Author: ssdo

On the 25th of February 2022, President Muhammadu Buhari passed the Electoral Amendment Bill 2022 into law. Compared to the previous bills, this gives more autonomy to the electoral body, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This law will help the country improve its electoral process and restore citizens’ trust in the process. Here’s what you need to know as active citizens heading to the forthcoming general elections:

Political Neutrality of INEC Personnel

This provision grants political neutrality to INEC officials. With such a sensitive office, it only makes sense that the electoral officials be non-partisan. Even better, it is now backed by law. Any INEC personnel guilty of party affiliation is liable to be fined the sum of 5 million naira or a maximum prison term of two years. This also means that a party member or politician cannot be an INEC staff. This prevents bias and eliminates favoritism. So while at the polls, if you suspect any foul play by an official, you are well within your rights to report such behavior. 

Electronic Transmission of Results

INEC now has the authority and monopoly on deciding whether to transmit election results electronically. Compared to what was obtainable before, INEC had to work with the National Assembly and the Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC) to determine if it could transmit results electronically. The elimination of the previous ambiguity and bureaucratic procedure will help fast-track decision-making for the electoral body. This will also enable citizens to monitor result collation in real-time through the media. 

Electronic Accreditation of Voters Legalized

The electoral bill now permits INEC to accredit voters using whatever technologies they deem fit. The most prominent and already sampled device is smart card readers. This improves the fluidity of accreditation and eliminates impersonation.

Inclusion of Persons With Disability

This provision mandates INEC to create an enabling environment for vulnerable people, persons with disabilities, and special needs. This way, there’s no limitation for vulnerable people to exercise their rights. As a community-based organization that works daily with vulnerable and marginalized communities, we understand the importance of this provision in creating a truly inclusive society. 

Overvoting Redefined

There have been cases of having more votes in a polling unit than the accredited number of voters in that center. This has often been exploited to manipulate the results in previous elections. This provision now makes the deciding factor for determining election results in a polling unit the total numbers of accredited voters against the total number of votes, effectively eliminating manipulation and results doctoring. 

On this premise, we would like to encourage the general populace to get their PVCs and be prepared to exercise their franchise. Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Your vote is your tool to enshrine good governance and make your voice heard. 

SSDO will continue to be a voice for advocacy, good governance, and a credible electoral process. 

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) have threatened to issue a one-week sit-at-home order in the Southeast. The order will take effect on November 5 if their leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not released to them by November 4, 2021. Considering the enormous influence the group wields in the Southeast and how effective their previous orders have been, it is safe to say this is no empty threat. 

The group previously declared Mondays a sit-at-home in the Southeast, as a form of agitation and solidarity. As well as any other significant day it deems fit to pass across its message. Such as the President’s visit to Imo state in September and Independence day.

This recent information to enforce a sit-at-home order across the Southeast coincides with the scheduled date for the Anambra Gubernatorial elections on November 6. If this order is implemented, it then will become an enforced election boycott since people will not be able to go out and exercise their civic rights. 

In our last piece on the Anambra election, we analyzed the impact of a state of emergency assuming the unrest in the state didn’t subside against an election boycott. Apparently, a state of emergency might not be in the offing anymore, but the possibility of a boycott is becoming more realistic. 

Now there are questions that need answers. Will an election boycott be enough to get the election canceled or postponed? Will an election boycott further the group’s goal of secession? Let’s look at popular election boycotts in history and how they turned out as we seek answers. 

Jamaica, 1983.

The election in 1983 was always a two-horse race between the ruling party, Labour Party, and the People’s National Party. Edward Seaga, the seating Prime Minister at the time was the candidate of the ruling party and former Prime Minister Michael Manley was the leader of the opposition party. Both parties initially agreed the election take place in 1984 when a new voters registration system would be in place. 

This system will allow 180,000 new voters to register. The incumbent on sensing the economic downturn and his diminishing popularity decided to have the election hold months earlier. Mr. Manley crying foul boycotted the election stating a breach of bipartisan agreement. 

Outcome: The election went on and the opposition lost. The interim Prime Minister won by 89%.    

Egypt, 1990.

The four main opposition parties in the country boycotted the election citing cases of rigged elections and reluctance on the part of the government to accept the proposed policies of the opposition parties which include: supervision of election by judges, improvements in accounting for voters, and a suspension of the martial law that has been in place since 1981. The parties stated that unless these policies were adopted, elections will be the same old story. 

Outcome: The ruling party, National Democratic Party won the election by 78%

Ivory Coast, 1995. 

Interim president Henri Bedie in 1994 approved an electoral code that prevents Non-Ivorians from contesting and voting in the 1995 elections. This code automatically ruled out leading opposition aspirant Alassane Ouattara and was also a move that was perceived by the people as one that will destroy national integration. The seven major opposition parties pulled out of the election in protest of the decision. 

Outcome: The election went on and the incumbent won by 96%.  

Bangladesh, 1996.

The country has had a series of boycotts that resulted in the birth of the prominent political parties in the country today. The country’s major opposition party at the time, Awami League, championed the push for the boycott. This was because the government refused to inaugurate a caretaker government ahead of the elections, as was the custom in the country. They did this to prevent interference by the incumbent government in the election outcome. 

Outcome: The election went ahead, which the ruling party at the time, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, won in a landslide victory. However, the opposition parties instigated a strike that crippled the country and resulted in a caretaker government being installed. They conducted elections in June, and Awami League won the election. 

Azerbaijan, 1998.

In Azerbaijan, we also see a case of an election boycott by some political parties who criticize the incumbent government of President Aliev. They claim the government silences its opponent and there have been violations during the pre-election period. There have been reports where the government has jailed journalists, civil society activists, and human rights lawyers.  

Outcome: The election held, and the incumbent won overwhelmingly by 76%.  

Election Boycott is a Bad Strategy

Going by history, we can see clearly that an election boycott has never really resulted in election cancellation or postponement. And only in Bangladesh was the opposition strong enough to cripple the economy that led to an eventual re-run. 

In Iraq in 2005, the Sunnis decided to boycott elections, and this is perceived as one of the greatest strategic blunders in the post-Saddam era. This left them disadvantaged and without a fair share of representation during the formative years of the new Iraq. 

IPOB through this mandatory election boycott would disenfranchise citizens from exercising their rights. Better still, a galvanized approach to push for a candidate who is sympathetic to their cause might be a better approach.