‘Direct primary election as contained in the electoral act amendment bill 2021 is freedom for the electorate from the hegemonistic and crass tendencies of the political elite cum cabal who benefit from, and continue to support the sustenance of the status quo that has held Nigeria back for far too long’
Albeit the electoral act amendment bill 2021 contains other electoral reforms, clause 87 of the bill which is on the contentious issue of whether or not to impose direct primaries on the political parties seem to define the bill. The bill is now hung as President Muhammadu Buhari has withheld his assent purposely because of the aspect of direct primaries as sole method for political parties to elect their candidates.
It is noteworthy that section 58(1)(5) of the 1999 constitution has given powers to the national assembly to override or veto the President’s decision and passed any bill into law. If the National Assembly vetoes Mr President’s decision and passed the bill:
- It will reset the mentality of Nigerians about their senators and members HoR whom many people think are only in the chambers to fluid their pockets and not represent anybody. It will be the turning point for the people to feel that they have representatives at the National Assembly. Senators and members HoR will receive a heroes welcome from their constituents if they pass the bill. After passing the bill, the National Assembly will no longer be regarded as a rubber stamp.
- It will be freedom for the National Assembly from the shackles, intimidation and often times bullying tendencies of the executive arm. It will be freedom for the legislature and democracy. The legislature actually has more powers than the executive in our democracy: just read and assimilate the 8 Chapters and 320 articles contained in the 1999 to understand this fact.
- It will inspire the state houses of assembly to cease to be rubber stamps of the state governors.
- It will Usher in a new political order that will create the NEW NIGERIA of our Dreams.
As suggested in the electoral act amendment bill 2021, direct primaries should be adopted by the political parties in the election of their candidates/flag bearers at the secondary election and indirect primaries should no longer be used. The new clause in the amendment bill 2021 and the old clause in the electoral act 2010 (as amended) are as follows:
Section 87(2) of the electoral act 2010 (as altered).
(Old) Electoral act 2010 (as amended): ‘A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold direct or indirect primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which may be monitored by the Commission.
(New) Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2021 : “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Bill shall hold direct primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which shall be monitored by the Commission”.
Clearly, while the electoral act 2010 gives the political parties the prerogative to adopt either direct or indirect primaries to elect their candidates, the amendment bill 2021 seeks to make it legally binding on political parties to adopt the direct primaries method only. Although both the senate and House of Representatives concurred on the amendment bill as required in section 58 (1) of the 1999 constitution, President Buhari withheld his assent because he is of the view that the parties should be allowed to choose which ever method -direct or indirect primaries- that suits them in electing their flag bearers. This makes a lot of sense but there is more to the issue than trying to impose direct primaries on the political parties especially when juxtaposed with the implications of the amendment bill to the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of public interest.
ADVANTAGES OF DIRECT PRIMARIES.
Without prejudice to the withholding of assent by Mr President, which he is entirely entitled to, it is fair to state that direct primary as prescribed for the political parties by the bill is good for Nigeria’s democracy. The key advantage of direct primaries however, is that it will enable qualified but financially weak individuals particularly youths and women to contest and win party tickets.
Other advantages of direct primaries include the following:
- Direct primaries will break the stranglehold of the state governors in the process of selecting candidates for the party. Since all registered party members are involved in direct primaries, the party members will elect the candidates they want as against indirect primaries whereby governors simply prepare a so-called ‘unity list’ of their chosen candidates. Usually governors don’t allow any elections but simply present a list under the guise of indirect primaries.
- Direct primaries will provide a level playing ground for ALL aspirants.
- Direct primaries will pave the way for academicians and other financially weak professionals who don’t have money to buy delegates or are not anointed by state governors.
- A direct primary is an option for party members to call the bluff of state governors who impose their anointed unpopular candidates on the people in a ‘whether you like it or not’ manner.
- A lot of university lecturers who want to fix the system and continue to criticise the government are tired of sitting on the fence. They want to contest elections and make a difference but their first question is ‘how do I win the party ticket?.
- Direct primaries is less expensive than indirect. Remember, party members may wish to vote for candidates out of conviction in direct primaries but this cannot happen under indirect because the delegates will always ask for money based on the ‘cash and carry’ mentality. One needs to be in the good books of state governors to stand any chance of winning the ticket.
