The Nigerian Senate made direct primaries compulsory for political parties in the country ahead of the 2023 general elections, a move that has been heavily criticized by the main opposition party, Peoples Democratic Party and its allies. Emameh Gabriel looks at both sides of the coin and the implications for Nigeria’s democracy
After months of speculations as to what will become of the 2023 general elections, the Senate last week took Nigerians by surprise when a clause in the Electoral Amendment Bill was modified. This is as the red chamber there after ordered that primaries for the nomination of candidates for elective position by political parties should be direct primary.
The upper legislative chamber also mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC to monitor every primary election conducted by political parties in the country.
The latest move was the adoption of the position of the House of Representatives on Section 87 of the electoral Act. During the Electoral Act Amendment in July, while the Senate had adopted the use of both direct and indirect primaries in the nomination of candidates, the lower chamber had recommended the use of only direct primaries.
The approval followed a motion for reconsideration of some Clauses of the Electoral Act No.6 2010( Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill , 2021( SB. 122) sponsored by the Senate Leader, Senator Yahaya Abdullahi.
The earlier adoption had read: “87(1) A Political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold direct or Indirect primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which may be monitored by the Commission”.
But in the new amendment, Senator Abdullahi in a lead debate said that the amendment to Clause 87( 1) nomination of candidates by parties reads: “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Bill shall hold direct primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which shall be monitored by the Commission”(INEC).
The Kebbi State lawmaker noted that after a critical examination of the Bill by the Senate Committee on INEC, some fundamental issues which require fresh legislative action on the following clauses: 43, 52, 63, and 87 were observed.
He said: “Desirous of the need to address the observation by the Committee and make necessary amendments; and “Relying on order 1(b) and 53(6) of Senate Standing Order.
“Accordingly resolves to: Rescind its decision on the affected Clauses of the Bill as passed and re-commit same to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and passage.”
The latest move by the Senate has opened up a new vista in the country’s democratic development, which observers believe could strengthen political parties internal democracy. Direct primaries involves the participation of all party members in the selection of their elective representatives as against the use of delegates, who are usually leaders and members of the executives at the ward, local government and state levels.
The use of indirect primary has been widely condemned in the past due to the overbearing power it provides to state governors who have made themselves godfathers and most often decide which aspirant wins a primary election in their state.
But other observers have contended that the process is not only cumbersome but also expensive.
Chairman Senate Committee on INEC, Senator Gabiru Gaya, said the direct primaries clause adopted by the Senate in the proposed Electoral Amendment Bill is an opportunity to protect legislators from the governors.
The former Kano State Governor had during his appearance on a TV interview recounted how he won his first election as a young man through the direct primary.
“Sometimes, governors have delegates, and they decide who will be the next House of Representatives member, the next senator.
“The best legislators are those who come back often, because of experience, but these days, because of what is happening, because of interference of indirect primaries, you find out that only 30% will come back to the National Assembly. Of course, you are losing 70%. You are losing experienced people.
“In the National Assembly, the more you come, the more experienced you become. This is a means of empowering the legislators,” he said.
So just as the Senate’s u-turn on electronic transmission came as a surprise to many, so did the change in section 87(1), demanding mandatory direct primaries for all political parties.
While the latest change to section 52(3) has settled the dust raised in the last few weeks ahead of 2023, the change to section 87(1) seems to have ignited new concerns, with the main opposition, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its allies, the Conference of United Political Parties (CUPP) opposing the move.
In a statement by the PDP spokesperson, Kola Ologbondiyan, the party said the decision of the Senate was anti-democratic and against the wishes of Nigerians, citing the huge cost that the direct primaries would shoulder on political parties.
“The decision by the APC-controlled Senate is a humongous blow to the development of democratic norms and a plot to introduce anarchy during internal party elections as currently obtainable in the APC.
“The PDP holds that the provision is aimed at increasing the costs of nomination procedures thereby surrendering the processes to money bags against the wishes and aspiration of Nigerians.
“Our party makes bold to state that with the exception of the APC, which intends to deploy looted funds in future elections, hardly will there be any political party that will be able to raise the cost of conducting internal elections under a direct primary process.
“This is why the decision of the Senate has elicited widespread rejection from Nigerians across board, the statement had read.
The official position of the PDP, was in line with that of former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, himself a PDP stalwart, who few days before the Senate’s move, had perhaps gotten wind of it, made an appeal to the legislators to save the country the crisis and trouble that would result from the proposal because many of the political parties lacked the necessary infrastructure to successfully conduct direct primaries at all levels. Saraki further added that the attempt would lead to hundreds of litigations that might jeopardise the general election.
