an impediment to the signing of the new Electoral Bill because it has substantially met the expectations of Nigerians.

     

    “It is the prerogative of Mr. President to sign the bill and make history, and it is not in the public interest for the governors to ask him not to sign it.

     

    “The President has a glorious opportunity to take a popular action, etch his name in gold and side with the people by signing the bill into law.”

     

     

     

     

    Source: www.punchng.com