As the world eagerly anticipates Africa’s biggest election in 2023, policy capture, process manipulation, and geo-politics are defining the electoral framework reform process as veto players exercise their preferences for policy outcomes. Unfortunately, public appetitive for electoral reforms to address the intractable challenges facing Nigerian elections is being undercut by the political entrepreneurs who are driving the reform process. These leaders are determined to substitute public interest for private political gains.
Equally undermining public confidence is the limited impact of previous electoral reform efforts. As custodians of public interest, the National Assembly and the executive arms of government bear the burden of ensuring that the current reform process produces sustainable improvements, not ephemeral outcomes. Doing otherwise is a betrayal of public trust.
In July 2021, both chambers of the National Assembly passed the Bill under controversial circumstances. In the House of Representatives, opposition lawmakers staged a walkout. At the same time, the Senate passed a controversial vote to subject INEC’s constitutional power to electronically transmit election results to the approval of the National Assembly and the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), a body unknown to the country’s constitution.
Overall, there were points of convergence and divergence in the voting patterns of legislators in the two bodies. In line with legislative practice and procedure, a conference committee must now be constituted by the presiding officers of both chambers to harmonize the positions before transfer to the President for assent. This article considers the areas of convergence and divergence, and the electoral landscape that is likely to result from this process.
Points of Convergence
Despite the controversies trailing the amendment process, both chambers voted for several legal prescriptions in the Electoral Bill 2021 that will undeniably enhance the quality of Nigerian elections if properly implemented.
The Bill strengthens the financial independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by ensuring that all funding required for a general election is released one year before the date of an election. By the same token, the Bill will facilitate early preparations and effective election logistics management.
The compulsory electoral accreditation of voters was legalized, and gender-sensitive language like “she” instead of “he” only was adopted in some sections of the Bill. Other landmark provisions passed by both chambers include, but are not limited to the following:
A. Extension of timelines for key electoral activities: A comprehensive breakdown of the timelines in the Bill shows that key electoral activities have been altered to address the logistical challenges posed by unrealistic timeframes in the current electoral act. To mention a few key points:
-
- Early party primaries: To encourage early primaries, the compilation and submission of the list of candidates will now be concluded in time to give enough room for planning and printing sensitive electoral materials. The timeframe for submitting the list of candidates to INEC is extended from 60 days to 180 days before the date appointed for a general election. By this provision, all party primaries for the 2023 general election will be concluded by August 2022.
- Public campaigns: The period of public campaigns by political parties has been extended from 90 days to 150 days before polling day, and will end 24 hours before the election day.
B. Revised definition of ‘overvoting’: According to the Bill, overvoting occurs where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the total number of accredited voters in that polling unit. With this new provision, ‘the total number of accredited voters will become a determining factor in the validity of votes in an election’. This is in contrast to the previous situation, where overvoting was calculated based on the excess of votes compared to a total number of registered voters. The extant law is a tool exploited by politicians to manipulate electoral outcomes.
C. Power to review election results declared under questionable circumstances: The Bill gives INEC the power to review election declarations and returns made under questionable circumstances. Returning Officers will be kept in check to ensure full compliance with electoral guidelines. The provision will fundamentally transform the results management process and deter politicians from compelling polling officials to declare fabricated election results.
Points of Divergence
The voting pattern in the Senate and House of Reps indicates legislators diverged on sixteen clauses in the Bill. As evinced in the voting pattern, most legislators voted to advance partisan interests at the expense of public interest. However, this analysis focuses on three main issues which are pertinent to the ongoing reforms and the future of Nigeria’s electoral process.
- On electronic accreditation of voters: The Bill makes provisions for electronic accreditation of voters using the Smart Card Readers or any technological device as may be determined by INEC. While both chambers voted in favour of the electronic accreditation of voters, the House of Representatives redrafted the provision and deleted the phrase ‘any technological device’ based on a motion for amendment moved by the Speaker of the House, Rt. Hon Femi Gbajabiamila. This has led to concern that INEC will be constrained in adopting new forms of voter accreditation.
