Let me first of all commend the Senate Committee on INEC for realizing the imperative of opening the Electoral Bill up for Nigerians to examine, criticize and recommend improvements. For while the Legislature specializes in law making, and therefore can rightly claim a certain degree of expertise in the field, the maxim that no one has a monopoly of wisdom holds true for it as for everyone else. By consulting as widely as it is doing and inviting inputs from the general public, the Committee, and by extension, the National Assembly has given Nigerians reasons to expect that all major flaws in the electoral laws would be addressed. Those who have responded to the invitation to this public hearing also deserve commendation for so clearly demonstrating their individual and collective commitment to the democratic process and the task of nation building.

The electoral process constitutes the core of the foundation of democracy. As Jose Gasset puts it, “The health of any democracy, no matter its type or status, depends on a small technical detail: the conduct of elections. Everything else is secondary”. It is through elections that people are chosen to make decisions on our behalf, ideally for our collective wellbeing. The electoral process therefore, to a very large extent, determines the quality of leaders we have at the helm of affairs and thus the quality of decisions made on our behalf.. If we bemoan the very slow pace of our development as a nation against the backdrop of the quantum of resources at our disposal, it is not inconceivable that the right decisions have not been made over the years. And this, of course can be traced to the absence of the right kind of leadership.

In his book THE TROUBLE WITH NIGERIA, Professor Chinua Achebe observed that the problem with our country is essentially that of leadership. “The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership … Nigeria can change if she discovers leaders who have the will, the ability and the vision …” I hold the view that this caliber of leaders abound in our country but that their emergence is inhibited by several factors, chief among which is the electoral process. Many capable hands are scared from participating in politics because of the labyrinthine complexities of party politics. Those who brave to come out are frustrated by a convoluted system inclined more towards enthroning mediocrity. As a device designed to make governments accountable to the people, the electoral process exerts profound influence on leadership and therefore the fortunes of a people in a democracy. When a government is conscious of the fact that it could be voted out at the next elections, it does all it can to win and keep the goodwill of the people at whose pleasure it holds office. On the other hand, it has little motivation to exert itself in the right direction, and most often gets arrogant, if it knows that it can easily subvert the will of the electorate by manipulating the electoral process to perpetuate itself. This holds as much for governments as for individual politicians.

It is clear therefore, that beyond its obvious function of changing guards, free, fair and transparent elections constitute the very bedrock of good governance. We have consequently to strive to do all that is necessary to ensure that the will of the people expressed at elections forms the basis of political authority. The laws have to be adequate; the institutions strengthened and our people sensitized to jealously guard the electoral process, mindful that it is the one sure way of holding errant governments (and politicians) firmly on leash. Only then shall we be on course towards attaining a true, representative democracy – a sine qua non for a rapid political and socio-economic transformation of our nation. I have been privileged to look at the Proposal for Draft Electoral Bill 2005 submitted by INEC and I must confess that I am impressed by the diligence that evidently went into its preparation. Most of the amendments recommended at the various fora convened to review the 2003 elections and point the way for electoral reforms have been reflected. However, there are some loopholes noted in the existing electoral laws which have not been adequately plugged. Let me start with those to do with strengthening the independence of INEC, having in mind that the neutrality and impartiality of the Commission - elements needed for the conduct of free and fair elections – are a function of its independence. APPOINTMENTOF CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION In line with Section 154 (1) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution, the new proposal requires the president to appoint the chairman and members of the Commission in consultation with the council of State and subject to confirmation by the Senate. I am aware that the Constitution needs be amended to effect a change in this. However, I must stress that we must bear in mind the view expressed by many – and I agree with them – that if the selection process of these officers is more broad-based than the law provides currently, it would minimize the influence of a serving president and government on the Commission. It is suggested that the political parties, the National Assembly and the public be allowed inputs in the selection process. FUNDING OF INEC Another issue that can fortify the independence of INEC has to do with its funding. I note that in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the new proposal, elaborate provisions have been made to secure some fiscal autonomy for the Commission. However, I have not seen where it is guaranteed that funds for electoral activities would be sourced without recourse to the presidency. And this, to my mind, is imperative. For as long as the government remains the major source of income for the Commission, it is desirable to remove from it the discretionary power that allows it to manipulate the Commission through funding. I wish to suggest therefore, that in addition to all that has been proposed in the Draft in this respect, specific provision be made for the Commission to secure funds for its electoral activities from the consolidated revenue of the Federation. While on this, I should suggest as well that the Commission reviews its operational guidelines to allow some decentralization to make it possible for its zonal and states offices to operate with a degree of fiscal independence. A situation where they have to rely absolutely on the headquarters for funds for all their activities do not allow for flexibility and effectiveness at those levels. THE STATES INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS Again this would require a constitutional amendment. But it is worth noting here that there is a compelling need to amend the relevant law to do away with the SIECs. The case for this was amply made during the last local government elections when States chief executives, almost without exception, deployed the SIECs, the supposed umpires, as one of the departments of their governments to do their biddings. The House Committee on Electoral Matters had, after a thorough review of the conduct of the elections, concluded that no safeguards introduced would succeed in curbing the pervasive pernicious influence of States chief executives on SIECs, and so recommended that INEC be strengthened in areas of funding, appointment of key personnel etc to take over the SIECs and conduct all elections in the country. I wholly subscribe to this view. In any case, I do not honestly see the need for multiple election management bodies in the country.

Another aspect of the law which the Draft Proposal has not addressed is the time limit for the disposal of election petitions. A situation in which election cases drag on in the tribunals well into a better part of political office tenure leaves much to be desired.

Apart from undermining the sacredness of the people’s mandate by leaving it repose in the wrong hands for too long, it denies the rightful winner justice and would not even allow the “wrong winner” the peace of mind to settle down to the business of governance.

Ultimately, the people are the losers. Section 159 of the new Draft, as the existing Act, provides for “accelerated hearing” and for petitions to “have precedence over all other cases or matters before the tribunal or court”. These phrases are elastic and subject to the vagaries of the judicial process. There should be a definite time frame within which all election petitions cases must be disposed of. I am aware that tribunals are sometimes constrained by several factors to prolong the cases.

Yet if targets are set, it is possible that cases would be more expeditiously treated. Perhaps we should also consider holding elections well before the tail end of political office tenures – say three months to the end. This would give all the parties ample time and opportunity to exhaust all avenues to get justice before swearing-in of winners.

CONCLUSION

Ladies and gentlemen, my observations are by no means exhaustive. This Public Hearing is bound to throw up some other shortcomings of the electoral laws. Hopefully, they would all be addressed and we would have adequate legal framework for subsequent elections. Sadly however, these laws in themselves would not guarantee us free and fair elections. I have said it elsewhere, and it bears repeating here, that beyond the law, we, individually and collectively, must do something about our attitude. A mindset that regards elections as contests that must always be won, regardless of the wishes of the electorate, would drive its owner to trample upon any law, however good, on his way to achieve his dubious goal. On the other hand, if we truly love our country, recognize the seminal importance of elections to the survival, nurturing and deepening of democracy, and accept the supremacy of the will of the electorate, laws need not be perfect for us to do what is right. As Dr Busia puts it, “democracy in the last analysis depends on the character of individual men and women and the moral standards of the community. Rules may be made; freedoms may be provided in constitutions, and Bills of Right may be passed; they will make arbitrary acts easier to resist publicly, but they will not by themselves secure democracy”.

Thank you.