News
Nigeria’s Electoral Woes
Nigeria has learnt nothing from its long and chequered train of electoral woes. Nigeria has a very unusually queer habit of ignoring its historical antecedents and facing the future blindly having learnt nothing from her past mistakes.
The first major crises that nearly tore Western Nigeria into shreds with spillover effects to other parts of Nigeria was resultant from a mismanaged election. In fact apart from the 1993 Federal elections, Nigeria has not conducted any credible, free and fair elections. But instead of etching his name in letters of gold in the annals of Nigeria’s history, the then Head of State General Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda cancelled the most successful and the most popular election in Africa and passed on the winner, Chief M.K.O Abiola to Gen. Sani Abacha to arrest, incarcerate and waste. General Babangida’s reason for cancelling the election then was that many of his top army Generals did not support the Presidency of Chief M.K.O Abiola. What rubbish, what nonsense.
Elections all over the world are always contested with so much gusto and enthusiasm. Let us use this example from the United States of America and even our neighbouring Ghana to show Nigeria the way forward. The American Presidential Election of November 7, 1876 is still till date one of the most disputed elections in American history especially in the States of Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida and Oregon. All over America, the Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden won by more than a million popular votes but this was overturned by the Electoral Board (which was controlled by the Republican Party) in favour of R. B Hayes. The 1876 Presidential election dispute gave rise to a crisis, the like of which the United States had never seen. Many Democrats who felt that they had been cheated threatened “Tilden or war”. Congressman Henry Watterson from Kentucky even declared that an army of 100, 000 men was prepared to storm Washington if “Tilden was denied the Presidency.”
Since the American Constitution then was not explicit enough on how to resolve disputes from Electoral colleges, the Senate and the House of Reps voted to establish a Federal Electoral Commission Bill to tackle the existing crisis. And on January 29, 1877, President UIysses S. Grant signed the Electoral commission bill into law. The 15 members of the commission were made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and five Supreme Court Judges. None was appointed by the President.
Despite great opposition from the Democrat-controlled House of the Representatives, the new Electoral Commission voting on party lines (eight Republicans, seven democrats) awarded all 20 disputed electoral votes to the Republican candidate and thus R. B Hayes was sworn in as America’s 19t and most disputed President on March 5,1877. Most bitter democrats later referred to Rutherford B. Hayes as “Rutherfraud” “His fraudulence” and “His Accidency”. An extensive incursion into the American example is to demonstrate man’s ingenuity and ability to conquer his environment and solve his problems as pronounced by God Almighty.
But by far the greatest electoral frauds and manipulations occur more rampantly in African countries. There is really no African country that has not tasted of this bitter pill of electoral violence and crises at one time or the other in its history. Togo, Uganda, Rwanda, Benin, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Kenya and the most guilty apart from Nigeria. On the other hand also, there are only few countries in the world without electoral violence and crises. But most of these countries have overcome their electoral crises by either constitutional amendments’ or electoral bills, Americans solved the 1876 debacle by amending their constitution in just four days because it was an emergency. In Africa, Ghana and South Africa have had the best record of credible elections for some time now.
The Electoral Commission of Ghana is the official body responsible for all public elections in Ghana. It was established by the Electoral Commission Act of 1993. The seven founding members including its Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan are all still serving their 16 year on the commission. The members are not political appointees neither are they appointed by the Ghanaian President. Their independence is guaranteed by the Ghana Constitution of 1992.
Dr. Afari-Gyan who was invited last week by the Nigerian Democratic Institute and the Nigerian National Assembly to educate them on the way out of Nigeria’s permanent Electoral logjams advised managements of electoral bodies in Africa to “imbibe” transparency and openness to ensure true democracy in Africa.” He chided African politicians for taking elections as a do-or-die affair and that this desperate quest for power at all cost has placed the Electoral Commission in Africa in a difficult position before, during and after the conduct of elections.
He also encouraged and appealed to Civil Society Organisations or NonGovernmental Organisations to actively support and ally with the Electoral Bodies all over Africa. Ghana has a credible electoral body because Ghana has been able to reduce her tolerance level for corruption to zero, while Nigeria’s corruption level still stands at about 95 per cent. Nigeria encourages, pampers and rewards its corrupt officials while Ghana jails any official or even minister who is found guilty of corruption. Today, without mincing words or being sentimental Ghana, is Africa’s best model for democracy and strong democratic institutions.