- On the electronic transmission of results: In line with constitutional practice, the Bill gives INEC the powers to determine the procedure for election results transmission. While the House of Representatives adopted this provision of the Bill, the Senate voted to subject INEC’s power to transmit election results electronically to the approval of the National Assembly and the NCC. By all standards, the Senate’s position amounts to constitutional overreach as it violates Section 78 and Third Schedule Part 1(F) S.15 of the constitution, which stipulates that INEC shall not be subject to the direction of anybody or authority. INEC and other stakeholders have strongly condemned the Senate and urged the harmonization committee to adopt the House of Representative’s position. A recent report released by Yiaga Africa contradicts the NCC’s position that Nigeria is ill-prepared for electronic transmission of results. Data from the 2019 Presidential Election Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) shows that election results were transmitted electronically from the polling unit using the Smart Card readers. Since August 2020, INEC has conducted elections and transmitted election results from 20 States and the FCT, covering 26 constituencies spread across 83 LGAs. The Yiaga Africa report validates INEC’s position on its preparedness to deploy technology to transmit election results fully. Unfortunately, the Senate has insisted on retaining its position regarding e-transmission of results. Aside from the unconstitutionality of the Senate’s position, one of the concerns expressed by stakeholders is the probability that data privacy and confidentiality may be compromised. If the Senate’s provision is adopted, Mobile Network Operators may be forced to divulge technical and confidential information to politicians in the National Assembly. The National Assembly could also withhold approval if the MNOs decline to share confidential details, thereby jeopardizing the electronic transmission of results and other innovations in the future.
- On the nomination of candidates by parties: Based on a motion for amendment moved by the Speaker of the House, the House of Representatives voted to expunge ‘indirect primaries’ as a mode for the nomination of candidates. Parties will be legally required to nominate candidates through direct primaries. In contrast, the Senate voted to retain direct and indirect primaries for the nomination of candidates.
The Dilemmas
The arena of political action will shift from the legislature to the Presidency as soon as the divergent positions are harmonized. As the harmonization process begins, the committee will have to navigate four dilemmas.
First, whose interest should the electoral law serve? Public interest or the deeply entrenched partisan interests of politicians?
Second, what level of deliberate discretion should be granted to INEC to determine the procedure for elections? Won’t it amount to legislative overkill to maintain an overly prescriptive approach in an electoral law?
Third, how can the high demand for electoral technology be managed against its potential risks to democracy – especially given that such technology has recently been the subject of election controversy in countries such as Kenya?
Finally, what trade-offs will both chambers make to reach a consensus, given the strong divergent positions on the three crucial amendments highlighted in this article and the political heavyweights behind the proposed amendments?
Public interest should always supersede partisan private interests. As custodians of the public interest, elected representatives are required to respect the will of the people when making laws. Jettisoning reforms with widespread public support will undermine trust in the electoral process – which is already low. The electoral act provides a broad framework for election management; therefore, the nitty-gritty of the electoral process should be confined to electoral guidelines and regulations.
Vesting discretionary and rulemaking powers in INEC in certain areas has the potential to promote innovation, creativity, and institutional responsiveness to rapid transformations in the electoral space, especially with respect to the digitization of the electoral process. No doubt, electoral technology has the potential to improve the integrity of elections, but it presents no guarantee that elections will improve because technology itself can be manipulated. Indeed, it is important to note that past research has shown that digitizing elections is no panacea, and can generate as many problems as it solves.
Nigeria cannot afford to surrender her democracy to machines; therefore, maximum safeguards must be instituted when deploying electoral technology.
In the final analysis, reform making and implementation is a highly politicized process and a marketplace for political trade-offs. The big question is whether legislators see this reform process as an opportunity to reconnect the state to citizens or a window to change the rules of the game to guarantee their victory in the next elections.
Given the tendency of political leaders to lean towards their own self-interest, sustained external pressure from citizens is likely to be necessary to ensure that the process culminates in the kinds of meaningful change that will significantly improve the electoral system come 2023.
Samson Itodo (@DSamsonItodo) is an election, democracy, and public policy enthusiast. Itodo serves as the Executive Director of Yiaga Africa and the Convener of the Not Too Young To Run movement. He is a member of the Board of Advisers of International IDEA, an intergovernmental organization that supports and promotes democracy around the world. Please send comments and feedback to sitodo@yiaga.org.
He writes from Oxford, United Kingdom.
