Nigerians are emotive people, and since they were joined together or amalgamated (as Nigerian History books love to describe it) as a country in 1914 by Frederick Lord Lugard who was the Governor General at that time, they have been involved in perennial quarrels, and even fought a civil war that lasted between 1967 to 1970. If this amalgamation was to the benefits of the locals, or the administrative convenience of the British is a subject that has plagued Nigeria for decades. Somehow, the elites, political and cultural elites seem to be forming a consensus over that.
In an article published on November 12, 2024 by Daily Post, a Kaduna based newspaper with a headline that reads “North finally agrees with Nnamdi Kanu that Nigeria has expired — Ejimakor”. Nnamdi Kanu’s (a Nigerian born British political activist known for advocating for the secession and independence of Biafra from Nigeria. He is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, which he founded in 2012)lawyer, AloyEjimakor was referring to a remark credited to the spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum, NEF, Ango Abdullahi, that the unity of Nigeria should be renegotiated because the country expired 10 years ago. The paper quoted Ejimakorthus: “Earlier today (12th November 2024), I noticed that several news outlets quoted the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) and Prof. Ango Abdullahi as having proclaimed that Nigeria “expired” 10 years ago or in 2014. They even added that Nigeria as a nation should, for this reason, be “renegotiated”.
Here lies the challenge of Nigeria, a country that seem not to have recovered from the political and administrative experiment of the British in 1914, but interestingly, after a century, has not done anything to correct that alleged mistake. However, a day will not pass without a Nigerian somewhere in Nigeria complaining about this issue. These complains become louder during elections in Nigeria, especially the presidential elections. Majority of Nigerians seem to have agreed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the body charged with the responsibilities by the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to among other things, organise elections into various political offices in the country is incompetent and unable to conduct a free and fair elections. The only people that will disagree with this argument are the benefiting political party at the centre or federal level, and persons that were declared winners of the respective elections.
Several efforts have been made at reforming INEC. Unhappy with the election that brought him into power in 2007, late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on August 28, 2007 inaugurated an Electoral Reform Committee headed by former Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mohammed Uwais. The simple task of that committee was to reform INEC and the process of conducting elections in Nigeria. In the committee were the likes of Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, Hon. Justice Godwin U. Ononiba, Alhaji Musiliu A.K. Smith, Dr.OlisaAgbakoba, Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Lemu, Prof. Attahiru M. Jega, Prof. Grace A. Alele-Williams, Dr.Jibrin Ibrahim, Prof. Okon E. Uya, Gen. Oladayo Popoola, Barr. Festus Okoye, Msgr. Matthew Hassan Kukah, and Prof. Philip T. Ahire (secretary), among others. To strengthen the electoral umpire, the committee recommended among others: Constitutional amendments that would insulate INEC from the political influences of the executive arm of government in terms of its composition and funding: the power to appoint INEC board was to be transferred from the president to the National Judicial Council, NJC, while its funding was to be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation.
About 17 years after, these recommendations are still being debated, and elections conducted by INEC is still deteriorating in each election cycle. This is the challenge of now deploying INEC to conduct Local Government elections without resolving the issues that bedevilled INEC as being proposed. It must be noted that the worse of elections malaise in Nigeria is the political culture, and politicians. Before we run away with that conclusion, it is proper for us to look at the conduct of elections at the Local Government level properly and dispassionately, as against politicians and political culture in Nigeria.
In his opinion paper titled State Independent Electoral Commissions and local government elections in Nigeria, authored by Johnson O. Olaniyi of the Political Science Department of University of Ilorin on the 27th November 2017 on Africa’s Development watch, he chronicled the history of Nigeria’s political development. He opined that Nigeria used to be a unitary state. This was from January 1900 to 1954 when the country was officially colonised and the time it changed to federal system of government, respectively. Nigeria first experienced a decentralised form of administration in 1939 during the administration of Sir Bernard Bourdillon who was then the Colonial Governor-General of the country although there had been native councils and native courts in the northern part of the country before that time. This was done to oversee the administration of ‘indirect rule system’ (a system of rule that made use of traditional rulers who served as the intermediaries between their people and the colonial government) in that part of the country. His administration then divided the country into three administrative units namely: North, East and West. The administrative units created by the administration of Sir Bernard Bourdillon later found expression into the ‘Richard Constitution of 1946’ named after the then Governor-General of the country, Sir Arthur Richard.
The changes introduced by the Richard Constitution of 1946 marked a significant turning point in Nigeria’s administrative and political landscape. By establishing three Regional Assemblies, the constitution not only recognized the administrative units set up by Sir Bernard Bourdillon but also laid the groundwork for a federal system of governance that would evolve in subsequent years. This federal structure was crucial for Nigeria, a country marked by diverse ethnic groups and cultures. The creation of regions allowed for localized governance and representation, acknowledging the various interests and identities within the nation. The regional assemblies served as platforms for political participation and decision-making, although their powers were still limited by the overarching authority of the colonial government.Overall, the Richard Constitution and the subsequent move towards federalism were significant steps towards the decentralization of power in Nigeria. They set the stage for future constitutional developments and the eventual struggle for greater self-governance and independence, alongside the complexities of managing a nation with diverse regional interests.
Fast forward to 1976 when General Olusegun Obasanjo became the Military Head of State, and initiatedthe ‘Local Government Reform’ in 1976. The reform revolutionised local government administration in the country and accorded it an official recognition as the third tier of government.
Some of the major features of the 1976 Local Reforms include the following:
- Creation of more local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria with a provision that any local government can create subordinate local councils that must derive their power, revenue and personnel from the parent local government.
- Introduction of elective principle into local government administration in the country.
