16 years after, non-implementation of Uwais Committee’s report still haunting our electoral system —Ajayi

In 2007, the administration of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua constituted an electoral reform committee spearheaded by former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Muhammadu Uwais. In this interview with IMOLEAYO OYEDEYI, a professor of Political Science at the Federal University, Lokoja, Kogi State, Rotimi Ajayi, who has participated in successive elections held in the country since 1999, speaks on how the non-implementation of the report has stunted the growth of Nigeria’s electoral system and how the lack of independence of the country’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has affected his ability to deliver credible elections to the masses for years.

 

Since 1999 when constitutional democracy restarted in Nigeria, the country has had no fewer than five different general elections with almost each of the elections being given amended Electoral Acts. Yet, none of the polls has been creditably held without recording pre and post-electoral flaws, such that the masses have lost total confidence in the country’s electoral system. If you look critically at all these elections, what role did INEC play in them?

The issue is that when you look at Nigerian politics, very unfortunately, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has always become the victim after every election. This is rightly so because the Constitution empowers it to conduct free and fair elections at all times. But as I have once said, INEC is just a subset of the entire society. This is because INEC has a special role to play before, during, and after any election.

Before elections, INEC is meant to sensitise the voting public and ensure that the voters have access to their voter cards. INEC is also meant to ensure that there is a display of the voters’ register at least to engender confidence in the people. The commission is also expected to provide a level playing field for all the participants. That is why the constitution mandates the electoral commission to supervise party primaries in a bid to ensure that the right candidates are chosen. Those are for pre-elections. But during the elections, the commission is expected to provide all required sensitive and non-sensitive materials for voting and ensure that the entire process goes on as designed. And then, after the election, the commission is also mandated to ensure that the votes of the voters count. These are some of the vital roles expected of the electoral commissions during the electoral process.

However, the way and manner in which these roles have been performed over the years has led to the general notion in the public that the commission has not lived up to its expectations. And that is rightly so. From what I have seen thus far in the political terrain, even after the 2023 elections, there have been a lot of inconsistencies arising from the tribunal judgments, those of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on what the roles of INEC should have been which have unfortunately not been well executed. Even if you look at the pre-election matters where INEC was meant to supervise party primaries, you will see that they leave so much to be desired, even when you look at what transpired on the election day and how the electorate were shortchanged by different political parties and the lots of issues that arose from the electoral results.

However, as I have always said, INEC is just a subset. We have to look at this problem from the general perception of our political economy. The electoral commission is not a super god that will be everywhere to ensure a free and fair election. There are agencies that have been put in place to serve as structures of the government and complement the efforts of INEC. A good example is the security, which is fundamental to the success of every election. The fact is no matter the efforts put in by INEC, if the law enforcement agencies are not there to ensure a smooth running of voting on election day, there is nothing INEC can do, because it is not in charge of protecting the votes, ensuring that the ballot boxes are not snatched and that votes are not bought. So INEC roles have been clearly defined by the constitution. But the way and manner that these roles have been performed over the years is a function of so many factors. I agree that there are some bad eggs within the INEC system, but that does not put the entire blame for the flaws of the electoral system on the commission. That is my own personal opinion.

Most fundamentally, we have to look at the challenges plaguing the electoral system and the commission from a holistic point of view. You see this kind of winners-take-all style that we have been operating for years has been the bane of our electoral system. This is because it gives room for everybody within the system to deploy all manner of tactics and machinery to win the election at all costs as the system has no place for the loser in an election. Our system places the entire structure of government in the hands of the winner and gives nothing to the loser. And that is what has given rise to the bloody desperation we see our politicians display when going to capture power through the ballot. That is why, as an academic, researcher, and election observer, I have always advocated a kind of systematic representation that will give room for parties and their candidates to have a place in the parliament based on their performances at the poll. So that you don’t win an election and take all as we have been seeing, which has accounted for the worrisome desperation to win at all costs by crook and by hook, and that is why the opposition does not thrive as they should in our political system. In fact, nobody likes to be in the opposition parties. Everyone just wants to be in the winning and ruling party because they know it takes all and controls all. So while I agree that INEC has its own challenges, among which are institutional problems, funding, and attitudes as well as partisanship of its personnel, especially the Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) as many civil society groups have often said, I still believe the greater part of our electoral challenges goes beyond the commission.

 

But do you support the claim that the lack of full independence of the electoral commission is affecting its ability to deliver credible elections for the country?

Of course, that is true. It is a function of he who plays the piper [calls] the tunes. That is the most unfortunate aspect of the whole problem. But some of the issues are also attitudinal. I remember that we one-time had Professor Attahiru Jega as INEC chairman and we saw how the commission fared under him. We saw his performance. This is because we are talking about attitude and somebody’s ideological disposition. Jega came in and was determined to make it right. And I believe to a very great extent, he succeeded. Though some people may have contrary opinions about this, it is my own viewpoint.

More so, if you look at Professor Jega, for instance, his antecedent: whether as a lecturer, unionist, former vice chancellor of Bayero University, you will see that he came to INEC with a pedigree and a name that he never wanted to be messed up by the Nigerian political system. And he succeeded. Yes, I agree completely that someone who appointed you may have some influence on you, but it also depends on the character of the individual. For instance, Former President Goodluck Jonathan appointed Jega, but at the end of the day, he didn’t listen to him or even allow the voting results to be swayed in Jonathan’s favour. In fact, would you have expected that the former president would lose the election conducted by someone he appointed to INEC? But it happened. And that is my point that someone may appoint you, but if you have a mindset of your own to succeed, you will definitely succeed.