- Direct primaries promotes inclusiveness as all party members are carried along in selecting the candidates who may eventually occupy leadership roles. For indirect primaries, genuine party members are turned to spectators while a few delegates run the show.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT PRIMARIES: SAME COIN, DIFFERENT SIDES
Security implications need to be considered in the debate about direct or indirect primaries as did Mr President in withholding his assent. However, the implications to security for direct and indirect primaries are almost the same. There’s not much difference. This is because:
- There will be massive congregations and queues in both direct and indirect primary. As a matter of fact, the unnecessary bureaucracy and lengthy procedure in indirect primaries means indirect primaries will take a very long duration which makes it more prone and susceptible to potential security breaches.
- Money exchanges hands in both direct and indirect primaries but more in indirect because it is simply ‘cash and carry’. Delegates demand outrageous ‘settlement’ for indirect primaries.
For direct primaries, there is also some form of vote buying from the party members but not as serious as indirect. There is some form of financial inducement of party EXCO members who conduct the primary election and prepare the results for direct primaries.
- For direct primary, party EXCO members use the opportunity to extort money from aspirants but even at that it is less expensive than indirect.
Indirect is more expensive because the few delegates will ask for millions of Naira while for direct, it is a case of passing around a few thousands or even hundreds of Naira to each party member in the queue. Sometimes party members know that the aspirant is competent but he /she doesn’t have money so they simply vote that person based on their conviction.
- Clearly, state governors know full well that they will lose control of selecting the party’s flag bearers if they allow direct primaries so they will not support direct primaries. Moreover state governors can always get the support of senators and members of House of Representatives who more often than not, are at their beck and call.
- Nigeria currently implements the most expensive election in the world. With a humongous funding of over N200 billion for a simple ordinary election, the independent National electoral commission (INEC), can effectively supervise direct primaries in the 8,809 wards across the country.
Even when elections in Nigeria are over-funded, INEC is now asking for N305 billion to conduct the 2023 elections. This is outrageous especially when juxtaposed with the fact that the average poverty rate among Nigerians is almost 90%. Unemployment is in double digits at 33%. Health care, education all in shambles.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS CONSTITUTIONAL EMPOWERED TO VETO MR PRESIDENT’S REFUSAL OF ASSENT.
The 1999 constitution (as altered) has clearly spelt out what should happen in the event that the President, federal republic of Nigeria declines assent to any bill sent to him after concurrence by the upper (senate) and lower (house of representatives) chambers of the National Assembly.
Section 58(1)(5) of the 1999 constitution is clear, explicit and unambiguous that:
‘Where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED’
Based on the provisions of this relevant section, both the upper and lower chambers of NASS can go ahead to pass a bill into law if they obtain the mandatory two third majority regardless of Mr President’s decline of assent. The good people of Nigeria are hungry for this bill to be passed, the National Assembly should give us this bill.
Indeed the National Assembly has no window under the constitution to escape from passing this bill.
Is the National Assembly serving the executive arm or serving the good people of Nigeria? If NASS is serving the people, they should pass this bill.
It is these sort of action that has earned our senators and members HoR various titles given to them freely by Nigerians such as ‘a rubber – stamp, a spare tyre of the executive, an out-post of the Presidency, an appendage etc.
THE FLIP SIDE AND POLITICS OF SURVIVAL
On the flip side, there is more to overriding Mr President’s veto than meets the eye. Obviously, a situation where the National Assembly uses its constitutional powers to veto Mr President’s decision may jeopardise the existing cordial relationship between the executive and judicial arms. Moreover, some principal officers in the National Assembly do not buy the idea of any real or imaginary altercation with Mr President because it may get them impeached and lose their ‘lucrative’ seats. Please refer to the 1999-2007 era during which former President Obasanjo literally played football with the leadership of the National Assembly. Obasanjo, sacked or cause the sacking of former senate Presidents such as late Dr Chuba Okadigbo a.k.a the Oyi of Oyi, Chief Evan Enwerem and Chief Adolphus Wabara. The principal officers of the National Assembly will also not forget in a jiffy how former speakers Salisu Buhari, Patricia Etteh and Ghali Na’Abba were kicked out using either the EFCC, wind of change or both. Since those years, many senate Presidents and speakers HoR have learnt their lesson not to pick a fight with the President except of course when it is obvious that they will survive it as in the President Jonathan era.
