When the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released the schedule for the 2019 elections last year, I had few misgivings concerning the timetable. The presidential and National Assembly elections had been scheduled  for February 16 to be followed by the governorship, State Assembly/Federal Capital Territory elections  on March 2, 2019.  In one of my articles, entitled, 2019: where are the candidates? I had noted, “I have issues with the timetable …the presidential election is of paramount importance as it determines how the political parties would fare in the other offices being vied for.

Once a particular party wins the presidential election, the bandwagon effect always swing the eventual outcome and performance of the contending parties in favour of the party that had already won the presidency”.  Nigeria should as much as possible avoid such bandwagon effect.

  In announcing the timetable, the Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee of INEC, Prince Solomon Soyebi noted that there should be certainty with regards to the timetable for elections as obtained in other countries with advanced democracies. This is where I differ with Soyebi. Nigeria is not like other democracies in election matters or election related-issues. Our own form of democracy cannot be compared to what obtains in advanced countries. In those countries, the political parties are guided by clear cut principles and ideologies. It is easy to know the bent of such parties, this cannot be said of political parties in Nigeria. There are no clear cut ideologies. Most importantly, money is the ultimate aphrodisiac that determines voting patterns in most cases. Winning election depends on how deep your pocket is, that’s why the party in power always come with advantage . The present INEC’s election timetable is a way of giving undue advantage to  the political parties whose candidate wins the presidential election. Why should INEC fix the presidential election ahead of any other election if the idea is not to subtly give advantage to the party whose candidate had won the plum seat? We know in Nigeria, once the presidential election is conducted and a winner emerges, subsequent elections always have a predetermined result in Nigeria. Most states and even voters try to key into the winning party’s train. Though, I am yet to ascertain whether this conveys any special advantage.

Even in the United States where we borrowed the presidential system from, the presidential election does not hold until the last day. The US’2016 election timetable started in March 2016 and ended with the presidential election on November 8. In Germany, it is the same as the General election where the Chancellor is voted for comes last. Even in France, it is not the presidential election first more so the term in office differs. While the French President has a tenure of five years from an original seven-year tenure and is eligible for another term, the Senate has six years. It is only the parliament which has two chambers that has a tenure of five years like the president’s. The reason, most of these democracies have such arrangement, I want to presume, is not to give undue advantage to a political party which would occur if the presidential election is scheduled first.

Thus, the step taken by House of Representatives in amending and reordering the election is commendable. With the amendment, the National Assembly election will hold first, to be followed by gubernatorial and state assembly polls while presidential election would be conducted last. Specifically, the Green Chambers amended Sections 25 and replaced it with 25(1) which reads; the elections shall be held in the following order: (a) National Assembly election (b) State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c) Presidential election. Sections 35, 36 and 87 of the 2010 Electoral Act were also amended.

Related News

Indeed, the amended sections 35 and 36 are quite significant especially as it took care of the controversy generated when Abubakar Audu, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Kogi State governorship election died when he was cruising to victory and his running mate, James Faleke was unable to inherit his vote/victory.

Section 35 was amended thus; if a nominated candidate died in the election process, the next person from the same political party with the second highest votes in the primary election should replace the deceased unlike before which states that, if a candidate dies, he will be replaced by the next contestant with the highest vote. Also, Section 36 now allows running mate of any candidate that dies before the conclusion of elections to inherit the dead candidate’s votes and continue with the process. The amendment was cemented when a committee made up of the two chambers eventually adopted it. But some people are not happy. During the week, some APC Senators took on the leadership of the Red Chambers over the amendment. The Senators, 10 in all, addressed the press and specifically stated their opposition to Section 25 which re-arranged the order of the 2019 elections. They described the amendment and the passage of the bill as illegal. There are also speculations that the presidency is not happy with the amendment. According to reports, the action is viewed as a ‘coup’ against the president. It is also being speculated that INEC is being encouraged to challenge the amendment. Why all these hullaballo over a simple amendment? Is it not just to conduct election into different offices irrespective of which comes first?

If INEC decides to challenge the amendment in court, then it stands to reason that INEC was working towards a specific objective with its initial arrangement. As an ‘impartial’ observer, INEC’s duty is to conduct a free and fair election irrespective of which of the offices come first. So challenging the amendment would send a wrong signal.

Not only that, one of  the responsibilities of the National Assembly is to make laws, whether it is amending an existing law or  making a new one, it is part of the law makers’ statutory responsibilities as representatives of the people. On this matter, they have the support of people like me and the amendment should be allowed.