Only the Lawyers - and a few politicians -win

Between the primaries, the registration process and the judiciary’s self-induced implosion we are set for what will undoubtedly be historical elections in April 2011, at least for lawyers.

The registration process has come and gone – massively expensive, extremely tiresome and plagued with problems, both technical and political. Save for those who did not manage to register at all or who did not get to register as many times as they wanted to, we are all sighing with relief that it is over. But there are implications.

During the registration exercise there were stories of those who registered more than once and who were found with multiple voter registration cards on them and although INEC kept quiet about this issue, we would like to believe that when all the data ‘captured’ during the registration exercise is collected, those who registered more than once will be automatically flagged – since fingerprints do not lie (at least in most places). However what would be most reassuring is for INEC to publish the name/names of those found to have registered more than once – along with its publication of the 2011 the voter list – and make it clear that they are disqualified from voting during the 2011 elections. This way, political parties and the public can put at least this particular issue of multiple registrations firmly away and focus on other election irregularities. For instance…what is going to be done and what can be done about the under-aged voters who got away with registering? Unfortunately finger prints cannot tell us how old a person is so how is this particular problem going to be resolved? Section 10(2) of the Electoral Act clearly requires that people to be registered must come with identification which proves ‘identity, age and nationality’ but no one asked me for this when I was registering and all the times I went to the registration centers to monitor the process, no one was ever asked - understandably. To ask for identification would have resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions of Nigerians who have nothing to prove who they say they are. What a nation. And what a potential opportunity for a lawsuit questioning the legality of the almost 1 trillion Naira registration process.

The primaries have also come and gone but we are still talking about it. The list of parties’ candidates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) changes as often as women in the market reach into their bras for change. Here today and gone tomorrow; maybe this is where some of the hidden costs of running for elections come in; you must have money to ensure your name remains on the list of candidates. So who is gaining from these changes? How are these changes magically happening? Maybe each party should publish the list they have given to INEC so that INEC will not be able to ‘change’ some of the names as alleged for instance in the case of the CPC gubernatorial candidate for Kano State? The flood of problems with irregularities in INEC’s execution prove that we were wrong to think democracy had scored a goal when Prof. Jega was appointed as the Chairman of INEC. We are always so concerned with the head and not with the body. The much celebrated Prof Jega is in …but what about the people he ‘inherited’? The real experts on electoral matters who have survived various chairmen of INEC? Can one person oversee everything that is happening in one place, across the nation? No – and that is why jubilation on his appointment was premature and actually a bit infantile. Nothing has really changed.

At the most recent count there are at least 64 lawsuits filed by aggrieved contestants who disagree with their parties' approved candidate lists for the April elections following disputed party primaries. The elections are barely two months away – how many of these cases are going to be resolved within this time frame? For those who think the lawsuits will make a difference, Section 87(11) of the Electoral Act takes away what Section 87(10) gives. While subsection 10 says aspirants with complaints may go to the Federal or State High Courts to seek redress, subsection 11 says the courts will not be able to stop the general election pending the determination of the lawsuits.

This is the cue for where the judiciary rushes in on a white horse to save the day – maybe by fast tracking the lawsuits or by dedicating specific courts to handle the cases arising from the primaries. No? They are not coming? Why not? Because they are neck deep in their own controversy arising from the 2007 election petitions which have only recently been resolved and their own alleged positioning in anticipation of all the lawsuits coming in 2011.

So who will save the elections and the electorate and ensure it does not get mired in endless litigation? No one. Lawyers will have a field day with fees; those who do not deserve to win the elections will ‘enjoy’ power for close to a full term before the judiciary ‘saves the day’; Prof Jega will be vilified and calls for his removal will reverberate around the world and the rest of us will look forward with hope to… 2015.

Published in Thisday's Lawyer on February 15 2011