 

 

So are you saying that the commission can still function independently despite the huge influence from the president?

That is what the Constitution says. In other climes, especially those with advanced democracies, the electoral officers are also appointed by the president or government in power. That is, there is no country where the electoral officers descend from heaven like angels or where it is God who comes down from heaven to choose who becomes the chairman of the electoral commission and the state officers. It is just that the government in power in those countries put the right structures in place.

Meanwhile, the electoral commission is just like every other agency of government. So there is no big deal in it. But it is because the commission determines who holds and controls the country’s political power, which is why there is so much fuss about its operations. To me, in terms of appointment, the position of the INEC chairman is not in any way different from that of the Central Bank governor or any other head of a governor agency. But it is because the INEC’s case has to do with the acquisition of power, which is why the whole attention has been on it. But my stand still remains: that someone appoints you does not mean you must carry out all the interests and bidding of the person.

 

But don’t you think that a person who appoints you to an office can also engineer your removal from the same office if you refuse to carry out his or her full interests?

If we follow that argument, who will then appoint the INEC chairman and the state officers? In the last few days, I have heard people saying the positions should be advertised, while competent people should be allowed to apply for screening and interview. And I ask myself that even if the positions are advertised, will angels come from heaven to shortlist the selected applicants? And then, who will interview the selected applicants? Won’t it be members of the same executive council or are we going to import technocrats from America or UK to interview them for us? So somebody somewhere will surely be responsible. I agree that the president has enormous influence on the personnel appointed to top positions in the electoral commission, but this does not preclude the constitutional powers assigned to the people holding the key positions in the discharge of their responsibilities. So how they handle these constitutional powers will determine whether they will succeed or fail at the end of the day. And then, if truly the electoral officials are heavily dependent on the president and can’t carry out independent decisions on their own, then the political party of the president should be in control of all the states of the federation. But this is not the case as there are some states that are still under the control of opposition parties in the country.

 

Still talking of the appointment of INEC chairman and RECs that you mentioned, since 2007, successive governments in the country have failed to implement the Justice Muhammadu Uwais Committee report, which has been applauded globally and seen as an answer to the myriads of electoral problems affecting the country. What do you think has caused this?

It is part of the absence of the much-needed political will and the character of the political class. We have had different political parties in the past governments, so the non-implementation is not peculiar to one party or government, but to all. The generality of the political class belongs to the same political ideology, which is basically to retain power. So, anything that will supplant this ideology to capture and retain power will be resisted. It is just like asking the National Assembly to promulgate laws that will be antithetical to their interests. They won’t want to do it. That is just to tell you that it is the will to do the right thing that is lacking. The fact is everyone knows the right thing to do to move this country forward, but greed has not allowed many people to do the right thing in the collective interests of all Nigerians. For instance, if you as a sitting president know that when certain policies are implemented, they may likely prevent your second-term agenda, there is no how you will allow that policy to see the light of the day. That explains why successive governments in the country have refused to implement the recommendations given in the report because they know that once the suggestions are implemented, a lot of fundamental policies will be introduced into our electoral system, which may try to hold their hand from grabbing or retaining power in the nearest future.

 

One of the standout recommendations in the Justice Uwais committee’s report was that the appointment of the INEC chairman and RECs should be carried out by the Judicial Service Commission instead of the executive but subject to the ratification of the NASS, as seen in South Africa. Another key recommendation was that the funding of the electoral commission should be made a First Line Charge. Do you think these two policies if implemented will solidify the independence of the commission?

They appear so nice on paper. But whether they will really work in our extant political system is another issue. Don’t forget that it is this same judiciary that has been recently subjected to public scrutiny and ridicule. And then, the judiciary will then have to transmit the names of the selected persons to the same legislature that many people have described as being subservient to the executive. So it is a lot of contradictions. Come to think of it, is there any senate in Nigeria that has been truly independent of the executive since 1999? The Okadigbos that once tried it, we all know their history and what happened to them. I just believe the whole issue is a matter of strengthening the institutions. And then, it is also good that INEC funding should be made part of the First Line Charge because the commission needs to be financially independent. It has to be given access to its funds like other arms of government, not placed under the executive. If this is done, I believe a lot of issues affecting the independence of the commission would be taken care of. Come to think of it, when INEC sends out its ad-hoc staff to the field and makes little or no provision for their welfare, they often end up being at the mercy of politicians and their agents. This is because the INEC staff ad-hoc staff must work before they are paid. Who then takes care of them in the course of doing the work? This no doubt leaves them at the mercy of the moneybags, people who are ready to throw money around during an election.

 

READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE 

• Israeli-Palestinian crisis: Any implications for Nigeria?

• Tinubu appoints Bayo Onanuga as Special Adviser

• Coroner summons Naira Marley, two others over Mohbad’s death

• Davido, Chioma step out with newborn twins

• NOTES FROM ATLANTA: Neither Tinubu nor Atiku forged credentials with INEC

• PRESSTIME PODCAST: Digital Media, social media, where do we draw the line

• Ondo Assembly suspends impeachment of deputy gov Aiyedatiwa

• EDITORIAL: The Kebbi boat disaster