Is the National Electoral Offences Commission desirable or not? Will it fast-track the trial of electoral offenders? Will the proposed commission reduce electoral malpractices and enhance the quality of elections in the country?
These questions are critical to the resolution of the controversy triggered by the proposal for the setting up of a special commission for the prosecution of suspected electoral pirates and establishment of special courts for the trial of election riggers.
But opinions are divided on the issue. Taking an exception to such a commission, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) pointed out that its establishment would amount to a duplication of functions, unnecessary expansion of federal bureaucracy and soaring cost of governance.
To the EFCC, government should strengthen the existing security agencies to tackle crimes, including electoral infractions.
The anti-graft agency explained that electoral offences are already covered under the penal and criminal codes, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act (2000) and the EFCC Act, 2004. It further argued that there is no need to create an agency solely for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting electoral offences because the electoral process is seasonal in nature; elections are held once in four years in Nigeria.
But the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appears to have a more persuasive and convincing arguments. Its chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, said the proposed electoral commission should be viewed as an exception, stressing that while there are other security agencies that deal with economic and financial crimes, nobody, in good conscience, thought that it was unnecessary to establish the anti-corruption agencies.
Yakubu emphasised that INEC is incapacitated to prosecute electoral offenders because it is currently overburdened with other responsibilities.
Also, the electoral body has no capacity to arrest offenders or conduct investigations that could lead to successful prosecution of high-profile offenders.
To buttress his point, Yakubu said since the 2015 general election, 125 cases of electoral offences were filed in various courts out of which 60 convictions have been secured so far, including the most recent one in Akwa Ibom State.
Periodic elections are core elements of democracy. But electioneering creates a nightmare in Nigeria. Instead of being a festival of choice, it has become a national burden of uncertainties. Anxiety has always enveloped the polity, ahead of the general election.
The polity is heated up as desperate politicians make highly inflammable statements. They threaten fire and brimstone. It is usually a do-or-die situation for them. Personal interests tend to override the push for sanctity of the ballot box and the quest for collective survival.
It is because the system has bred political barons and manipulators who have always refused to play by the rules. To worsen the situation, most of the political gadflies only get counter-castigations from rival politicians. No serious punitive deterrence is in place to put such leaders in the cooler and make them pay severely for their misconducts.
The dimensions of irregularities are confounding. Since elections are very expensive, no candidate wants to lose because of the heavy investment in the contest for power. The reigning trick now is vote-buying and selling.
During the presidential primaries, and the recent Ekiti and Osun polls, EFCC had to deploy its men to fish out unscrupulous elements alleged to be involved in vote trading.
The scenario creates a credibility crisis for the ballot box and, indeed, the entire democratic process. It also creates the impression in the international community that government that is elected swims in the pool of legitimacy crisis.
As recently observed by House of Representatives Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, electoral crimes lead to low quality and corrupt political leadership. They also help election riggers and offenders to take control of governments against the democratic will of the electorate.
Rigging has other consequences. It can trigger civil disturbances and violence, which threaten peace and security.
Ordinarily, a discredited poll is a panacea for violence. In earlier dispensations, rigging and other forms of malpractices or irregularities provoked popular unrest. In the defunct Western Region, malpractices were perceived as a colossal rebellion against the people. It led to burning of houses and mass killings in the First Republic. It provoked the infamous “Wet E” (Wet It or Burn It Down) in the region. Hundreds of lives were cut down in spontaneous reaction to rigging. Many properties also became rubble in that era of tempestuous politicking. The political unrest was repeated in the Southwest states of Oyo and Ondo in the Second Republic.
The only time rigging was kept at bay was during the aborted Third Republic when Nigeria practised a two-party system.
In this Fourth Republic, elections have become more problematic. Cultists who were armed with sophisticated weapons beyond the reach of the police were drafted to create panic, molest voters, scare away the electorate, invade polling booths, inflict pains, maim and kill in the interest of the highest bidder and in expectation of a fat reward for unleashing terror.
Floodgates of litigations trailed the 2007 electoral foul play. A former President, the late Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua, acknowledged that the presidential poll was severely flawed. But the flaw was injected into all the elections of that year to the extent that most of the governors later went to court to seek redress for being rigged out. The ugly development was the baseline for the setting up of the Uwais Panel on Electoral Reforms.
