Politics
Ekweremadu says for Nigeria’s democracy to work, Direct Primary remains the only viable mode
To consolidate on the Nigerian Nascent democracy former Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, has indicated that only direct primary election option is most viable in the nomination of candidates.
The senate had infused direct primary as the only option in the 2022 electoral act which prompted President Buhari to decline assent to the bill until the National assembly deleted the clause to allow for Indirect, Direct and Consensus options
Again, most of the senators lost out due to the supremacy battle with their governors as the consensus option was adopted by most States.
A statement issued by his special adviser on media Uche Anichukwu also quoted the lawmaker to have rued the negative influence of narrow and partisan interests in the making of 2022 Electoral Act, as the long-delayed creation of state police could no longer guarantee internal security.
He also called on the nation’s leaders to seek urgent help of the international community to flush out terrorist cartels or risk Nigeria becoming another Somalia.
Ekweremadu spoke at a commemorative lecture, “Nigeria’s Democratic Experience: Reflections on Leadership Recruitment and Democratic Institution Building”, organised by the National Legislative and Democratic Institute (NILDS) in Abuja on Tuesday.
“When we mounted the leadership of the 6th National Assembly in 2007, and in subsequent Assemblies, we took it upon ourselves to reform the electoral system, including strengthening the critical institutions in the electoral process, namely the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the political parties.
“Whereas the INEC has really stabilised and improved greatly, the political parties have not made the expected progress.
Read Also >> Lawan Hails President Buhari Over Successful APC Presidential Primary
“Some of our efforts include financial autonomy for the INEC; administrative autonomy for the INEC; removal of membership of a political party as a qualification for appointment into the INEC; early release of funds to INEC; early primaries to allow time for resolving any issues, while also allowing the INEC 360 days to prepare for elections; barring of the INEC from rejecting/disqualifying candidates; removal of the INEC officials as respondents in election petitions; removal of restriction on electronic voting; legal backing for smart card readers and any other voter accreditation technology that the INEC may deploy; and electronic transfer of results; and ending of disqualification of candidates by administrative panels.
“Others are compulsory conduct of party primaries to address the issue of impositions; substitution of candidates only in the event of death or written withdrawal by a candidate; early commencement of election campaigns; empowerment of political parties to conduct primary election to replace a candidate who died in the course of an election; timeframe for determination of pre-election matters; timeframe for determination of election petitions; stoppage of government subventions for political parties; window for direct primaries; reduction of age qualification for political offices; stipulation of the conditions and process for deregistration of political parties, among other vital reforms”, he stated.
Ekweremadu, however, said that whereas several milestones were achieved in the Electoral Act 2022, the Act could have been better were the processes not hijacked by narrow and political interests.
He said: “A thorough scrutiny of the Act would show that unlike the Electoral Act 2010, Electoral Act 2022 lacks sequence and coordination, as lot of things were jumbled up.
“Furthermore, it took the intervention of some of us for critical provisions to make it into the Electoral Act. For instance, I personally drafted the provision for the Electronic Transmission of Results for inclusion in the Bill because for whatever reason, it was not there originally.
“It took enormous push by some progressives among the Committee members to push such provisions through.
“Even after we had signed off on the report, there were still attempts to water it down to suit narrow and party interests. Thank God, some of us as well as the media and CSOs were alert.
“It was also the hijack of the process to tailor the law to serve narrow group and partisan interests that resulted in the grave error of the exclusion of statutory delegates, including lawmakers themselves, from participation in party primaries”.
Ekweremadu explained that the whole essence of direct primary was to ensure that all bona fide members of each political party partake in the primary elections and make hijack of the process by a few persons difficult, adding that the result of the veto of that provision by the President and insistence on the restoration of delegate mode and inclusion of consensus mode of nomination was “the recent political fraud perpetrated across the nation and across various political parties in the name of party primaries”.
