Date Published: 01/25/10

January 25, 2009                           PRESS RELEASE

The National Assembly and Electoral Reforms!!!

Over the last thirty-two months, since President Umaru Musa Yar Adua promised to reform the nation’s electoral system, after admitting nobly to the whole world in his inaugural speech that the election which brought him to power was fundamentally flawed, the issue of his so-called electoral reforms have dominated the nation’s political space. And this is understandably so, because elections and the electoral process itself are the hallmarks of any democracy. To this extent, how strong, reliably fair, and transparent the electoral system of a country is, invariably determines how strong, stable and sustainable the country’s democratic government will be.

Sadly, the president hasn’t lived up fully to his sacred promises of genuine electoral reforms. The reforms so far have been rudderless and mired in deep controversies. The president himself had contributed greatly to the mess. On the one hand, he has mouthed sanctimoniously his good intentions, while on the other hand, he has engaged in the very actions inimical to the electoral reforms: he selectively implemented the recommendations of the Electoral Reforms Committee for his political self-interest and expediency. He has aided and abetted political nomadism popularly known in these parts as cross-carpeting or defections.

It also appears that the president’s refusal before embarking on his medical trip to handover properly to the vice president in line with the relevant sections of the Constitution to enable the vice president to function as Acting President is a deliberate ploy to frustrate the electoral and constitutional reforms. Since his so-called medical attention in Saudi Arabia, the reforms have been grounded, and virtually all key institutions of government have been less than functional. Let’s be clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong in the president being sick or in his seeking medical attention anywhere he wishes. Sickness like death is not an aristocracy for some, but a democracy for all. What is wrong however is his using his ill-health to hold the nation ransom. Yar Adua is not the State, and the State is certainly not Yar Adua, and he cannot therefore sacrifice over 150million Nigerians on the altars of self-interest and self-preservation. The present agitation in the polity and the inability of the government to respond timely with the much needed diplomacy at the highest level in the wake of the failed terror attack on a United States bound plane by a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are a direct consequences of the failure of Mr. President to act, and to do the right thing. Granted, the president as some Media Practitioners have insinuated, could have collapsed and fallen into a coma before being flown out of the country for medical attention, and was therefore not in a position to write to the National Assembly, informing them of his intention to seek medical attention outside the country, but we all know that besides the Thisday Newspapers exclusively reporting that he did wrote to the National Assembly, and that the letter was never delivered by his Special Assistant on National Assembly Matters, he had since regained consciousness, otherwise how could he have signed the 2010 Supplementary Budget in his sick bed in Saudi Arabia? And he also spoke to the BBC some days ago, that he was recovering. So there is no justification for the president’s actions, no escape route for him for the scorn and disdain he holds the Nigerian people, and there is no panacea for him either for the injustices he has inflicted on Nigerians, the Justice Dan Abutu Rulings notwithstanding, as the infamous Judgements are contradictory, and has thrown up more questions than answers. How could Justice Abutu ruled on one hand that the vice president could exercise the powers of the president in his absence, even without a letter to the National Assembly by the president as that is discretionary, and then ruled on the other hand, that the Federal Executive Council (FEC) should determine the fitness or otherwise of the president to govern within 14days, when we all know that the FEC as presently constituted is most likely not going to move against the president? In short, the president could have saved Nigerians all the trouble, aches and pains they have suffered these past two months, if only he had done the right thing, and he still has the opportunity to remedy the situation. If he does not, then it means that he has joined the league of Sit-tight leaders in Africa, and it inevitably means he is hell bent on thwarting the ongoing electoral and constitutional reforms.

Our only hope of having true electoral reforms as another election year (less than 14months away) approaches, now lies perhaps in our Parliament-the National Assembly. This is because within a democracy, parliament is the central institution through which the will of the people is expressed, laws are passed and government is held accountable. In practice, it is the institution through which popular self-government is realised. Parliaments as functionaries of the people protect and defend their interests in dealings with the other branches of government, and with respective sub-national and international bodies. How well they meet this interceding role, and how truly representative of the people they are in all their diversity, is an essential consideration for a democratic parliament. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) eloquently puts it thus: “As the central institution of democracy, they embody the will of the people in government, and carry all their expectations that democracy will be truly responsive to their needs and help solve the most pressing problems that confront them in their daily lives. As the elected body that represents society in all its diversity, parliaments have a unique responsibility for reconciling the conflicting interests and expectations of different groups and communities through the democratic means of dialogue and compromise. As the key legislative organ, parliaments have the task of adapting society’s laws to its rapidly changing needs and circumstances. As the body entrusted with the oversight of government, they are responsible for ensuring that governments are fully accountable to the people.”

