 |
| Justice |
EKPOMA-When in 2007 the Supreme Court awarded some previously unknown privileges to political parties in Nigeria, it also opened a new vista of responsibilities for the parties. The apex court ruled in the case between Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State and the then governor Celestine Omehia that elections were contested and won by political parties, rather than individuals. The implication is that the parties have the right to present whomsoever they desire as candidates – but in line with the respective parties’ constitutions.
As an apparent follow-up to the milestone judgment of 2007, the National Assembly amended the Electoral Act and added provisions that completely transferred the role of determining the eligibility of candidates from the Independent National Electoral Commission to the political parties. The amendment gives the parties the final say on the choice of candidates for elections.
The Electoral Act 2010, as amended, expunged section 87 (9) of the Act, which states, “Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue.”
The amendment then added a new provision, section 31 (1), which states, “Every political party shall, not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Bill, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms, the list of candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, provided that the Commission shall not reject or disqualify candidates for any reason whatsoever.”
The Electoral Act 2010 also in section 87 (10) substantially ousted the power of the court to stop a candidate presented by a political party.
Though, a lot of criticism has followed this rather omnibus power of the political parties, the parties can take steps to ameliorate the situation and calm the fears regarding their wide powers if they play their role well.
However, while the political parties have very excitedly – often overzealously – embraced the role of final determiner of candidates’ eligibility, they have tended to make only a perfunctory effort to check the statuses of those they present for elections. This has often resulted in post-election constitutional uncertainties with disruptive consequences for governance. And where elections are cancelled as a result of the eligibility question, the country is made to bear the extra financial burden of conducting fresh polls. Uncertainties like this can be avoided if the political parties do a proper pre-qualification test on their candidates before presenting them for elections.
There is need for the political parties to do a thorough check on the background of their candidates to avoid the presentation of persons with real handicaps that can be the basis of post-election litigation or other future complications.
Educational qualification, health, criminal record, age, and mode of primaries are among issues the parties need to scrutinise carefully to ensure they do not leave loopholes that can create future problems.
Some states and constituencies in the country have had the misfortune of electing persons without the physical or mental ability to really carry out the functions of their offices. Sicknesses do occur and when they do, it is natural to feel for those affected. But it certainly does not do any good to either the party or the electoral constituency to elect into office someone who harbours severe disabilities, which ab initio means he or she is going to spend the bulk of the tenure absent from duty to attend to medical conditions.
Educational qualification has also proved to be an albatross around the necks of some politicians. Politicians are known to sometimes cook the books and present bogus credentials in a bid to out-manoeuvre their opponents. Litigation or political controversy arising from such situation has sometimes stalled progress in the legislative or executive sphere. It is the place of the political parties to do a strict scrutiny of their candidates’ credentials to ensure the emergence of the right candidates.
Records of past criminality have similarly been the subject of long debilitating arguments after elections. Political parties can nip this needless controversy in the bud by doing a conscientious scrutiny of all allegations against their candidates before presenting such persons for election. Clearly, the political parties can do a lot to prevent some of the controversies that have come to constitute a drag on democratic progress, particularly after elections.