“Today, not only does money play greater roles in the emergence of candidates, turning delegates to overnight millionaires, because the delegates are fewer, the non-participation of statutory delegates was fate playing into the hands of the governors, who colluded with greedy party leaders to manipulate the emergence of ad-hoc delegates and weaponise them fully for their selfish political interests.
“At the end of the day, democracy and the people, are at the receiving end, as the masses can only elect candidates thrown up by the various political parties.
“My advise, therefore, is that we need to restrict political parties to direct primaries as the only mode of nominating candidates if we truly want to preserve and grow our democracy, and recruit leaders that will truly serve the collective interest” he added.
Ekweremadu, further advocated that only political parties, which made their electronic and biometric membership registers available to INEC at least one year to the commencement of the primary elections, should be allowed to nominate candidates for the general election.
He, however, called for bold steps to “recalibrate our security system because we must first have a secure country before we can have a meaningful democracy”.
“Currently, Nigeria is gliding down the slope and we all have ourselves to blame for refusing to do the right thing over the years.
“Before now, some of us had shouted on top of our voices on the need to decentralise the police system, but to no avail. I sponsored a Bill for the Creation of State Police in the 8th and the current National Assembly, but nobody seemed to pay attention.
“I regret to inform you that by my own estimation and taking lessons from other climes, our condition has become so bad that even state police can no longer save us now.
“Terrorists, bandits, and all manner of criminal cartels have taken the nation by the jugular, and we must now urgently seek the help of the international community, lock the country down, and deal with our security situation.
Otherwise, once a few of the terrorist cartels are able to take full control of a few states for their respective selves, our fate would be like that of Somalia. God forbid”, he concluded.
Politics
Ondo Election Legal Battle Intensifies As PDP’s Ajayi Files Appeal
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo State governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal against the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.
The court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging the eligibility of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.
Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke erred in dismissing his case, which was marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.
READ MORE: Davido Spotted With Burna Boy’s Mother At Tony Elumelu’s All White Party
The PDP candidate’s initial lawsuit raised concerns over discrepancies in the certificates submitted by Aiyedatiwa to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Ajayi argued that these discrepancies violated electoral laws and called into question Aiyedatiwa’s qualifications to run for office.
Key Allegations in Appeal
Ajayi presented multiple grounds for his appeal, accusing the Federal High Court of failing to properly evaluate the evidence before it.
He claimed that: “Unexplained Certificate Discrepancies: Ajayi stated that the trial court failed to address “unexplained and irreconcilable differences” in the names on Aiyedatiwa’s certificates.
According to him, “The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not the same. Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences.”
Failure to Grant Reliefs: He criticized the court for dismissing his reliefs despite what he described as compelling evidence.
Ajayi argued, “The lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, which was essentially documentary. The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”
Neglect of Documentary Evidence: Ajayi contended that the court neglected its duty to evaluate critical statutory documents, which he said were central to proving his case.
He added, “The court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but failed to do so, instead relying on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct.”
Standing to Sue: The PDP candidate argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his legal standing to challenge Aiyedatiwa’s nomination. He noted, “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both intra- and inter-party affairs of an interested party in an election, as in this instant case.”
Ajayi is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he sought at the trial court.
These include an order invalidating Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy due to the certificate discrepancies and setting aside the December 2 ruling.
Specifically, he requested, “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024, by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.”
“An order granting the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs before the trial court.”
Ajayi also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued that the provisions were given a “narrow and restrictive” reading, which ignored the broader intent of the law.
The appeal is the latest development in the heated political contest between the PDP and APC in Ondo State.
Legal experts believe the outcome of the case could significantly impact the governorship race.
Politics
Adeleke Congratulates Ghanaian President-Elect, Mahama
Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke has congratulated the newly elected president of Ghana, John Mahama.
This was gleaned in a government house statement in Osogbo on Monday in which Gov Adeleke described President Mahama as “a true democrat and a genuine friend of Nigeria”
Gov Adeleke stated, “we have been sharing deep thoughts about the true essence of democracy and the imperative of respect for people’s will as the bedrock of virile democratic state.
