INEC’s dilemma over party deregistration.

Recently, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) threatened to deregister 46 more parties in addition to seven already deregistered and this move has attracted public reactions. In this piece, Ikechukwu Okaforadi writes on the dilemma facing the electoral umpire at the face of the provisions in the 2010 Electoral Act.   

After deregistering seven political parties in December for failing to win a seat at any level of government, INEC recently threatened to deregister 46 other nonperforming parties. This is based on the claims by the Commission they unviable because they failed to equally produce an elected member for any of the public offices.   

The seven political parties earlier deregistered are: Democratic Alternative, National Democratic Council, National Action Council, Masses Movement of Nigeria, Nigerian Peoples Congress, Nigerian Elements Progressive Party and National Unity Party. 

Those recently threatened with deregistration by INEC include Action Alliance (AA), Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD), African Democratic Congress (ADC), African Liberation Party (ALP), African Political System (APS), African Renaissance Party (ARP), Alliance for Democracy (AD), Allied Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN), Better Nigeria Progressive Party (BNPP), Change Advocacy Party (CAP), Citizens Popular Party (CPP), Community Party of Nigeria (CPN), Congress for Democratic Change (CDC), Democratic Alternative (DA), Democratic Front for Peoples Federation (DFPF) and Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA), to mention just few.

Aligning with this move by INEC, many political observers have opined that Nigeria’s democracy will only be meaningful if the opposition parties are tremendously trimmed to engender a more robust opposition politics. These opinions came on the background of existing 63 political parties that participated in the 2011 elections, most of which did not field candidates during elections. 

Analysts have equally decried the apparent lack of ideology in the Nigerian political system. This is precisely the fact since majority of the manifestoes presented by these 63 parties before they were registered as parties were almost the same, with only mere linguistic differences. 

 There had been suggestions coming from various quarters that INEC should stop funding parties so that those that lack feasibility will either fade out naturally or go into coalition/merger, so as to become strong enough to win elective positions. 

In addition, most of the stronger opposition parties, including the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), have condemned the proliferation of political parties, pointing out that most of them merely serve as tools in the hand of the ruling party for dividing and ruling opposition politics in Nigeria’s democratic context. 

According to the CPC Secretary, Buba Galadima and Chairman of ACN, FCT chapter, Mr Faruk Osuma, since the INEC decision to deregister non-performing parties  is in line with the 2010 Electoral Act, and was not done with bias, people should not see it as a witch hunt.   

Some other political parties and organisations like the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) and Inter Party Advisory Council (IPAC), hold a contrary view. They argue that the parties should be allowed to exist side by side with the bigger opposition parties since multi party system has always been the joy of democracy. 

They argue that deregistration will only shrink the opposition space and clog the development of Nigeria’s democracy. These sympathizers and promoters of smaller parties have argued that the move by INEC to deregister any party contravenes the 1999 constitution which provides freedom to form and belong to associations; political or otherwise. 

Topmost in their points is that political parties in other democratically advanced climes have never existed solely for winning elections. They insist that most parties in Germany and Britain; even the big ones, do not field candidates in elections but exist for various political, economic reasons and as pressure groups to the ruling party. 

As it is today, fund is a necessary ingredient which drives politics in Nigeria. On the basis of this, most observers have expressed worry over the financial status of most of these small parties. While a lot of them suffer from paucity of funds, a good number depend solely on the grants from the INEC for survival. 

Against this background, analysts have posited that Chairmen of these small parties use them as a means of livelihood, in addition to ‘a negotiation ground for positions or for other incentives’, other than to really win an elective position. 

It would be recalled that the above scenario played out in the build up to the 2011 general elections, where about 44 political parties, most of which did not field a candidates, unanimously adopted President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as their Presidential candidate. 

After the elections, some of them began to push for all inclusive government that will extend Ministerial and Special Advisers and Special Assistants positions to them. They claimed that because they adopted the candidature of President Jonathan and campaigned for him at the grassroots, they should therefore be compensated with appointments. 

These small political platforms, in reaction to the threat by INEC, had counter-threatened to sue INEC over its decision which they unanimously insisted that it negates the provisions of the 1999 constitution on basic human rights, freedom of association and freedom to form political groups for the purposes of election. 

To underscore their seriousness in pursuing what they refer to as their inalienable human rights, some of the parties in this category, in June this year, instituted a case in the Federal High Court, Abuja against INEC for a breach of their basic human rights. 

It would be recalled that after 1999 elections contested by PDP, All Peoples Party (APP) now ANPP, Alliance for Democracy (AD) now ACN, many politicians seeking political relevance began to form political parties to enable them participate in the future elections. But by the time INEC released the guidelines for the registration of parties, according to the 2002 Electoral Act, these politicians were disappointed as they alleged that the guidelines were stifling. 

Some of the parties who could not meet the INEC’s registration requirements then instituted a suit against the commission. The suit progressed from Federal High Court and eventually to the Supreme Court then headed by Justice Mohammadu Uwais. 

On November 8, 2002, Justice Uwais, in a lead judgment, held, among others, that the INEC’s powers to issue the guidelines contravened the 1999 Constitution and therefore pronounced the guidelines invalid. This judgment opened the democratic space, leading to 28 political parties contesting the 2003 elections. 

In the same vein, as to what transpired in 2002, these current 46 parties, including the 7 earlier deregistered, had already gone to court hoping to replicate what transpired in 2002. This move has put INEC in a critical condition, particularly as it cries over insufficient funds to implement its policies and project, not to talk of meeting up with the subventions which the 2006 Electoral Act mandated it to give to political parties.   

To aggravate the situation of INEC, the Chairman, Attahiru Jega, shortly after assuming office, pointedly said that his administration will only stick to the decision of the court. This statement  points to his readiness to uphold the rule of law, as being championed by President Goodluck Jonathan. 

On one hand, party deregistration by INEC is justified by the Act of the National Assembly as contained in the 2010 Electoral Act, which has given a new guideline. Though this new rule comes from a statutory body empowered for such purpose, the role of the Judiciary in reshaping such actions by INEC cannot be underestimated. 

While the decision of INEC is in consonance with the 2010 Electoral Act, the Judiciary may decide otherwise.  This has put the electoral umpire in dilemma as to whether to stick to the powers given to it by the legislature through the 2010 Electoral Act or adhere to the decision of the Judiciary as the Chairman has always promised. 

Though the case is still at the Federal High Court, there are several factors without prejudice, which indicate that the affected parties might win the case against INEC. This is particularly considering the fact that a competent court and the apex court in the country, headed by a reputable Justice had earlier taken a judgment that favoured the affected parties.   

In addition to this, Nigeria is signatory to various international treaties which seek to uphold freedom of association and speech, therefore, proscription of small political bodies would be viewed as a contravention to these treaties, and by extension, a threat to basic human rights in Nigeria.