By far the greatest area of difference between Nigeria and Ghana is the conduct and management of credible elections. While Ghana’s last two elections have been excellent, Nigeria’s last two elections are the worst in the annals of Nigeria’s electoral history, and in Africa as a whole. Nigeria has a litany of electoral woes and unsettled electoral petitions arising from the May 2007 elections.
Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo State was lucky he got back two years of his stolen mandate. The Action Congress gubernatorial candidate for Ekiti State, Dr. Kayode Fayerni is still challenging the incumbent governor before the Ado-Ekiti Election Petition Tribunal in the third year after the May 2007 election. Alhaji Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State has accused the incumbent governor of a stolen mandate and has given enough evidence to declare him the new governor of Osun State.
Hopefully the court will decide that. We all still remember how the Ekiti re-run election was rigged in the glare of television cameras. Comrade Adams Oshiornhole was lucky too; he got his stolen mandate from the avaricious People’s Democratic Party.
Various efforts to reverse electoral mismanagement and fraud have proved abortive as President Umaru Musa Yar Adua has bluntly refused to implement the Justice Uwais Electoral Reform Committee recommendations.
Nanaghan is editor’s guest
Ben Nanaghan
A bill to amend the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives.
The bill, which mandates compulsory counselling and training for individuals convicted of corruption-related offences, was sponsored by Kayode Akiolu (APC-Lagos) during plenary on Wednesday.
Leading the debate, Mr Akiolu explained that the bill sought to amend Section 67 of the principal act, introducing new provisions that were not part of the original section.
“These additional provisions, found in subsections 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment bill, require judges and magistrates to not only impose imprisonment and/or fines on those convicted of corruption but also mandate a minimum four-week anti-corruption counselling and training.
“The counselling and training will be designed and delivered by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN) and aims to address the psychological factors related to corrupt behaviour,” Mr Akiolu said.
Mr Akiolu emphasised that the training would help reform convicts by addressing their corrupt tendencies and could even transform them into advocates for anti-corruption efforts.
He added that this approach aligned with the reformative aspect of the criminal justice system, which focused on punishment and rehabilitation.
“As per subsection 4, the bill allows magistrates and judges to order convicts to cover the cost of their counselling and training, preventing additional financial burdens on the government,” the lawmaker noted.
Mr Akiolu further argued that if the bill is passed into law, it would strengthen the country’s fight against corruption.
Given the widespread negative impact of corruption, he urged the House to support the bill for the country’s benefit.
Following the debate, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas referred the bill to the relevant committee for further legislative consideration.
The Judiciary and the Media are key pillars of democracy, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has said.
Kekere-Ekun made this statement in her address at the 2024 National Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC).
The CJN was represented by Mr Abdulaziz Olumo, the Secretary of the National Judicial Institute (NJI).
“ The judiciary and the media occupy unique and complementary roles in any democratic society.
“ The judiciary serves as the guardian of justice, equity, and the rule of law, the media acts as the conscience of society, disseminating information, shaping public opinion, and ensuring accountability.
“ Together, these institutions provide checks and balances that strengthen the fabric of democracy,” she said.
Quoting Felix Frankfurter, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she said: free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the other; both are indispensable to a free society.”
The CJN said this dynamic interdependence between the judiciary and the media presents opportunities and challenges alike.
“ The media is entrusted with the responsibility of informing the public about judicial activities, the judiciary relies on accurate and ethical reportage to enhance public confidence in its work.
“ However, the inherent power of the media to influence public opinion requires careful management, especially when its focus turns to judicial proceedings.
“ The question posed by Robert J.Cordy, a former Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, is pertinent here: “What happens when the free press turns its sights on the courts-scrutinizing, sensationalizing, and exposing the frailties of the judiciary while questioning its ethical standards and performance?”
“The media’s capacity to shape narratives and perceptions is undeniable” she said.
Quoting Jim Morrison , she said “Whoever controls the media controls the mind.”
According to her, this underscores the immense responsibility placed on journalists to report truthfully, fairly, and objectively.
“ Unfortunately, the commercialisation of news and external influences have led to the rise of sensationalism-a practice that distorts facts, erodes trust, and undermines the very essence of journalism.
“ Sensationalised headlines, such as the infamous 2016 headline “We raided the houses of ‘corrupt, unholy’ judges, says DSS,” can paint a skewed picture of the judiciary and its officers. Such reporting, often devoid of context, compromises the integrity of the justice system and misleads the public.
