By Tonnie Iredia
Bearing in mind that a constitution would be unwieldy if it is made to contain every type of provision, other laws, regulations and guidelines are allowed to provide further provisions that would illuminate the not too copious constitutional statements on a particular subject area. The Electoral Act is expected to handle such situations in matters of elections.
Painfully, the National Assembly, has since 1982, used every opportunity to produce a bastardized document for the nation. They have done this severally using inexplicable methods – the latest being what prolific television anchor, Seun Okinbaloye describes as ‘boju-boju’ strategy.
A major benefit of law amendment is to redraft or add certain items that are capable of throwing light on words, terms and perceptions, as well as helping to cure any mischief, error or wrong which a provision seems to bring to a statement. In the case of the existing Electoral Act, no other thing can better pacify society than a mandatory provision as the judiciary had ingeniously observed the absence of a legal basis for the people’s preference.
Put differently, except electronic transmission of results is made mandatory, INEC will act impulsively by virtue of its proven trait of character. Why then should the mandatory transmission of results be resubjected to the disposition of Senators who themselves had in townhall sessions across the nation openly accepted it to be the best solution?
There are other questions. First, do Senators who are opposed to the people’s preference want the judiciary to again throw out election petitions on the ground that no law specifically mandates INEC to transmit results electronically without first altering them in bogus collation centres?
Second, are our Senators truly convinced that electronic transmission is not in the national interest? If so, why is it not INEC the operator that is against the popular request? Third, why is it that each time the provision on electronic transmission comes up, the few opponents are always members of the ruling party? And why are such members always doggy as if they have something to hide?
I think the Senate should avoid circumlocution in public communication. There should be no going round and round a topic without making its real point. Senate’s statements should always be direct and concise rather than using double negatives. It is easier to be on the same page with many people by simply saying ‘we are aware’ instead of ‘we are not unaware.’
People cannot understand the meaning of the senate ‘did not reject the electronic transmission of result’ if it supported the old order which is essentially against electronic transmission! Again, if transmission and transfer mean the same thing, there is no need to insist on transfer which the people abhor. In truth, it is time our senate realizes that its current spokesperson is hardly persuasive while dealing with controversial matters.
Generally, not many people can comprehend why anomalies are often credited to the ruling parties. Whether it is the PDP from 1999 to 2015 or the APC from 2015 till today, it would appear that every ruling party at any time is the one apprehensive about free, fair and credible elections. Being said to be overwhelmingly in control of virtually every state, one would have expected the ruling party to win every election hands down. Yet, as the government of the day, they always in breach of the constitution, appoint partisan officials into INEC to bring in those that can help rig elections.
Apart from the ignoble role of partisan referees, the ruling party in every state always distorts the required level playing ground for elections. Every so-called ruling party is guilty of this making it hard for us to wonder what their fear is. Could it be that they want to score more votes than voters? Under the circumstance, it appears superfluous that part of the reforms currently being pursued is a reduction of the time allocated to certain electoral events.
What is the real purpose of canvassing such reductions that are not likely to be adhered to by politicians? For instance, campaigns for the 2027 elections began on May 29, 2023 – the same day that the present government came into office. No one listened to analysts who kept drawing attention to the impropriety of using the time for governance to focus on campaigns.
Perhaps the reason why the political class has remained doggy is because it is obvious that the people are unduly gullible. After every uninspiring election, many people still appear hopeful that all will be well soon. In 1999, INEC told us it did not use the almighty server procured with resources that can transform huge segments of society.
Why it was supposedly not used was never explained. Yet, massive voter education schemes had saturated all spheres about the level of readiness to use the server in addition to displayed arrangements for the training of manual and electronic collation officials. INEC was not made to explain why it chose to waste billions on facilities it did not really require.
In 2023, INEC claimed it had a technical glitch during the announcement of only one out of 3 elections organized instantaneously. Till today, no one seems to know of any attempt to probe the incident. INEC had both at home and abroad officially promised the electronic transmission of results. At the end, it was not done and they got their admirers in the judiciary to rule that the electoral body had a discretion to deceive the nation. Why will the political class not continue to behave like colonizers when the nation clothes them with a posture that ensures their own domination? To understand the development, there is a need to take a retrospective view of where we are coming from and how authoritarianism helps the ruling class.
When our British conquerors were here, they made draconian laws such as those on Sedition to take away our freedom. This enabled them to commit all forms of havoc such as the extra judicial killings of 21 coal miners at Iva valley in Enugu in 1949. They have since left and were succeeded by black white-men. Rather than legislate to end those years of anguish our new leaders though our kith and kin saw wisdom in updating some of the colonial laws into those on subjects like cybercrimes protection to keep us quiet while they appropriate our resources. We may not know for how long, one set of political class will remain in power through the manipulation of the Electoral Act while their fellow citizens remain impoverished; we know however, that someday what comes around will go around.
Indeed, it was a big shock a few days ago to hear that an Enugu court had ordered the British Government to compensate families and apologise publicly for the colonial era killing of 21 coal miners. The presiding judge, Justice A.O. Onovo directed the British government to pay £420 million in compensation to the families of 21 coal miners killed during the massacre.
The miners were only protesting harsh working conditions, racial wage disparities and unpaid arrears when colonial police opened fire, killing 21 workers and injuring 51 others. The judge also berated the Nigerian Government for failing to pursue redress over the years, ruling that its inaction amounted to a dereliction of constitutional duty. He therefore ordered the Federal Government to initiate diplomatic engagement with the British authorities within 60 days.
The implications of this judgment are many. First, it tells those in authority that to protest unacceptable working conditions is not an offence. Second, it suggests that no matter how long certain crimes last, the opportunity to seek justice is always there. Third, the judgment reminds Nigerians that there are fearless judges that would occasionally rise to right a wrong. Finally, the judge opens the door for Nigerians to know that compensation for torture can be claimed by the survivors or their families as was done in 2013 for victims of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in the 1950s.
But then the continued exploitation of the people by leaders is not likely to end if the people remain naïve and forever believing in the sweet but manipulative talks of leadership. The people must know their right and take up every political leader that is unable to meet their expectations.
One crucial way of doing so is to recall such leaders or vote against them at all levels in future elections. Playing pranks on the people over issues such as the Electoral Act is ill-advisable; the old idea of delaying till when the Act can no longer be signed is archaic. Our senators should better stay on the right side of history as civil society is getting more vibrant by the day.
*Dr. Iredia is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment