POLITICAL parties are a sine qua non to modern democratic practice. In Nigeria however, our political parties have sufficiently demonstrated that they could constitute a formidable threat to the overall growth of Nigerias democracy. The specifics are: lack of internal democracy, ideological want, party indiscipline and crass opportunism. In a nutshell, our political parties, on a closer assessment, are a reflection of everything wrong with our politics.It is against this foreground that we shall set about a critical appraisal of the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the law courts in regulating political parties, the bottom line being the need for a more mature and stable democracy.Most of the pre-elections disputations and indeed post election disputations will border on the invalid nomination and sponsorship of candidates for different elective positions by political parties through primaries. It is not yet Uhuru for some of those candidates who have just won elections at different levels and whose nominations are being contested in various courts across the land. The law is trite that when we vote, we vote for political parties and not the candidates. See Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution and the case of Ameachi vs. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (pt 1080) at 243.So that, if a candidate fielded by a political party at the time of the election is later found by the Court not to have been validly nominated, he shall be replaced by the validly nominated candidate, in order to necessarily serve the interest of Justice and to further stabilize our democracy. This is by itself a far-reaching checkmate on the excesses of politicians, whilst engendering internal democracy in the political parties.INEC Powers Over Political PartiesThe 1999 Constitution has already given the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) ample powers to regulate political parties under Section 15, Part 1 of the Third Schedule, as far as is material for our purpose thus:(b) the commission shall have power to-(c) Monitor the organization and operation of the political parties, including their finances;(f) Monitor political campaigns and provide rules and regulations, which shall govern the political parties.It is evident from the above provisions, that the power of INEC to monitor the organization and operation of political parties is not merely an oversight function, but a constitutionally guaranteed power. And this includes necessary interference to ensure that party discipline and internal democracy prevails in these political parties.Political parties and their legal minders are quick to rely on the authorities of Dalhatu vs. Turaki (2003) 7 S.C.N.J. and Onuoha vs. Okafor (1983) 14 N.S.C.C.494, where the courts have held that:the issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one to be determined by the rules and constitution of the party. In other words it is a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a Court of Law.Agreed. But what happens when a political party violates its own rules and constitution and rides roughshod over several sections of the Electoral Law Should the court not interveneIt is common knowledge that most of the party primaries that are being contested in court today, are those that were conducted in grave violation of Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended), which prescribes the procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions. As far as material for our purpose, Section 87(4) (a)(iii), (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) of the Electoral Act, 2010 provides mutatis mutandis thus: the aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of voting shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and the aspirants name shall be forwarded to the Commission as the candidate of the party There are numerous cases were aspirants who did not score the highest number of votes at the end of primaries were forwarded to INEC by the political parties. Such cases provide a fertile ground for the disqualification of such candidates by the courts, even after they may have won election.Section 141 of the Electoral Act and Judicial AmbushIn spite of the many reformative provisions of the Electoral Act, it is curious to note that Section 141 of the Act constitutes at once an ouster on the Courts Jurisdiction, whilst encouraging tacitly, the inanities of party indiscipline and lack of internal democracy.Section 141 of the Act provides thus:An election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person a winner at any election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election.At a close glance, it would appear that the last set of our lawmakers surreptitiously smuggled in the section in order to deal a fatal blow on the Supreme Courts decision in Ameachi vs INECFor starters, the phrase under any circumstance in the above provision is too sweeping as to constitute an ouster on the courts jurisdiction, in contravention of Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution which confers the Judicial powers of the federation on the courts. The history of elections in Nigeria reveals that there are a plethora of probable circumstances that could foist on a court the necessity to declare any person a winner at any election, who did not fully participate in all the stages of the said election. The phrase In all the stages of the election presupposes that an election does not begin and end on voting day; an election has many stages, which may well begin at the party primaries.What happens when a party and/or its candidate violates Section 87 of the Electoral Act, should the court not intervene to remedy the situation How then can the court intervene if it cannot make a restorative declarationSo, what Section 141 of the Electoral Act says in essence is that in an event where a candidate is deliberately prevented from taking part in any of the stages of an election as was demonstrated in Rotimi Amaechis case, the court must not intervene to remedy the wrong. This of course does unimaginable violence to the Supreme Courts decision in Amaechi vs INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt 1080) wherein per Oguntade, J.S.C at page 259 noted that:In the interest of justice and fair play, the court cannot shy away from doing substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities Even where a person has not specifically asked for a relief from a court, the court has the power to grant such a relief as a consequential relief.In other words, if the granting of a consequential relief means the declaration of a person, a winner, who did not (was unlawfully prevented) take part in a stage of the election, so be it.In any case, Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 is void and inoperative to the extent of its inconsistency with Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution. See A.G. Aba State vs. A.G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR, pt. 763 at 264 wherein the Supreme Court held that:Where the National Assembly has the power under the constitution to legislate on a matter it can only do so within the provisions of the constitution, any legislation which is inconsistent with those provisions is null and void and inoperative.The Court further held that:The National Assembly has no power to dictate to the Judiciary how to conduct its affairs, just as the judiciary cannot fixa time limit for the proceeding in the National Assembly. See also Unongo vs. Aku (1983) 2 SCNLR.ConclusionLastly, the large number of political parties (62), is just ludicrous and wasteful of our national resources. INEC is mandated to fund political parties - including the redundant ones - under Section 228 (c) of the 1999 Constitution. INEC must employ its powers under Section 78 (7) of the Electoral Act 2010 to cut-down the number of political parties most of which are only there to further wrought nuisance on the polity and render the entire political process, including ballot papers clumsy.Section 78 (7) of the Electoral Act provides that, the Commission shall have power to de-register political parties on the following grounds, inter alia:(ii) for failure to win a seat in the National or State Assembly election.And we know that there are many political parties in this infamous category. They must be weaned off immediately.The 2011 elections have come and gone, with remarkable improvements when contrasted with previous ones. However, INEC has to be more alive to its constitutional as well as oversight functions over political parties. INEC must realize and demonstrate that together with the Judiciary, it is the bastion of our democracy. Franklin Oseya Esq., writes from Dr. Mudiaga Odje S.A.N & Co., Ewewu Chambers, Warri.
Click here to read full news..
