Voter Beware

INEC’s request to extend the timetable for the 2011 elections from January to April has turned up the heat underneath our already simmering political environment. As right as INEC was to disclose that it is already 6 weeks behind schedule, it should also get pummeled for giving us a time line 3 weeks ago which it must have known it could not keep. Now in addition to the endless discussions and sniping about zoning, we have to add amendments to the 2010 electoral act (the Act) and another attempt at amending the 1999 constitution.

If the newspapers are anything to go by, the focus of attention is on the electoral provisions dealing with the ‘election of governor’ and ‘election of the president’ which provide that elections for governors and the president should take place not earlier than 150 days and no later than 90 days before ‘the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office’. This means that elections have to be slated at the latest for February 28 – if we presume that the expiration of term is May 27 (since May 29 is a Sunday).

However as the National Assembly rushes to amend these particular provisions in order to give INEC more time to hold credible elections; they might want to look at other provisions in the Act which are sure to frustrate the plans for credible elections.

One: when is INEC going to tell us where the registration centers are and why isn’t there a statutory time frame within which INEC must do this? The issue here is that while all the energy is focused on the election timetable – the major component of credible elections – the voters’ register has been given scant attention apart from the issue of finance and suppliers. If INEC does not give us enough notice about where, when and how we are to register, then it is unlikely that the registration process will be as successful as we all want it to be.

Two, it is not clear from the Act if the place where we register is the place where we also vote. From experience elections are usually on a Saturday and movement is restricted, which means if we register where we work and election happens to be on a Saturday and there is ‘no movement’ – how do we get to our polling stations?

INEC will respond by asking us to look at another provision which says we can apply to the resident electoral commissioner in the state where we reside and get him/her to transfer our names to the Transferred Voters List. This is not a practical solution. Apart from the expected bureaucracy which eats up time, anyone who wants to transfer his or her name has to provide proof of residency. Which means, millions of people who have no written leases with their names on it, or who don’t get billed for water and/or electricity and who subscribe to pay as you go telephone services might find it hard to prove where they live. (This might be a good opportunity for the NCC to show us how efficiently they have ‘captured’ the data they have forced us to provide). It is advisable that we avoid relying on this provision. In a nutshell: register where you mean to vote. In other words, ‘employers please do your share for democracy and allow for countless hours where we will away from work because of the registration process.’

Three, after we avoid the mines associated with where we register, we still have to qualify to register. There are different requirements but particularly interesting is that the registration officer has a right to demand any information necessary to ascertain if you are qualified to vote. Since one of the qualifications is that voters must not be legally incapacitated to vote, good luck proving that you are qualified to vote if the registration officer decides you ‘look’ like someone legally incapacitated.

Four, Section 18 says if we lose or damage our voter’s card we can request for a duplicate but only if the elections are more that 30 days away. However…if we lose or damage the voter’s card the day before elections…it seems INEC has no solution for us.

Five, we should also be worried about INEC’s discretion to publish notice of the elections ‘in such manner as it may deem fit’. Why? Because if INEC decides to publish the day, time and location of the polling units on its website only and it crashes because everyone is trying to get on at the same time, INEC is acting within the law. Besides, if INEC decides to publish only in Mandarin, it seems this is also fine.

Six, the Act makes it a punishable offence if the day before elections anyone uses “print or electronic medium” to “broadcast, publish, advertise or circulate any material for the purpose of promoting or opposing a particular political party or the election of a particular candidate”. Does this mean that if my Facebook status update says “hey remember IBB was not nicknamed Maradona for nothing” or “say no to ‘army arrangement’ PDP” I will be guilty of a crime? Why? Isn’t this in conflict with my right to freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution? As long as I am not inciting hatred against any group or promoting violence why should a reminder to help people select their candidates wisely be considered a threat to peace and stability?

The Electoral Act is littered with many more ambiguous & mischievous provisions, ripe for abuse. As CSOs rev up to mobilize Nigerians’ to register and vote, they need to keep their eyes on those provisions in the Act which can be used to disenfranchise or discourage voter participation. Since INEC and the National Assembly are not paying any attention to these provisions – we need to guard against abuse by putting a spotlight on tricky provisions. If we cannot get these provisions revised before the elections, we should be able to get INEC to clarify the provisions to prevent that the abuse which will come from arbitrary interpretation. It is only Professor Jega’s integrity that has been applauded – INEC still has most of the employees which managed the 2003 and 2007 elections – we need to help him ensure the 2011 elections have a fighting chance of actually being credible.

Read more...

Zoning for mediocrity

Nigeria can no longer afford to keep sacrificing good governance for ethnic considerations.

For months Nigerians have been distracted by the entertainment provided by the zoning issue – the same way the early Romans were dulled by the spectacle of gladiators fighting to the death. The Nigerian polity is fragile, held hostage to Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution and the supremacy of ethnic considerations.