The harassment of the opposition by security agencies characterised the out-of-season 2014 and 2018 elections in Osun and Ekiti. It was alleged that police and other security agents took sides.
INEC has a duty to organise the elections without compromising ethics and sacrificing the rules of the game on the altar of partisanship. Stakeholders, especially leading actors, also have a role to play in ensuring a hitch-free exercise.
Malpractices are either committed individually or jointly. They are planned ahead of the contest. They are not limited to the general election. Primaries are also susceptible to irregularities. Perpetrators usually include voters, candidates, party leaders, supporters, townspeople and other interest groups.
Rigging with precision can be accomplished by those holding the levers of power and authority. In the past, the fear of federal might was the beginning of wisdom.
Aiding and abetting by security agencies can contribute to the subversion of the procedure. Polling staff and electoral officers who are unable to resist bribery and other forms of graft can assist in undermining the popular will of the people. The greatest onslaught against the ballot box can come from an unpopular government bent on retaining power.
The gradual deployment of technology, particularly the electronic transmission of poll results, may have reduced electoral fraud and rekindled public confidence in the electoral system. It may have boosted the prospects of transparent and credible exercise. But, it is not enough. Many loopholes still exist. More pitfalls should be avoided.
The proposed Bill is targeting many electoral vices. The first is thuggery, which appears more ubiquitous than other malpractices. It is a lucrative venture. Jobless, vulnerable youths accept to become willing tools in the hands of unscrupulous politicians who supply arms and ammunitions. Educated thugs now comple ment the efforts of motor park louts in wreaking havoc. Rich politicians who keep their children in good schools abroad recruit the children of the poor for nefarious activities and as sacrificial lambs.
Ballot stuffing and falsification of results were common in the past. Due to surveillance by the voting public and influence of the social media, ballot snatching or hijack has also reduced.
Despite the improvement in the conduct of elections, some party agents still dispute results tendered at the final collation centres. They cite discrepancies in results. It is noteworthy that some polling workers and highly placed electoral officers have been prosecuted and jailed to serve as deterrent to others. It is an effective way of sanitising and restoring the dignity of the electoral process.
Other electoral offences include: double registration, unlawful possession of voter’s cards, selling and buying of voter’s cards, giving false information while applying for registration, hindering voters from casting ballots, impersonating a registration official, forgery and illegal registration.
Others are: defacing a nomination paper, signing a nomination paper as a result form, registration as a candidate in more than one constituency at the same time, disorderly behaviours at political meetings, possession of offensive weapons, improper use or transfer of voter’s card, voting when not qualified, interfering with a voter casting his ballot, canvassing for votes on Election Day, violation of campaign timetable ad announcement and publication of fake results.
It is incumbent on INEC to build on the recent successes recorded in Ekiti and Osun elections and sustain its improved operations. Poorly organised elections are usually counterproductive. The contests should not be characterised by the late arrival of electoral officers and polling materials, shortage of ballot boxes, shoddy accreditation of voters and malfunctioning of card readers and divers.
Rural coastal areas pose some challenges. These include the deployment of logistics. In the past, boat drivers in Edo disappointed INEC. It was discovered that while on the sensitive electoral duty, they got drunk. Besides, it was said that dubious figures were returned by some of the coastal areas.
Many Nigerians are anticipating the passage of the Electoral Offences Commission Bill into law. But, before its passage, INEC should be ready to invoke the various provisions in the constitution and other laws against erring voters, INEC workers and ad hoc officials, and security agents.
If votes will not count, voters will be discouraged. This could lead to apathy. Also, when elections are rigged, public confidence is diminished. Besides, the contest often shifts from the ballot box to the court. Consequently, the poll becomes somehow inconclusive. The candidates are saddled with the additional cost of protracted litigation. There is suspense. A winner may even lose to legal technicality in the court.
There is no better effective method of curbing electoral fraud than the speedy trial of offenders in a special court where they earn jail terms and fines for indulging in unpatriotic activities of subverting electoral democracy.
Only the guilty would be afraid.
END
Be the first to comment