ALSO READ: Midterm Scorecard: Adeleke Appreciates Osun Residents, Assures On More Democratic Dividends
“All through his days in the opposition, he adopted the best of democratic model with unbending faith in the capacity of voters to decide and the necessity of the system to accept the voters’ will as expressed without any equivocation. His faith in the electorate amidst hard work of electioneering campaigns paid off with a resounding victory at the polls.
“I further commend the ruling party for conceding defeat without attempting any electoral hijack. This was a demonstration of electoral maturity worthy of emulation by actors within the Nigerian space.
“I rejoice with my dear brother as our dreams come true by the grace of God and the people. As he prepares to return to the State House, I have no doubt that he will take Ghana to greater heights.
“I call for a closer, more robust relationship between Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries must deepen cooperation under mutual respect and opportunities. Our brotherly relationship should extend to the sub-national level for the benefits of citizens and residents of our dear nations.”
Politics
SERAP Urges Akpabio, Abbas To Assess Human Rights Impacts Of Tax Reform Bills
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas “to urgently assess the human rights impacts of Nigeria’s reform bills currently being discussed by the National Assembly including on Nigerians living in poverty.”
According to the SERAP said, “any discussion and consideration of the tax reform bills must ensure full compliance with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations and commitments.”
The call was contained in a letter dated December 7, 2024, under the signature of its deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, in which the SERAP stated, inter alia, “The assessments should be transparent, include public participation, and shape the provisions and measures that are ultimately passed. The outcome of any such assessments should be widely published.”
ALSO READ: Like America, Like Ghana: Opposition Defeats Ruling Party In Presidential Election
The SERAP urged Akpabio, and Abbas “to pass a resolution directing Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to hold Nigeria’s state governors to account on their spending of trillions of naira of revenue derived from taxes including VATs collected by their states since 2015 and to ensure the recovery of any proceeds of corruption.”
The letter, read in part: “SERAP urges you to ensure the inclusion in the tax reform bills of transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that any revenue derived from taxes covered under the bills are not mismanaged, diverted or pocketed by politicians, their family members and close associates.
“SERAP notes that Nigerian authorities have the discretion to develop laws on taxation most appropriate to their circumstances.
“However, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and human rights and anticorruption treaties to which the country is a state party impose limits on the discretion of the authorities in the development of any such laws.
“Our preliminary review of the provisions of the tax reform bills shows that the bills contain some provisions that are antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.
“For example, section 28(2)(c) of the Tax Administration bill among others, requires financial institutions including banks to provide to tax authorities ‘the names, addresses, or any other information of new or existing customers.’
“Under section 28(4), financial institutions must make ‘additional disclosure” about their customers ‘if it is required by a notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant tax authority.’
“These provisions, especially the phrases ‘any other information’ and ‘additional disclosure’, if implemented, could be used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to privacy of customers.
“The risks of violations of human rights are illustrated by the absence in the bills of sufficient safeguards against abuse of access to personal data of customers.
“The provisions also give little or no consideration to data protection, thereby increasing the risks of misuse by public authorities of a customer’s personal details including their home address.
“Another troubling provision of the tax reform bills is section 57 of the Tax Administration bill which grants broad, extensive and intrusive powers to tax authorities which may be misused to undermine Nigerians’ human rights.
“In particular, section 57(1) provides that ‘an authorised officer of the relevant tax authority shall have free access to all land, buildings, places, books and documents, in the custody or under the control of a person, public officer, or institution, for the purpose of inspecting the books or documents.’
“Such official will also have free access to ‘any property, process or matter which the officer considers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting any tax.’
“Under subsection 2, ‘the relevant tax authority shall take immediate possession of [any] removable media and the related removable equipment or computer used to access the stored documents on the media in order to prevent the accidental or intentional destruction, removal or alteration of records and documents.’
