What next after public hearing on electoral reforms?

EMMANUEL YAWE, in this piece, analyses the just concluded constitution and electoral reforms hearings in the country, carried out by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani-led committee to suggest ways of improving Nigeria’s electoral process.

For one month running – from February 27 to March 31 – the Constitution and Electoral Reforms Committee led by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani, (GCON), took the Nigerian political space by storm.
Beginning from the Conference Hall of Nike Lake Hotel at Enugu, the Committee held public hearings in each of the six geo political zones, rounding up with the grand finale at the Congress Hall of the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on the 31st of March.

At each of the hearings, the halls were filled to capacity. Individual citizens came with personal petitions while others came as representatives of community groups, the academia, non-governmental organizations, political parties and state governments. The figures could be insignificant compared with the total population of Nigeria but as the chairman of the Committee, Ken Nnamani said at the Enugu and subsequently at all other hearings, the town hall meetings were not political rallies whose success could be judged by the crowd they attracted.

He said the public hearings were not even mandatory but that the committee in its wisdom felt that it was necessary to widen the spectrum of consultation to involve as many people as possible in the process of reforming our much abused electoral process. The sanctity and integrity of the ballot box, he argued, must be protected if Nigeria is to get it right. Elections he emphasized must be won at the polling booths and not at the law courts as has become common in our current political experience.
Furthermore, even though the committee wanted popular participation in the bid to reform the electoral process in Nigeria, the issues involved were such that only knowledgeable segments of the society could contribute effectively to the debates.

Some of the major issues at stake were; whether we should have electoral commissions at the state level or a single electoral management body for the whole country; whether we should abrogate collation centers and use technology to announce result at polling units; the need to legislate strict penalty for electoral offenders and also whether prosecution of the said offenders will be headed by INEC or a new independent body; analysis of result of election tribunals and the proper way to conduct party primaries and regulate internal party democracy etc.

Also at each of the public sittings, Prof Maman Lawan, the Secretary of the Committee read out the grand rules and guidelines governing participation thus: speakers must have submitted their names at the venue of the public hearing; they must not be abusive in their language; the  platform should not be used for campaign; speakers should stick to time or submit memoranda if the time allowed is not sufficient; speakers are allowed a minimum of 3 minutes to make their presentation; speakers’ recommendations should be on law reform or policy reform; the Chairman reserves the discretion to stop any presenter and the latter is bound to stop; every speaker should state his name, state, agency and suggestions for the reform in the following areas: specific provisions in the electoral act to be amended, the need for reform of INEC, how to improve nomination of candidates, how to deal with electoral offences and offenders and any other relevant suggestions.
This format was followed religiously at all the public hearings in the six geo political zones and the FCT. And in all the sittings there was no incidence of rioting or public disorder as those who turned up behaved responsibly.

It could also be observed from public participation that on a number of sensitive electoral issues, there was an agreement from members of the public. On the issue of state electoral commissions for instance, all the submissions agreed that the electoral bodies had performed rather woefully and they should be scrapped. Individual speakers, non-governmental bodies, community based groups and representatives of political parties and state governments all agreed that the state electoral bodies were pocketed by the state governments in power in the states.

The end result is that in conducting local government elections, the party in power ends up winning all the contested Chairmanship and Councillorship seats to the disadvantage and dismay of the opposition parties. It was unanimously agreed that if democratic culture is to take root in Nigeria, it must begin at the local government level. Unfortunately the state electoral commissions have stifled political debate and dissent at the grassroots.

Another issue on which there was unanimity of opinion was that of age. Credit must be given to a non-governmental group known as “Not Too Young to Run” for launching a powerful campaign to press their case. At the public hearings in all the six geo political zones and the FCT, this group showed up and spoke eloquently. It will not be a surprise if the committee finally recommends for a lowering of the present stipulations on age for elections into the legislative and executive offices provided for in the constitution.

But presentations at the public hearings could sometimes be frank and even heated. For instance at the South West Zonal hearings, the maverick governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose, speaking through his representative Dr Samuel Omotosho, launched a personal attack on Senator Ken Nnamani saying that the report of his committee will not be credible because as an interested politician who recently decamped from the PDP to the APC, he was an interested party and that he is too politically exposed to write a balanced report. He called on the chairman to resign.

Also, at the FCT public hearings in Abuja, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, denounced the work of the committee in trenchant terms, saying it is an exercise in futility and would end on the rubbish dump of history as several other previous committee reports have done.
On all such occasions, Senator Nnamani – an excellent debater – rose to defend the committee and its work. In Abeukuta, he responded by telling the meeting that the report of his committee would be forwarded to the President who belongs to a political party. From there, it would be forwarded to the National Assembly which is populated by members of political parties. It is therefore impossible to find a neutral person to do the job of reforming the electoral process in Nigeria. Everybody involved in the process belongs to a political party. And yet, the job must be done.

Responding to Mike Ozekhome who charged at the grand finale of the public hearings in Abuja that the report of the committee will end up in the waste paper basket, the chairman assured that President Buhari was honest about reforming our electoral system. He said in order to make sure that the work of the committee did not go the way of previous committees, the President had authorized his committee to go ahead and draft bills and follow them up at the National Assembly to ensure their passage.

Mrs Juliet Ibekaku, the Special Adviser to the President on Law Reforms who represented the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the federation stood up to confirm that President MuhammaduBuhari will implement the recommendations of the committee and not dump them as charged by Ozekome.
For now, the town hall meetings are over and Senator Nnamani and his committee members are busy writing the report for submission to the President as well as drafting the relevant bills that will eventually go to the National Assembly – all for an improved electoral process in Nigeria.

Yawe, a veteran journalist and public affairs commentator, writes from Abuja.

Some of the major issues at stake were; whether we should have electoral commissions at the state level or a single electoral management body for the whole country

Leave a Reply