“ Closely tied to this is the issue of “trial by media,” where premature and often biased media narratives prejudge cases and infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals” she said.
She added that as Mahatma Gandhi rightly observed, “The sole aim of journalism should be service.” It is imperative for media practitioners to remain steadfast in their commitment to truth and objectivity.
To this end, she advised, the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents to take proactive steps to regulate the activities of its members.
“ This is not merely about enforcing rules but about fostering professionalism and safeguarding the credibility of the media.
“ The judiciary and the media must work as partners in progress.
“ To bridge the gap between these institutions, there is a pressing need for constructive engagement and mutual understanding.
“ Courts can provide the media with guidelines on judicial processes, courtroom decorum, and the nuances of court proceedings.
She noted that globally, courts have adopted initiatives to support the media’s role in reporting judicial matters.
For instance, she said the Supreme Court of Dakota’s media guide outlines protocols for courtroom reporting, while the UK ‘s Media Guidance document provides clarity on access and etiquette for journalists.
“ These examples demonstrate how structured collaboration can enhance the quality of judicial reportage.
“ In Nigeria, we can take a cue from these models by developing a comprehensive media guide tailored to our judicial landscape.
“ This initiative, which would involve inputs from NAJUC and judicial stakeholders, would not only enhance media access to courtrooms but also ensure that judicial activities are accurately and responsibly reported” she said.
She advocated that judiciary correspondents must make deliberate efforts to familiarise themselves with the rules and procedures of the courts.
She added that understanding these frameworks will enable journalists to navigate the complexities of judicial proceedings effectively and responsibly.
“ Training programs such as this conference play a crucial role in equipping judiciary correspondents with the knowledge and skills needed to report judicial matters accurately.
“ The theme of this year’s conference, “The Role of Courts in Enforcement of Judgments,” is both timely and significant, as it addresses an aspect of judicial work that is critical to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice.
“ I commend NAJUC for its commitment to promoting accountability and transparency through its engagements with the judiciary.
“ As I conclude, I must emphasize the importance of credible journalism in strengthening public trust in the judiciary” she said.
She urged judiciary correspondents to prioritise the pursuit of truth and objectivity, resist undue influences, and remain steadfast in their commitment to ethical standards.
She commended the leadership of NAJUC, under the chairmanship of Mr Kayode Lawal, for its efforts in promoting professionalism among judiciary correspondents.
The Senate has issued an arrest warrant for the Managing Director of Julius Berger Nigeria Plc, Dr Peer Lubasch, to appear before its Committee on Works.
The Tide’s source reports that the warrant was for Lubasch to explain the utilisation of funds appropriated for the reconstruction work on Calabar-Odukpani-Itu highway.
The warrant followed the adoption of a motion sponsored by Sen. Osita Ngwu (PDP- Enugu) and co-sponsored by Sen. Asuquo Ekpenyong (APC-Cross River) and Sen. Mpigi Barinada (PDP- Rivers) at plenary in Abuja, yesterday.
Ngwu, in the motion said, that the senate had mandated the committee on works to conduct investigation into the state of road infrastructure across the country.
He said that in furtherance to the investigative hearings, Julius Berger refused to honour invitations to provide details of its role in the Calabar-Odukpani-Itu highway project, in spite of receiving substantial public funds.
He said that this was worrisome, given the alarming discrepancies in performance among contractors on the project, with specific reference to Julius Berger for failing to meet delivery timelines.
Ngwu said it was the constitutional powers of the National Assembly under Sections 8 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to conduct investigations on any person or organisation responsible for administering public funds.
He said that the powers set out in section 6 of the legislative powers and privileges act empowered the Senate to issue warrants of arrest on persons in contempt of its proceedings.
The Tide source reports that the senate further ruled that President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, should sign the warrant, mandating the Julius Berger managing director to appear on a date to be communicated.
Akpabio said that the senate’s decision was in line with its constitutional powers under Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“This senate will not tolerate the continued disregard of its authority.
“The managing director of Julius Berger must appear before the relevant committee, failing which further actions will be taken as prescribed by the constitution.
“The point of order, which was supported by the majority of the senators, highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the legislature.
“The senate committee will submit its findings to the National Assembly after the MD’s appearance.
“If there is any further failure to comply, we shall take the necessary steps to ensure respect for the constitution and the rule of law,” Akpabio said.