2027: Parties, High Nomination Fees and Civilian Autocracy 

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

The Reintroduction of Environmental Sanitation in Lagos

Before I go into the word for today, allow me to comment briefly on the reintroduction of the monthly environmental sanitation exercise in Lagos State. While the public health goals of the Lagos State Government (LASG) to improve its environment, by making it cleaner cannot be ignored, such initiatives must be implemented within the ambit of the law. 

In Faith Okafor v Lagos State Government & Anor (2016) LPELR-41066(CA) per Biobele Abraham Georgewill, JCA, the Court of Appeal upheld Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) guaranteeing the right to  freedom of movement of Citizen Faith Okafor and every other person, unless they fall within the exceptions set out in Section 41(2) thereof. The Court of Appeal declared the LASG directive to restrict movement in the morning hours every last Saturday of the month, to be illegal and unconstitutional, holding inter alia that Section 41(2) which LASG relied upon was inapplicable, that: “The Respondents, therefore, lack the power in law to direct or order not only the restriction of movement of any and every person who has not committed any offence, or is not reasonably suspected of having committed any criminal offence…..”. 

Even if LASG enacted the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017 (LEMPL) and not just a directive as in Citizen Okafor’s time, if it affects the restriction of movement of ordinary citizens, and not those who have committed a criminal offence or are suspected to have done so, such law may still be unconstitutional, as the exceptions to the right to freedom of movement are clearly listed in Section 41(2), and environmental sanitation exercise isn’t one of them. LASG is also bound by the judgement in Faith Okafor v Lagos State Government & Anor (Supra). While some claim that there is controlled movement on environmental sanitation Saturday, others say there is no compulsory restriction of movement.

Weakening Democracy vs Strengthening Civilian Autocracy/Plutocracy 

As Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, it appears that instead of democracy being deepened with the aid of the updated Electoral Act 2026 (EA) and the 27th year of the Fourth Republic, it appears that it is being weakened into a civilian autocracy/plutocracy. For one, placing high price tags on expression of interest and nomination forms, thereby ruling out majority of Aspirants who cannot afford to pay such exorbitant amounts for forms, narrows the pool of Aspirants considerably. This ludicrous practice  has always been a part of the electoral process, thereby excluding those of modest means from the race, and it is up to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)  to do something about it (see Section 78 of the Constitution).

Now that Nigeria appears to be almost a one-party APC State, the  APC price tags must be highlighted. In 2022, Presidential Aspirants in APC paid a total of N100 million, N30 million for expression of interest, and N70 million for nomination; Gubernatorial Aspirants, N50 million; Senatorial, N20 million; House of Representatives, N10 million and State House of Assembly, N6 million. It appears that Nigeria is running a Plutocratic Republic in which only those with means can vie for office, as opposed to an inclusive democracy found in countries like Switzerland and Canada, even Mauritius in Africa. In these countries, certain mechanisms have been put in place to enable those of modest or meagre means contest for political office. This is how democracy is deepened, strengthening the rules that political parties must operate under, for instance, inserting modest ceilings for nomination forms, spending limits for campaigns, while in some countries there are even public reimbursements, based on an Aspirant’s previous performance. 

In Nigeria, the opposite obtains – aside from unexplained wealth not being much of an issue, failure in previous performance is a stimulant for promotion to greater heights in office. Maybe because of the exclusion of Chapter II of the Constitution from justiciable matters – see Section 6(6)(c) – government  officials and elective office holders are not big on accountability, nor can they be fully held responsible for failure. If not, how does one explain how Governor Bello Maitawalle who failed to secure Zamfara State while in office, also openly accused of being friendly with bandits, become the Minister of State of Defence, of all the Ministries that he could possibly have been assigned to, if at all? Or the former Minister of Power, Mr Adelabu, who plunged Nigeria into further darkness during his tenure, wants to be chosen by APC to run for Governor of Oyo State? Some have argued that if Mr Adelabu is chosen as the Oyo State APC Gubernatorial consensus candidate, they can only assume that APC probably may not mean well for Oyo State. Surely, failure shouldn’t be the stimulant for promotion! For all those who have served in public office, they must be judged by their performance, to determine if they are fit and proper for further responsibilities. 

TV Interviews 

That said, it doesn’t help matters when guests who come on television talk shows, either do not do their homework properly before they come to discuss issues on air, or they simply seize the opportunity to mislead and inflame the polity even more than it already is, particularly when they seem to be unhappy with the state of affairs in the country, or the government of the day. This is quite common. Truth, accuracy and a correct representation of facts should always be the watchword of discussants, because even a slight misrepresentation or misstatement of facts, no matter how slight, particularly from those who are perceived to have superior knowledge about the issues they are discussing, can be damaging and have far reaching effects, especially in this age of social media where statements can go viral globally in a matter of minutes. 