The former Senate President, who made this known in a statement by the Head of his Media Office, Yusuph Olaniyonu, said he felt compelled to once again appeal to both chambers of the National Assembly to reconsider their position.
“The two options on the table are to make direct primaries compulsory for all the parties or to leave it open for parties to decide. We should take the latter option. Let us leave each party to decide how it wants to source its candidates.
“The experience we have in the past shows that direct primary will lead to a crisis if forced on the parties. We saw how people sent from the national headquarters to conduct primary elections stayed in hotel rooms and conjured up figures which were announced as the result of direct primary elections”, Saraki had warned.
Also, a chieftain of the party and former Edo State Commissioner for Information, Kassim Afegbua, in an exclusive interview with THISDAY described the move by the APC led Senate as selfish and vindictive.
He said apart from huge cost implications, direct primary will create more setbacks on the electoral process and even open more doors for manipulation.
He said: “It is an exercise in overkill. APC lawmakers are just making laws against personalities, and not deepening the system. First, direct primaries are very expensive, cumbersome and untidy. They are subject of manipulations and vote rigging. They are difficult to manage which gives room for manipulations. It is like conducting a general election before the real general election.
“How can you as an aspirant deploy the manpower to monitor the process? Why would you be expected to spend so much money in conducting the primaries when the huge challenge of contesting the real election stares in the face? They should include the option of indirect depending on how much energy the political party has to contend with the direct primary process.
“The direct primaries we have seen have been ridiculously ridiculous. The figures you hear fly in the face of reason and logic. APC Primaries for President Buhari was the most ridiculous. The figure of 15.6m they posted after such organized “crime” is the reason why you can never trust the validity. And imagine that the outcome never reflected the total outcome”, he noted.
On the contrary, Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Senator Babafemi Ojudu, has carpeted the opinions raised by opposing voice on direct primary. He said, “Let me state from the onset that direct primary is not fool proof. No electoral process is. It is however more democratic than indirect. It allows for the participation of the entire members of a party in a constituency where a party member is seeking nomination.
“The members report in their ward, they are issued ballots and they cast their votes with the supervision of INEC and the representatives of each of the contestants. After the balloting the votes are sorted and counted in the presence of everyone and then announced.
“On cost, it is of course cheaper. If you are popular in your constituency you need not pay anyone. Payment of huge sums to delegates has become an illegal component of the indirect primary. Voters are warehoused, made to undergo all manners of ridiculous oaths and paid huge sums to vote for a particular candidate.
“This has ensured that the most popular candidate without means is not picked. When pick an unpopular candidate who everyone is aware is not competent and does not mean well for the community then you have to pay voters on general Election Day to carry out their civic duty in his favor.
“When you pay to get votes you do not care about the citizens when you get to power .
Therefore it is kudos to the Senate for coming up with this amendment. It is loved by the generality of people and it has been hailed by all. Anyone against it is an enemy of democracy
Civil Society Organisation reacts
A civil society organisation has thrown its weight behind the decision, describing it as a welcome development for the country’s democracy. The group however said there ought to have been room for consultation before legislating on sensitive electoral matters.
Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre ( CISLAC) / Chairman Transition Monitoring Group ( TMG) told THISDAY that the “approval of direct primaries for aspirants to all elective positions and making it mandatory for primaries to be monitored by INEC and other aspects of the bill in Clauses 43, 52, 63 and 87 are all good moves that bode well for democracy”.
“The direct primaries could present a fairer, all-inclusive system of picking party flag-bearers. It gives the candidate a clear mandate and legitimacy and will end minority rule by giving every card-carrying member a say. It could mark the end of godfatherism, imposition of candidates and “one-man show” parties.
“But as good as this decision by the National Assembly, there should have been proper consultation with the political parties in Nigeria before taking such decision. Public consultation is very important and key for a good legislative decision. This is because political parties have the their constitutions that allow them to hold direct or indirect primaries therefore there is need for consultation with the political parties before legislating on this issue, he said.
Mr. Auwal further called on political parties in the country to work more on strengthening internal democracy in their parties.
He said: “CISLAC calls on political parties to either reduce or freeze the cost of nomination forms and promote the participation of youth, women and persons with disabilities. And also call on the ICPC, INEC, the Civil Society and other stakeholders to observe and ensure when the new Electoral Bill comes into force and its provisions implemented, the proposed form of primary elections will not be an avenue for vote trading and a floodgate for the flow of dirty money into politics, against democratic principles.
Governors as the big losers
True to the position of Senator Gaye, states governors stand to lose big in the current scheme of things, if the section 87(1) as it stands becomes law and fully operational.