One may well ask: Why are parliaments the central institution of democracy? The answer lies in the fact that democratic principles, as the IPU has said, are actualised through a complex set of institutions and practices of which parliament, though a part plays a pivotal role in relation to the others. The set of institutions are: a guaranteed framework of citizen rights; institutions of representative, and accountable government; an active civil society; a number of mediating institutions between government and the citizens, among which political parties and the media are the most important.

For citizens to have any influence over any laws, and policies to which they are subject requires the guarantee of certain basic social, economic, civil, and political rights. While respect for these rights is the responsibility of all citizens, it is the particular responsibility of parliament as the legislative power to ensure that their formulation and mode of protection in practice conform to international human rights standards, and that they are not undermined by other legislation, including that applicable to residents who do not have full citizenship.

Similarly, how effective they are in carrying out their distinctive functions within the separation of powers with respect to lawmaking, budgeting, oversight of executive actions, policy and personnel, ratification of treaties, and monitoring of treaty bodies, debating national and international issues, hearing and redressing grievances and approving constitutional change, is crucial to the success of the democratic project?

Furthermore, a democratic parliament will seek to engender a vibrant civil society and to work closely with it in finding solutions to problems facing the country, and in improving the quality and relevance of legislation.

In addition, parliaments not only represent citizens as individuals; through the presence of political parties, it also represents them collectively to promote certain broad policy tendencies. Parties serve both to focus electoral choice, and also to ensure that these choices are carried through into the work of parliament and into ongoing public debate, and although political parties in Nigeria are not currently held in high regard by the public at large, they are nonetheless indispensable to the working of a democratic parliament.

Finally, the media constitute the key means for informing citizens about public affairs, and a chief channel of communication between parliament and the public. In their investigative role, the media have always been seen as a ‘watchdog’ against all forms of abuse. How well they fulfill these functions is vital for the quality of democratic life. Given the tendency for these functions to become distorted, whether by executive partiality in a government-controlled system or by powerful economic interests in a commercialised one; parliament has a key democratic role in setting an appropriate legal framework for the media, to ensure both their independence and diversity.

Besides all of these, every parliament ought to have five key characteristics: they must be representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective. The big question is, does our parliament (the National Assembly), as it is, truly have these characteristics? Isn’t a paradox of our times, that we hail the victory of democracy worldwide, even in neighbouring countries, while lamenting the fact, that our central institution of democracy-the National Assembly is facing a crisis of legitimacy?

But today, more than ever, our National Assembly is challenged to put its house in order; it must not allow political expediency override moral imperatives. We hereby call upon the Members of the National Assembly to put their hands on the arc of history if only for once, and bend it towards the hope of a better Nigeria by genuinely addressing the electoral reforms issue. This entails that the Uwais Report must be implemented in toto-Chief among which, is that the appointment of the INEC Chairman must be done through the National Judicial Council, the National Council of State, the Senate, and not through the President. Election petitions must be concluded before swearing in, elections must be transparent, votes must count; results must be counted, and announced at polling stations, and the electronic media must be allowed to announce them immediately. The awful process whereby INEC announces results that are wholly unrelated to votes cast must be eliminated.

And in a real sense, the true test of this Administration’s electoral reforms so far will be seen in the Anambra gubernatorial elections coming up in a few days from now-that election will certainly determines how free and fair, the 2011 general elections will be.

Ultimately though, the onus for a lasting and sustainable democratic society lies in the Nigerian people. It is a marvellous age we live in, and Nigerians in this age are called upon to reject the myth of their generation’s apathy, and engage if need be, in the necessary civil disobedience to bring the required pressure to bear on our National Assembly to do the right thing.

  Comrade Eneruvie Enakoko

  (CLO Chairman in Lagos)