Although Obasanjo and Buhari are entirely different characters, the senate President and the speaker HoR will tell you that it is better to stay safe than answer ‘sorry’
As a matter of fact, the politics of survival seem to be the reason behind the decision by the National Assembly to drop their constitutionally guaranteed right under section 58(1)(5) to veto Mr President’s decision. Although some members of the National Assembly had started collecting signatures from their colleagues to veto Mr President’s withhold of assent for the bill, the leadership of the National Assembly intervened and thwarted the move because it could potentially sweep the leadership of the NASS off their ‘juicy’ seats.
However this is not good for the nation. The executive and legislative arms are actually created essentially to ‘disagree’ and ‘debate out’ issues as long as the public interest is preserved and protected. This is the main principle behind the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in sections 4,5 and 6 of the altered 1999 constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers simply connotes that ‘the executive, legislature and judiciary could disagree but work towards the common goal of protecting national objectives and the public interest. Because Nigeria’s democracy is ‘still evolving’ as we always claim, the legislature seem to have dissolved into the executive and mortgaged its constitutional guaranteed bite to stand up against the executive where necessary and get the best for our nation.
There is nothing wrong with the legislature standing up to the executive and vice versa as long as the objective of the disagreement is good for Nigeria.
The right cause would have been for the senate and the HoR to stand up to the executive and do what they feel is right for the nation: of course within the framework provided for in the 1999 constitution (as altered).
Quite honestly, some of our federal legislators -senators and members HoR- even wrongly think government is all about the executive and the President. They either don’t know or don’t care to know that the government is made up of 3 arms: EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATURE and the JUDICIARY.
As a matter of fact, the legislature is the HUB and medulla oblongata of any democracy. Democracy revolves around the legislature not the executive.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not calling for a needless altercation between the executive and the legislature. Nonetheless, it will be better for our democracy if our legislators-at both federal and state levels- know ‘who they are’ and understand their powers in Nigeria’s democracy instead of playing ‘rubber stamp’ and appendages to the executive arm.
On one hand, whenever the executive arm sends requests for bandwagon borrowing, the senators are always quick to approve it, often times without scrutinising the request. On the other hand, when the legislature sends its request for assent to bills to the President, it is scrutinised forensically and even turned down (as in the amended electoral bill 2021). This equation is not balanced.
Clearly, state governors are fingered and rightly so in the high-wire politicking to scuttle the amended electoral bill 2021 because they will lose control of the party to the people. Indirect primaries a.k.a ‘cash and carry’ with all its undemocratic tendencies, will certainly continue to weaken our democracy as it will centralise the power to elect candidates to the state governors and the President. For direct primaries, the people vote but for indirect primaries, delegates chosen by state governors vote.
It will take the camel to pass through the eye of the needle for anyone to win the ticket for APC in an APC controlled state if he/she is not annointed by the state Governor. Ditto for the PDP.
DIRECT PRIMARIES WILL STRENGTHEN NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY
Direct primary is the best form of electing candidates for the political parties but there is a truism in leaving the political parties decide how to choose their candidates instead of imposing it on them. Even at that, it will have been good for Nigeria’s democracy if direct primaries is included in Nigeria’s electoral act even if to give a chance to Nigerian youths, women and young people including other genuine candidates who have something to offer in the search for a New Nigeria but lack the cash to buy delegates. Direct primaries is the best method that can set the tone for inclusion of youths to strengthen our democracy. Nigerian youths and women who obviously lack the financial war chest to secure tickets will find accommodation under direct primaries.
WHAT NEXT FOR THE ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL 2021?
As the deadlock between the executive and legislative arms of government on the amended electoral bill 2021 continues, the questions to ask are
- Will the National Assembly go to the gym, do some exercises, summon courage and veto President Buhari’s decision to decline assent and pass the popular electoral act amendment bill which majority of Nigerians have endorsed?
- Will the National Assembly seek a middle-of-the-road approach and represent a modified version of the bill to Mr President and allow the political parties the option to use indirect primaries and continue to weaken our democracy against the wishes of the good people of Nigeria?
- Will the National Assembly jettison the bill entirely and allow indirect primaries against the wishes of the good people of Nigeria?
- Will the National Assembly miss this once-in-a-lifetime-chance to reconnect with the good people of Nigeria and earn the confidence of their constituents?
- Will the National Assembly pass this bill that Nigerians desperately desire?
Time shall tell!
DR ABUBAKAR ALKALI
Kuliya2020@yahoo.com
Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN)
