By Ayodele Oni
The withholding of assent to the amended Electoral Bill by President Mohammadu Buhari, as recently passed by the National Assembly, sparked hot debate by political analysts, politicians and public commentators, during a political roundtable discussion on a WhatsApp group, The PLATFORM.
According to the lead discussant, Barrister Tolu Babaleye, the refusal of President Buhari to sign the Electoral Bill into law could be likened to throwing the baby with the bathwater.
Babaleye in his lead submission, agreed with the reason adduced by the President for withholding assent to the Bill, but he was, however, worried that the issue of the direct mode of primary alone shouldn’t have made the President to reject the Bill in its totality, “and throw the Baby away with bath water.”
The Abuja based legal practitioner noted that: “This National Assembly will still amend the Act, if the request is from President, even if he had signed that Bill. This National Assembly is an extension of the Villa with all due respect.”
He agreed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) already has the 2010 Electoral Act as Amended to work with, “that Law cannot guarantee free and fair election and the reason why a new amendment is wanted.
“The 2010 Electoral Act did not have any provision relating to electronic transmission of result and did not even mention card reader.
“That is the reason Abubakar Atiku failed at the Supreme Court because the court held that our Law did not recognise electronic transmission even though it was used in that election.
“The Court said no return can be made on it. INEC has power to come up with regulation when organising the election, but I am of the opinion that Electronic transmission have to be specifically mentioned through law.”
Another disccusant, Chief Akindele Omole noted  that “there is a near consensus on the necessity of electronic transfer of election results and other fantastic reviews to the existing Electoral Act to engender more credible and less litigious elections.”
Omole was of the opinion that the contentious provision, on which the President hinged the withholding of his assent “is the mode of primaries elections which has been limited to Direct Primaries alone.
“This, in my view, is not democratic. The parliament shouldn’t legislate for political parties on how to run their affairs, particularly how candidates emerge.
“They should be left with options. If any party likes, it can resort to oracle to select his candidate. It is left for their fate to be determined at the ultimate the General elections. This is my considered view.”
In his own contribution, another member of The Platform, Sam Akinwale, said; “the National Assembly should have some competent personnel who are vested with the responsibilities of advising members before any action that’s of public importance is taken.
“However, they should have consulted widely during their public hearing to understand the body language of Nigerians and the political parties before final decision is taken.
“At this juncture, Nigerians must be thoroughly guided, we can’t afford to make the costly mistake we made in 2015 that has created a whole lots of setback in our polity. We must get the necessary tools right now before the game that leads to 2023 general election kick off.”
Another contributor, Hon Mike Omogbehin, a former Member of the House of Representatives, stressed that “the ongoing amendment did not suspend the Electoral Bill, so INEC will always have a document to work on.
“I say this because we must take into consideration the various power interplay prior and during the amendment process.
“If the President had assented to that bill, NASS would have thrown further amendment request to the cooler and that would have spelt serious dangers to our electoral process.
“Don’t you think it would have amounted to a waste of time and resources for Mr. President to have assented to that bill and immediately proposed an amendment?
“Was it not self serving for NASS to have gone ahead to add the direct primary on parties without options, contrary to protest and opposition by major political parties?
“Don’t you think it would have amounted to a waste of time and resources for Mr. President to have assented to that bill and immediately proposed an amendment?
“Was it not self serving for NASS to have gone ahead to add the direct primary on parties without options, contrary to protest and opposition by major political parties?.
In his own argument, Chief Agboola Ajayi, former Deputy Gov of Ondo State, said Mr President took oath and sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria adding that
“there is no provision in the Constitution which vested on the Executive the right to limit the power of the Legislature to make such Law.
“Please, see some relevant Provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, especially at Sections:221, 222 ( c & d),
Which provides that a political party shall submit a copy of its Constitution to INEC.
“This implies that operations and mode of electing their Candidates is already granted by this provisions. Section 87; 1,2 & 4 of amended electoral act 2011.
“In this instance case, looking at the relevant sections of our Law, one can just conclude that President Buhari refusal to assent to the Bill was just to show the whole world that he remains a Military dictatorship and ignorance of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
“And the NASS Leadership should do the right thing by over riding the bill as the NASS did in the case of NDDC Act.”
In his own opinion, Dr. Segun Ayodele said the President declined to sign the Electoral Bill simply bcos his advisers particularly the Attoney General of the Federation was scared and stiffed about the direct primary, saying it will cost about N500 Billion to prosecute and that the other parties may not have the capacity to carry it through.
“I, however, agree with Barr. Tolu Babaleye, that the issue of Direct Primary should have been separated from the main issue of electronic transmission of results in the Electoral Act, which is a must, if we want to get our electoral process right. I don’t think we have seen the end of the debate.”