Our Federal Character policy – the constitutional backing for ‘zoning’, is breaking us. Its roots tear into our chances for unity and keep us divided and this is the heart of our problems. Our Constitution insists that the Federal Government and its agencies are composed of all ethnic groups in order to “reflect the federal character of Nigeria.” Unwittingly this guarantees that we see ourselves as Nigerians only for visa application purposes and football even though Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution explains that the objective of the policy is to “promote national unity and command national loyalty”.

The debate for and against PDP’s zoning rules has been fierce. Most recently Olisa Agbakoba SAN advised us to take care to hold on to the essence of zoning i.e., federal character as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution while Minister of Foreign Affairs, Odein Ajumogobia advised that we ‘outgrow’ zoning. I agree with Mr. Ajumogobia and not because I want President Jonathan as a candidate for President.

We mark our fiftieth year of independence with ethnic strife, constant supposed religious insurgence, terrorism and near anarchy in the Niger Delta. Our history is ravaged with a civil war fought along ethnic lines; five coups and chronic corruption which has left the country crippled by the lack of investment in infrastructure and human development.

As we lead from the bottom on all development indicators, we need to ask ourselves: ‘how did we get here?’

I recognize the need for balance and representation. When we consider the civil war and the strong feelings of marginalization claimed by all 250 ethnic groups, it is easy to appreciate the sentiments behind federal character - it is one way to appease and ensure representation.

But it is not working and this is why.

Government participation based on ethnicity not qualification guarantees that it will always be more beneficial to hammer on our differences instead of our similarities. This is why we have 35 economically dependent states, with Lagos as the exception, and the clamor for more grows louder. It is also why we have 36 federal ministers we cannot afford – most of who are not qualified to handle their jobs. Our representatives are corrupt and numb to our interests – but they are safe in the knowledge that we will remain loyal to ethnic considerations. Does it stop only when we have 250 States and 250 federal ministers?

Federal character is blind to educational qualifications or experience, which means there is little incentive to be educated or to improve education. Instead, we accuse each other of being beneficiaries of the ‘quota system’ – and continue to promote mediocrity at all levels.

It gets worse. Who is representing Nigeria when each person is there for someplace else? Everyone is so concerned with their slice of the country that no one notices that the cake is getting smaller and smaller. The false unity promoted by ‘federal character zoning’ prevents us from realizing that no one is making long-term plans for Nigeria. Thus we are unable to invest in a future which grows more complicated and competitive with globalization.

Nigeria is not alone in its desire to address marginalization. America’s affirmative action policy has evolved from just racial discrimination to other types of discrimination. This change did not happen overnight. For 48 years, America, in a battle involving all arms of government, has revised, reviewed, and reframed affirmative action because they recognize that circumstances change and the policy must adjust.

Federal Character needs reform. The first step is to implement a 15-year strategic plan to improve access to and quality of education in every state. This will allow states considered educationally disadvantaged to catch up. Next, we must expand the definition of federal character to include women and other historically marginalized groups and we must restrict the application of the policy to specific areas such as education and defense, no longer politics or the civil service. Finally, we need a sustained national unification program to build a unique Nigerian identity and help foster real unity. And this is where I really disagree with Mr. Agbakoba in his ‘Misconceptions about zoning, power rotation’ in Thisday last week. He seems to think it is a fait accompli that we will never be united and that being a ‘divided federation’ can somehow benefit us. If we have practiced this version of diversity under ‘quota system’, ‘federal character’, and now ‘zoning’ and fifty years later we are still where we are (a Newsweek study shows Nigeria as being the second worst in the world on quality of living, below even Zimbabwe) then should we not change our practice?

National loyalty as envisioned in the Constitution means we see ourselves first as Nigerians before we see Ijaw, Kanuri or Nupe. However, the spirit behind this ideal has been mangled by Section 14; we cannot continue to sacrifice performance and progress for a dysfunctional diversity; we are all Nigerians and the best and most qualified of us should be allowed to lead regardless of where we are from.

Read more...

Seeing things in north and south

Many years ago as an undergraduate, I got the first of many tastes of the depth of the Nigerian north south divide. The plans to move the Nigerian Law School to Abuja were in motion and my set, the 1997 graduates of law would be the first to be called in Abuja. My letter to the editor of the Guardian questioned the rational. I spoke for tradition, consistency and the prudent use of resources in defense of maintaining Lagos as the site of the venerable Nigerian Law School; some who read it saw that I spoke for the south as opposed to the north. The rest is history – the site was moved to Abuja, people say quality has fallen and billions have been spent on five sub-standard law schools (one geo political zone is being ‘cheated’) when we could have one glorious well funded Nigerian Law School.

