2011 election timetable: Matters arising By Reuben Abati

 
THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has requested for an extension of the timetable for the 2011 general elections till April 2011, to enable it prepare better for the elections, its initial advertised timelines having already gone awry leaving no leg-room for adjustments. This proposal which would require consequential legislative action has already been endorsed by the political parties virtually with no exception and even many of the aspirants are so far enthusiastic that more time will be advisable. There can be no doubt that the extension is in the interest of both INEC and the professional politicians, but there are underlying consequences and possibilities which must be examined to ensure that in the long run, it is the people's interest that prevails. The INEC Chairman had consistently drawn attention to the limitation of time, although he kept promising at the same time that he and his team will do their best under the circumstances. A strategic meeting held in Calabar by INEC officials however came up with the resolution that the timing of the election is practically impossible. The schedule is "too tight", they said.
 
INEC deserves praise for its new-found honesty, for its earlier resort to ambivalence and double-speak seemed like an exercise in grand deception. Jega, the INEC Chairman must have seen that his so-called perfect alibi would not work after all. The political parties which have quickly endorsed Jega's proposal (they probably pushed him into it, anyway) have also done so for self-serving reasons. The Electoral Act 2010 leaves the political parties very little room for manoeuvre with its very strict deadlines. The parties for example were required to give INEC a 21-day notice of their primaries and conventions, without fail, by September 18,  no political party had met that deadline, and there was no clear indication that the various political parties had actually decided on whether to have direct or indirect primaries, or taken a decision on the content of their constitutions, because all of this was still an issue among the various stakeholders.
Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 on the mode of conducting primaries had also changed the nature of power relations within the political parties with regard to the selection of delegates. In the Peoples Democratic Party, this was meant to free the sitting President from the stranglehold of the Governors who in previous primaries held sway with their army of assistants and political appointees and all-powerful Godfathers, but in reality, the new structure requiring primaries at ward levels in all the 36 states still made the Presidential aspirants utterly vulnerable, and the process more expensive than hitherto.
 
Some of the parties, notably the PDP and the Presidency, were desperately looking for a way round this. Even the PDP time-table, which places the Gubernatorial primaries before the presidential, made an interested sitting PDP President vulnerable. It is therefore not surprising that although President Jonathan had signed the Electoral Act 2010, he and his aides had at the same time been asking for an amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 before it takes effect. The President's refusal to append his signature to the amended 1999 Constitution now appears deliberate and strategic. If this hypothesis is true, then our earlier argument that there may be a hidden agenda with regard to the 2011 elections may be provable after all.
 
So, what is likely to follow and what should be our concerns as citizens? If the emerging consensus that the elections be shifted to April holds sway, then there will be need for a review of the enabling legal framework, particularly the Electoral Act with regard to the timing of elections and the amended 1999 Constitution, on which the INEC September-January timetable is based, as well. Contrived as the controversy over the President's signature with regard to the amended 1999 Constitution may be, it is now an issue that also has to be resolved for Nigeria to move forward on the question of elections. Will the Electoral Act 2010 be amended to fit the 1999 Constitution or the amended version? And should the Supreme Court rule one way or the other when it suits it on the matter of the President's signature, what would be the implications? Is there enough time to embark on another round of constitution amendment? Will it not be safer to repeal the 2010 Electoral Act and use the 2006 Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution? If the professional political class manages to resolve this conundrum, the public must be watchful to ensure that the amendments do not end up as an attempt to re-jig the existing framework to favour particular aspirants following a posteriori realizations; for that would amount to a manipulation of the system to deliver pre-determined outcomes.
 
But in simpler terms, what all this tells us is that Nigeria is not really prepared for the 2011 elections. When John Campbell, a former US Ambassador wrote on September 12 about the possibility of the failure of the 2011 elections in Nigeria,  the current Nigerian ambassador to the US, Professor Adebowale Adefuye wrote a rejoinder telling Campbell he is a prophet of doom writing "an offensive… and jaundiced" article (The Guardian, September 13). Campbell and other commentators along the same lines would now appear to know what they were writing about and Ambassador Adefuye, merely pleasing the Nigerian authorities, fails the diplomacy test particularly with his second rejoinder available online in which he says "may the likes of John Campbell never come our way again."  No other general election in Nigeria since 1999 has been prefaced with as much confusion, anxiety and uncertainty as the proposed 2011 general elections. In retrospect, the preparations for the 2007 elections considered one of the worst polls in Nigerian history appear comparable, if not better in terms of certainty. Professor Attahiru Jega is certainly setting the stage for the loss of his own credibility, beginning with the current jagajaga (confusing, mixed up, incoherent) arrangements for the 2011 elections.
 
This is the situation, not because Jega does not mean well, but because in Nigeria there is very little institutional memory and our various institutions are driven not by traditions but circumstances and individual whims. Jega inherited from Maurice Iwu, an existing institution, but he met so much misalignment between mandate, objective and operational capability, he is having to reconfigure the institution afresh; this is something the Ghanaians next door have not had to do from one election to the other in the last decade. And as Jega and his team encounter new demons in the process of that reconstruction, they are compelled to come up with excuses. In a statement justifying the request for a change in timetable, the INEC Chairman has already offered an explanation in that regard, but there are additional questions that remain unanswered.
 