It is true that Nigerians are not happy with the performance of the 10th National Assembly (NASS), particularly the Senate, labelling them as a ’Rubber Stamp’ Legislature, but still, discussants should endeavour to be as accurate as possible with their comments about them. Like I said a few weeks ago, the media is fast becoming a tool for compelling accountability, and it therefore places a responsibility of accuracy on it, in so doing. 

I watched the Morning Show interview of Mike Igini last week, and while I agreed with a good number of his submissions, including the fact that Section 63(2) of the EA poses a danger to credible elections and should be expunged from the EA, I saw no reason for him to misstate the fact that Section 63(2) of the EA, the exception to Section 63(1), which gives Returning Officers the discretion to accept ballot papers that do not bear the official mark, as long as they are satisfied that they came from the book of ballot papers supplied to the Presiding Officer at a polling unit, is a fresh reintroduction into the 2026 EA included by the present NASS. It is not. Mr Igini said: “….Section 63, which I just discovered, they have now reintroduced something very terrible….that was contained in Section 49 of the 2010 Act, that took us 20 years up to 2022 to repeal, remove…..”. This is not correct. The current Section 63 of the EA is more or less the same as Section 63 of the 2022 Electoral Act, with Section 63(2) of the old law starting with the word ’If’ and the new one, ‘Where’. Section 63 of the 2022 Electoral Act was also formerly Section 66 of the 2010 Electoral Act, and Section 49 of the 2010 Act which Mr Igini referred to, has nothing to with marks on ballot papers, but was related to the issue of ballot papers to accredited voters to cast their votes.

I certainly do not seek to downplay the mischief that can arise from the continuous inclusion of Section 63(2) of the EA, seeing as it is certainly an effective tool that can be used to rig elections. I agree with Mr Igini’s submission that such a provision, shouldn’t be part of the EA. He has however, erroneously made this unwelcome section of the EA that has featured in the EA for decades, appear to be a recent re-creation of the 10th NASS, and this inflammatory error has gone viral. Just as Section 63(1) prohibiting the counting of unmarked ballot papers has existed, at least since the 2010 EA, so also has Section 63(2), the exception to 63(1). See Kabir v APC & Ors (2024) LPELR-61712(SC); Buhari v INEC (2008) LPELR-814(SC).

Already, there is dissatisfaction with the 10th NASS’s 2026 EA, because it isn’t a game changer for a more credible electoral process. Though highlighting the deficiencies 2026 EA is absolutely necessary, it is imperative that this is done accurately, particularly in an environment where fake news spreads like wild fire and is capable of rocking an already unsteady boat. I saw a post on social media from the Arise TV programme which highlighted Mr Igini’s display of Section 63, with an accompanying commentary accusing INEC of complicity in the secret inclusion of Section 63(2) of the 2026 EA, a falsehood which can only be seen as another attempt to chip away at INEC’s already dwindling credibility before the next elections, but has nevertheless spread like wildfire. This also doesn’t help matters.

Exclusion of Indirect Primaries 

We have already started seeing the negative effect of deleting indirect primaries from Section 84(2) of the EA, allowing for only direct primaries and consensus candidacy. Last week, I watched an interview of the former Governor of Nasarawa State, Tanko Al-Makura, in which he complained about how Governor Abdullahi Sule had selected one Senator Wadada as APC’s consensus candidate for the 2027 Nasarawa Gubernatorial election. 

A consensus candidate is one who is chosen by the major stakeholders, which include all the relevant groups within a party, to be the party’s candidate for elective purposes. The consensus system is supposed to foster unity and harmony (consensus ad idem – meeting of the minds) within a party, as well as being a cheaper option. But, what we are starting to see is the drawbacks of consensus candidacy, such as the imposition of favoured candidates by the Governors or powers that be, thereby further entrenching the narrative of lack of internal party democracy – see Section 85 of the EA. Even though the EA sets out some safeguards that must be followed in selecting a consensus candidate, such as the written consent of other Aspirants and their voluntary withdrawal from the race – see Section 87(1) of the EA – it appears from Governor Al-Makura’s complaint is that this whole process may have been bypassed by Governor Sule, who may have anointed the so-called consensus candidate as his successor, alone.

Nigerian politicians appear to have a way of manipulating or abusing processes, for their own personal benefit. One can certainly not conclude that in a country in which true democracy has been a struggle, and internal party democracy has also been a problem, narrowing down the process of nomination of candidates by removing indirect primaries is the right step to take. 

Conclusion 

It appears that LASG cites its LEMPL, as the basis for its new monthly environmental exercise. If so, it may be that this law may have to be tested in court if it involves any movement restriction, possibly vis-à-vis Section 45 of the Constitution which allows derogation from fundamental rights on grounds of public health, which the sanitation exercise obviously seeks to address. 

It may be apposite for INEC to consider guidelines that insert ceilings on expression of interest and nomination forms, while taking issues of party finances and inclusion of Aspirants of modest means more seriously. As citizens of Nigeria, we must also play our part in deepening democracy, not just by coming out en masse to vote in elections, but by engaging in constructive criticism of the system, as opposed to spreading fake news and heating up the atmosphere.