Since then I have used my writing to try to understand, like other Nigerians, the utility of federal character in our constitution and I continue to attract comments relating to our suffocating mind set on maintaining the north south dichotomy. Now there is a word we throw around when we talk of maintaining a balance but ‘dichotomy’ also means ‘to divide into two mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities’. Seeing things in north and south is the direct root for the zoning formula being championed by the Peoples’ Democratic Party and to be fair – maybe any other party in power would use this ruse too.

Yes, this is yet another article on zoning because as we do what we do best (dinner table analysis and sitting down and looking) our politicians and wise men drum up the specter of war with fighting words.

Last week as Nigerians dealt with the pain of sacrificed innocents and the humiliation of very publicly staking our claim to selfishness and instability on the same day we capped a frenzy of meaningless celebration of 50 years of independence, the Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF) lead by Adamu Ciroma called for the resignation of President Goodluck. In a statement peppered with prayers, NPLF said they were not satisfied with how the President was handling the bomb blasts which they believed to be politically motivated. According to NPLF “he is desperate enough to want to hang mass murder around the neck of unnamed Northerners to achieve his second term”. They plan to ask the National Assembly to impeach him because “as Northerners and as citizens of this country, we no longer feel safe and secure under his leadership”.

Some of the arguments and sentiments expressed in the NPLF statement are understandable, but on so many levels they are misleading. There is no doubt that sentiments are frayed and we are worried about the stability of the country especially after the bombs and the missiles of counter accusations flying around.

However, it is hard to see how starting impeachment proceedings six months to the elections is the right thing to do for the country. Rightly so, it is not an easy task to impeach a president and Section 143 of the Constitution provides several steps and layers of obligations for the National Assembly and the Supreme Court to comply with. First, the allegation calling for impeachment must be signed by at least 156 Senators and Representatives. Then at least 312 out of our 469 legislators must agree to the allegation being investigated; then the Chief Justice will recommend a panel of 7 people of ‘unquestionable character’ (did I hear ‘good luck with that’) to investigate and write a report which must then be adopted by 312 legislators. And, the President has the right to defend himself at some stage. Is it likely that we can go through this process and still hold credible elections in April?

I think NPLF is making a mistake when it lays the blame of instability, grim political rivalry and quest for power solely on the President’s feet; all the PDP candidates, all of whom have been in power before are equally guilty. NPLF is culpable of taking advantage of the situation to whip up sentiments and make a bad situation worse by calling for the impeachment of the President. We do not need experienced political analysts to tell us that a handover could delay the electoral process and increase tensions across the country.

NPLF is right when it says the bombs were calculated to humiliate and to show the world that the Niger Delta militants have the ability “to influence political outcomes beyond their traditional area of influence”. But the question is, humiliate and influence whom? NPLF remind us of their warning to Nigerians to be vigilant about President Goodluck’s ‘desperate agenda to run’ and say they have been vindicated by the bombs. This means we can ask a few more questions: who benefits most from the chaos, fear and uncertainty being created and who loses more in the short and long term from the events of October 1? Maybe when we attempt to answer these questions, we can begin to analyze without the fog of sentiments.

True patriotism and leadership does not use the type of divisive rhetoric contained in NPLF’s statement nor the careless utterances coming from the Presidency, no matter how provoked both sides feel by the situation. We should be tired of being used by the political elite in strengthening the potency of this over 50 year old boogeyman of ethnic and religious marginalization and domination. It is a smokescreen to protect their real interests: themselves. There are probably members of the NPLF who have, in one capacity or another, served in every single government Nigeria has had since 1960 regardless of any ideological preferences for north, south, Muslim, Christian, dictatorship or democracy – so what exactly do they stand for and why do they want the rest of us to stand for north vs. south and Muslim vs. Christian?

There is no doubt that balancing the interests of perceived marginalization and ethnic and religious dominance is a delicate issue requiring extra creativity to manage especially since inexplicably, Nigerians seem to be more comfortable when ‘their own’ is representing them in government and PDP’s zoning formula was probably made, with the best of intentions, to manage this desire. But it is not working.

So no – impeachment is not the answer and we should all start writing to our legislators and telling them not to threaten the elections and waste our time and resources. I wish there was a provision of the Electoral Act to disqualify PDP from the presidential elections on the basis of overheating the polity and causing unrest. But there isn’t. There might be an out in Section 227 of the Constitution which might indirectly help us get rid of PDP – it says ‘No association shall retain, organise, train or equip any person or group of persons for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force or coercion in promoting any political objective or interest...” Isn’t PDP and the zoning formula guilty of this? That way the rest of the country can carry on and PDP can take the next four years to revise its constitution and come back to us when they have something better than ‘zoning’. Until then, we continue on our polarized march towards a firm north south dichotomy.

Read more...