If what he is asking for is a leg room, more like elbow room, then why April? Why not February since the main challenge is that of the voter's register? Why not March? A two-month window before the inauguration of new government on May 29, 2011, may give the tribunals and courts a little room to treat election petitions expeditiously. But with the elections in April, Nigeria is more or less back to the situation in 2007. It means that practically nothing has changed. The various promises about electoral reform have come to naught. One major element of the electoral reform proposal was to ensure that election-related litigations are disposed of before swearing in to prevent a situation whereby persons enjoy stolen mandates for up to two or three years before they are found out and dismissed by the courts.
With the elections now likely to be held in April 2011, we are back to that old order, and meeting the challenge of ensuring credible elections has been postponed. The INEC budget was based on the plan to prepare the voters' register within two weeks and to run the election process between now and January 2011.  If the target is now April 2011, what happens to the INEC budget for the elections? Is it going to prepare a supplementary budget? Or is additional cost already anticipated in the earlier budget? If new costs will be involved, INEC must take the pains to explain that to the public and state exactly how much is required or may be saved from the existing budget.
 
Professor Jega has affirmed that whatever happens the hand over date of May 29, 2011 will remain sacrosanct. That is important, lest further credence is given to the suspicion that some politicians are bent on extending their tenure in office for selfish reasons. As it were, so much is being said about the importance of time. But this is not even, now in retrospect, the more pressing issue at stake. It is the quality of the Nigerian process and its leadership.  The various political parties that are now jumping on the time-extension bandwagon, were they proper political parties would have been ready for the next elections long ago and would not need to behave as if they too are starting afresh. But this is the Nigerian malady. Fifty years after independence, we are again talking about how to begin to plan for the future.
When the various issues are resolved however, Jega must be reminded that he no longer has any reason to offer additional excuses and he must begin to resist the temptation to sound like another prominent public official who comments on everything from the acting styles of Aki and Paw Paw to the eating habits of bank CEOs and much less on his core mandate. For now, our hopes about the 2011 elections are mixed. If the elections are free and fair, fine, but if not, we already know why

Pres. Goodluck Jonathan: After 2011, what next?

I came across a story in yesterday's edition of Thisday newspaper. It was titled "2015 complicates zoning and PDP plans mini convention".

As we know, the issue of whether to zone or not zone the 2011 presidential ticket seems to have taken over the PDP. And according to the newspaper report, some northern elites in the PDP are now looking beyond 2011. It's been reported that the "north" could concede the 2011 presidential to Pres. Goodluck Jonathan if it can be guaranteed that he wouldn't be seeking a "second term" after 2011.

There is a concern within the party that the region that produces the next president will rule for eight years. A "senior northerner" was quoted in the newspaper as saying "If (President Goodluck) Jonathan can openly declare today that he would do only one term and leave in 2015, the North will support him..….we cannot contemplate power being in the South till 2019, which is what will happen if Jonathan does two terms"

If the above statements are true, then it highlights the level of disregard the political elites have for the average voter. It's only in a country like ours, where the votes of long suffering masses don't count, will a political party assume that it will be in power until 2019.  Anyway, that's an issue for another day.

What I find puzzling in the newspaper story however, is the issue of whether Pres. Goodluck Jonathan can actually run for presidency in 2015. I have often asked myself the question if the federal constitution allows him to do so.

Whilst I agree that the focus of our attention should be on the forthcoming 2011 elections, I've just always been curious about possible political permutation post-2011. So newspaper story succeeded in setting my mind thinking on this matter. To inform the discussion I have included the relevant section of the Constitution.  

Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution deals with the issue of election into the office of the president. It states,

137. (1) A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of

President if -

(a) subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, he  has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than  Nigeria or, except in such cases as may be prescribed by the National  Assembly, he has made a declaration of allegiance to such other  country;

or

(b) he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections;

or

(c) under the law in any part of Nigeria, he is adjudged to be a  lunatic or otherwise declared to be of unsound mind;

or

(d) he is under a sentence of death imposed by any competent court of  law or tribunal in Nigeria or a sentence of imprisonment or fine for  any offence involving dishonesty or fraud (by whatever name called) or  for any other offence, imposed on him by any court or tribunal or  substituted by a competent authority for any other sentence imposed on

him by such a court or tribunal;

or

(e) within a period of less than ten years before the date of the  election to the office of President he has been convicted and  sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has been found  guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct; or

(f) he is an undischarged bankrupt, having been adjudged or otherwise  declared bankrupt under any law in force in Nigeria or any other  country;

or

(g) being a person employed in the civil or public service of the  Federation or of any State, he has not resigned, withdrawn or retired  from the employment at least thirty days before the date of the  election; or

(h) he is a member of any secret society;

or

(i) he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial  Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a  Tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunals of  Inquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government which  indictment has been accepted by the Federal or State Government,

respectively;

or

(j) he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National  Electoral Commission.

(2) Where in respect of any person who has been -

(a) adjudged to be a lunatic;

(b) declared to be of unsound mind;

(c) sentenced to death or imprisonment;

or

(d) adjudged or declared bankrupt

(e) any appeal against the decision is pending in any court of law in  accordance with any law in force in Nigeria, subsection (1) of this  section shall not apply during a period beginning from the date when  such appeal is lodged and ending on the date when the appeal is  finally determined or, as the case may be, the appeal lapses or is abandoned, whichever is earlier.

As we can see Section 137(1)(b) does state explicitly that a person cannot be elected as president, if he has been elected into such office at any two previous elections. The operative word here is "elected".

The constitution is however silent on what happens in the sudden demise of the elected president and the V-P is sworn in as president. GEJ was not elected as president, as he only became a president by default. So strictly speaking, is first election into the office of the president will be in 2011.

I have heard people say that GEJ cannot seek re-election in 2015 because the president cannot take the oath of office more than twice.  From my viewpoint, there's nothing in the constitution to support such argument.   

Though I'm not a legal expert, my interpretation is that there's nothing in the Constitution that stops GJ from seeking a second term after 2011. Having said that, I may be wrong.

So what are your thoughts? Do you think GEJ can legally seek a "second term" after 2011?

PS- The above post is based on the assumption that GEJ will be contesting the 2011 presidential elections.