“Section 57(5) seems to pre-empt the nature of any judicial authorisation required for tax official ‘enter any private dwelling’ by prescribing that such authorisation will ‘be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue or such lesser period as the judicial officer considers appropriate.’
“Under subsection 6, the tax official is required to ‘produce the written authorisation and evidence of identity “on first entering the private dwelling’. The official will only produce such evidence subsequently if they consider it reasonable to do so.
“These provisions are broadly worded and could be misused to violate Nigerians’ human rights.
“The provisions also do not contain any special safeguards which means that the broad, extensive and intrusive powers granted to tax authorities could be arbitrarily exercised without any accountability.
“Section 57 also does not contain any explicit provisions that would allow the court to examine the lawfulness or necessity of any authorisation before or after any entering.
“The provisions of section 81 of the Tax Administration bill essentially oust the jurisdiction of the court in pending tax matters by stating that ‘the pendency of a legal proceeding shall not affect the performance of the duties or obligations of any taxable person under this Act or any other tax law.’
“The provisions could be misused to infringe the rights to equality and the right of access to courts, denying the right of an effective remedy to any aggrieved party.
“Several other provisions of the tax bills lack mechanisms for effective oversight and accountability, as required by the rule of law in a democratic society, thereby increasing the risks of abuse of power or arbitrariness. The provisions could be misused to violate Nigerians’ right to property and fair hearing.
“The tax bills also do not seem to contain provisions for a fair balance between the authorities’ powers to collect taxes and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
“The absence of provisions in the tax bills on meaningful judicial oversight and review and accountability procedures would also undermine the rights of Nigerians including to privacy and disproportionately affect disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.
“Under human rights law, states including Nigeria are required to make the promotion and protection of human rights central to their tax systems. Nigeria needs a rights-based tax system that works for the people and not the politicians, their family members and close associates.
“The country also needs transparent, democratic and rights-aligned tax reforms to unlock the maximum available resources for the full realisation of human rights.
“Furthermore, there are credible reports that several state governors continue to divert or mismanage the revenue derived from taxes, impeding the funding of public goods and services that are crucial for the progressive realisation of human rights.
“In many states, millions of Nigerians continue to be denied access to essential public services such as water and basic sanitation while millions of children of school age roam the streets.
“SERAP is concerned that growing reports of corruption in the use of tax revenue and other public resources continue to disproportionately affect poor Nigerians and other most vulnerable segments of the population.
“SERAP is concerned that the opposition by some state governors against the tax reform bills may be politically motivated and reduce the tax payable to the national treasury. State governors should constructively engage in good faith in the processes to adopt a national tax system for the country.
“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken in the consideration of the tax reform bills.
“If the offending provisions of the tax reform bills including those outlined above are not addressed and brought in conformity with human rights standards and safeguards, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and other members of the National Assembly to comply with our request in the public interest.
“SERAP notes that the tax reform bills, if properly aligned with human rights standards, would enhance the ability of the Federal Government, states and local governments to fulfil their human rights obligations and adequately fund public services essential for human rights.
“However, without transparency and accountability, revenue derived from taxes may not be spent to combat poverty and fund development as well as provide essential public goods and services for Nigerians.
“The National Assembly has the constitutional responsibility to conduct and publish human rights impact assessments of the tax reform bills to ensure that proposed reforms best protect, advance and fulfill people’s human rights.
“SERAP also urges you to revise and repeal several of the provisions of the bills, particularly the Tax Administration bill.
“SERAP urges you to include provisions in the tax reform bills that will ensure that Nigerians have access to all relevant data and information on fiscal policy and government revenues, including from the corporate sector.
“According to our information, members of the National Assembly are currently discussing Nigeria’s tax bills which primarily aim to ‘provide uniform procedures for a consistent and efficient administration of tax laws in order to- (a) facilitate tax compliance by taxpayers; and (b) optimise tax revenue.’