- Local governments were to be financed by both the federal and the local government councils.
The local government system in Nigeria has since then undergone several transformations, particularly regarding the conduct and regulation of local government elections. As noted, while the 1976 local government reforms laid the foundation for the structure of local governance, subsequent constitutional frameworks, namely the 1979 and 1999 constitutions, have further entrenched the role and significance of local government councils within the nation’s political landscape. This also led to the establishment of the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) in the 1999 constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria in section 197(1). This law squarely puts the administration of Local Government elections under the “administration” of the governors of the state, in a way.
An article published by Samson Itodo in the International Idea on the 10th of March, 2024 titled “Constitutional disempowerment of state electoral commissions and its impact on local government elections, he argued that SIEC under the supervisions of various state governors had been holding elections just to select Local Government Chairmen and councillors. In other words, almost all elective offices in the local government would be won by the party that has the sitting governor as a member, and the governor must be sympathetic to the various candidate, or in the Nigerian political camp, they must be in the same camp. The key factors contributing to these flawed elections include the absence of constitutionally guaranteed financial and operational independence for State Electoral Commissions (SIECs). This lack of autonomy enable state governors to interfere in SIEC operations and deprive them of necessary funds, thus undermining their ability to conduct credible elections. These constitutional weaknesses incapacitate the SIECs, depriving citizens of their right to elect leaders who represent their will. Some state governors were not so magnanimous; they simply appointed caretaker committee chairmen to supervised their local government to ensure loyalty and obedience.
It should be noted that before July 2024, 462 local governments in 22 states of the federation were administered by caretaker committee chairmen so appointed by the emperor governors. However, on July 11, 2024, the Nigerian Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment over local governments re-affirming that the financial autonomy of local governments is sacrosanct, therefore only local government officials duly elected by the people will have access to funds from the federation account. This judgement had thrown the preferred structures of the governors overboard, and put them in quandary. In finding themselves out of the hole they had hitherto dug themselves into, there are all sort of elections of local government across the country, and as expected the party that has the governor as a member won. Some states were merciful and gave one or two seats to candidates from other parties, others were merciless and recorded a clean sweep.
However, this development is akin to the election culture in Nigeria. As it is with governors’ people winning all or most chairmanship and councillors seats in the SIECs organised election, so also it is with elections organised by INEC where there is a bandwagon effect of federal and state assembly men winning all or most of the elections because the sitting president has so won, or the anointed candidate of the outgoing president has won. The exception is the 2014 election that saw a sitting President Goodluck Jonathan losing to Muhammadu Buhari simply because he (President Jonathan did not deploy state might and machinery to his favour because, according to him, the blood of Nigerians are not worth wasting for him to win). Thus, The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost to All progressive Congress (APC). After that election, PDP has not recovered from that loss either because they had been in power since 1999 to 2014 that they are not able to organise themselves as opposition party, or, more plausibly, APC are more Machiavellian as a party strategy, and members.
The political and election culture in Nigeria is such that even if a candidate wins an election in another party, he will quickly decamp to the party that has the governor or president and majority in the national and various house of state assemblies. With these emerging culture, Nigeria is gradually and surely descending into a one party state, not because of any ideology, but a political culture that is based on Prebendalism which also promotes Kakistocracy. Nigeria is in a crossroad.
There is a sense in the argument that INEC should conduct all elections, from Federal, State to Local Governments, but with the way it is currently constituted, it will not be the best option for the country. The reason is obvious. Chairmanship and councillorship candidates that belongs to the sitting President party in any local government election conducted by INEC will win. It will be a case of a maximum and Machiavelli President mobilising all federal machinery and might including the security agencies to deliver the local governments to him. This is a sure way of a one party state. Nigerian politicians are not interested in ideology, they are only interested to be in the same party with the person that wields power to dispense money and favours. It is commonly called “stomach Infrastructure” in Nigeria – apologies to Ayo Fayose, former Ekiti State governor (2003 – 2006 and 2014 – 2018) who is credited to have coined the phrase.
The way forward is for the Justice Mohammed Uwais committee recommendation be implemented. The 254 – page report recommends among other things the reduction of political parties to between two and seven as the relatively freest elections in Nigeria were those conducted under the two-party system between 1989 and 1993.To strengthen the electoral umpire, it recommended among others: Constitutional amendments that would insulate INEC from the political influences of the executive arm of government in terms of its composition and funding: the power to appoint INEC board was to be transferred from the president to the National Judicial Council, NJC, while its funding was to be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation. It also recommended that there should be no swearing in of supposed winners of elections until the court determines the petition.
The report also recommended that a Special Electoral Offences Commission should be set up to try electoral offenders; that no elected person should assume office until the case against him/her in the Tribunal or Court is disposed of. The wise men also counselled the conducting of presidential and gubernatorial elections on the same day at least six months before the expiration of the term of the current holders of the offices.Similarly, an amendment of the Constitution to appoint a single date for National and State Assembly elections which should be held two years after the presidential and gubernatorial elections; the number of tribunals should be increased by reducing the number of judges that sit on a tribunal from five to three, so that more tribunals can be established per state.
If these recommendations are not implemented totally to reform INEC and make it financially and administratively independent, it would be unfair and counter-productive to allow the currently stained body to conduct the local government election. The outcome will regress Nigeria. It is only a complete independent INEC that can usher in a new political culture as political parties will be compelled to take the pain of screening their aspirants with a view to weeding out all sorts of undefined and socio-politically jaundiced characters that the electorate will reject at the polls. The local government election is too important. The outcome will determine the development of Nigeria since that is the tier of government that is the closest to the people.