Observers have opined that If the indirect mode of primaries were left in place, most of the present lawmakers will not return in 2023 as many were not allowed in the past, therefore robbing the National Assembly of experienced members.
Pundits posit that the merit of the direct primary is that it takes the decision on who flies a party’s flag in an election away from the hands of a few apparently ubiquitous caucus members and hands it to the party’s rank and file, thereby creating more participation and throwing up more popular candidates.
Erstwhile National Chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole had been a strong advocate of the direct primaries in the APC, which according to him would give the party back to the people.
Oshiomhole maintained that “,the direct primary is free from the vices associated with the indirect primary. Direct primary cannot be manipulated. It is not prone to corruption. We want to grow democracy. We want the party members to have ownership of the party. We want to give our members a sense of belonging.”
But his position did not seat well with some stakeholders in the party, particularly the governors and in the build up to the 2019 election. While the party adopted the direct primaries for the election of its presidential candidate, it left the states with the discretion over the mode to be adopted in the selection of its candidates, with 18 states eventually adopting the direct primaries while the remaining 19 states adopted the indirect primaries.
Even then, lawmakers on the platform of the party had clamoured for the direct primary, with threats of mass defections if the party’s hierarchy acted contrary, no doubt a reason for the final middle ground position of the party.
As Senator Gaya, who was also the Governor of Kano State during the second republic said:
“In the case of delegates, someone can put them in one hole, and the highest bidder can take over the party. Someone with money, who is not even a member of the party, can say, I want to run for this office because he has money, he can buy delegate.
“Unfortunately, if as a candidate, I have paid money, I will see it as an investment. Because I won’t see it as a political appointment, rather as a business. The officer will be corrupt when you do a direct primary.
“In every locality, for example, I have 172 wards in my constituency, if we are going to do direct primaries, all those 172 wards will have people, when you set up to buy votes, it will be difficult to buy votes in 172 locations. You have got to be a popular candidate or aspirant so that you can be voted for.
“I was a product of this primary in 1991. We did direct primary when I was running for governor, and I won.
“As a young man, people felt I am not that strong enough, but I went round every constituency in my state, that time it was Kano and Jigawa before Jigawa was created. I went around and I became popular. People came out to defend their candidate, which was me. They were there, people lined up behind their candidates. And then we were voted into office. I believe that direct form is the most credible.
PDP’s aversion
Despite bearing the appellation, ‘Peoples Democratic Party, the PDP seems to be averse to the direct primary method of electing candidates for an election. This is clearly visible from the multiplicity of vocal voices in its fold that spoke against the supposed move, even before the Senate amended section 87 (1) of the electoral act.
Governors on the platform of the party, perhaps sensing such possibility as far back as July, after the House of Representatives, in its version of the electoral amendment expunged the indirect primary, had expressed their dislike for it.
In a statement by the chairman of the party’s governors forum, Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State, the forum condemned the proposal, saying that it is prone to massive rigging.
Tambuwal backing his claim cited a situation where President Buhari scored about 15 million votes in the 2018 APC direct primaries only to score 15 million votes from the entire country in the 2019 general election.
“The Governors advised that political parties, should be allowed to decide whether to use direct or indirect method of conducting primaries as part of internal democracy in political parties.
Similarly, in 2018 when the APC adopted the direct primary for the election of its presidential candidate for the 2019 general election, the PDP had accused it of a charade under which it intends to manipulate and rig the forthcoming election through fictitious mass votes to create an impression of popularity as a prelude to the eventual act.
However, in the past, the PDP itself had also mooted the idea of direct primaries as means of chosing its candidates vying for elective positions. In 2010, former President Goodluck Jonathan had proposed amending the constitution of the party to make direct primary the option of electing candidates, the idea was subsequently jettisoned.
Similarly in 2016, former publicity secretary of the party, Olisah Metuh, stated that the idea was in consideration for the 2019 poll.
The PDP is a party with a troubled past marred with imposition and impunity, which may not be far fetched for its love for delegate primary, which in the Nigerian context is synonymous with manipulation and corruption.
As the PDP and other opponents of the bill contend, it would be a great challenge for some political parties, particularly the smaller parties, that do not have the resources to carry out such extended coverage required by direct primaries.
QUOTE
The latest move by the Senate has opened up a new vista in the country’s democratic development, which observers believe could strengthen political parties internal democracy. Direct primaries involves the participation of all party members in the selection of their elective representatives as against the use of delegates, who are usually leaders and members of the executives at the ward, local government and state levels
