Israel Umoh
The Akwa Ibom resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, recently dropped verbal grenade in the political field that shook the actors and spectators and reverberated across the globe. And since then, the affected and the political arena are still dazed by the boomerang effect of the verbiage.
Igini bluntly told All Progressives Congress (APC) that it has no governorship candidate in Akwa Ibom State to fly the party’s flag in the 2023 general elections. According to him, the party did not invite Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the state to monitor its primary in line with the provisions of Electoral Act, 2022. This was after APC had declared Akan Udofia as its standard bearer in the state.
He made headlines in the newspapers and in the social media. To give verve to his statement, he addressed the press and declared that INEC has rejected the APC candidate. Some newspapers reported that INEC has barred Udofia from contesting the election while others wrote that Udofia was disqualified from the race.
In INEC, Igini is seen as a demagogue. His words sweep like fire and penetrate like needle. As a lawyer, he is respected by the INEC hierarchy. As an activist, he is feared by the ‘authority.’ For instance, Igini once told the nation that INEC sent election results to its server. But, INEC refuted the story but did not disclaim its veracity. Again, he told Channel TV interviewer that INEC ‘allocated’ votes to South-South governors, yet no media aide to any of the governors issued a press release to counter the accusation.
When it was announced that Senator Godswill Akpabio won Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District during the party’s June 9 re-conducted primary, Igini leveraged on his early stance to juxtapose it as a mere gimmick. He declared Akpabio ineligible, and declared DIG Udom Ekpoudom (retd) whom the commission, according to him, monitored his primary, as the candidate. Despite Akpabio’s stout defence in inviting INEC to monitor the exercise, Igini ignored and said what he thought without disproving the alleged invitation. No one supports any act of illegality. But let official matter be divorced from self ego.
For one, Igini succeeded in heating the polity. For another, he succeeded in telling the people- the politicians and the electorates- what they wanted to hear, but not what was exactly practicable and malleable. Many believed and still believe his statement and legal interpretation of the Act. The issue of ineligibility of candidates, as strongly canvassed by him, formed topical discussion in various groups and camps.
Radio stations and public fora were awash with discussion bordering on Igini’s wedge against APC in the state. Many did not understand him in arrogating power to monitor primary to himself or his office alone, forgetting that INEC as a legal entity could delegate power to any official of the commission. The baseline is report of the primary.
Why would the ruling party in the state that dreads losing power to opposition not celebrate a man who ‘announced’ the voice of Jacob and ‘felt’ the hand of Esau? Why won’t aggrieved aspirants who felt shortchanged in the governorship rejoice? Why won’t critics support Igini for his bold stand, after all the speech seems to dim the hope of an opposition party?
In the marketplace of ideas, some reviled Igini while others hailed him. Many sauntered into the non-fee paying talk-shop without wearing legal aprons and putting on thinking caps on the issue at stake. Confusion galore!
Undoubtedly, Igini’s behaviour is akin to ancient Egyptian Sphinx. In the Egyptian mythology, Sphinx with Pharaoh’s headdress symbolises a powerful sun god that dealt with people who could not answer its riddle. Paradoxically, it represents an enigmatic or mysterious person. He sees himself as Lord of Manor. His opinion must be respected, not questioned. Where you try to ignore, he pulls out a ploy to deter you. This is the reason the public has come to like and dislike him on contentious issues.
Actually, Igini made a valid point because Section 84(1) of the ACT, mandates INEC to monitor primaries of political parties.
In corroborating, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, Lagos-based lawyer, affirmed that INEC is empowered by both constitutional and electoral provisions to reject the names of candidates from political parties that ought not to be on the ballot in any election.
Falana was reacting to a statement attributed to a National Commissioner of INEC, Mr Mohammed Haruna, to the effect that the commission’s responsibility did not include rejection of names submitted to it for an election by political parties.
Haruna spoke against the backdrop of the submission of the names of Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, and former Minister of Niger Delta, Senator Godswill Akpabio, as senatorial candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2023 general election.
Both Lawan and Akpabio contested the presidential primary of APC. While Akpabio later stepped down, Lawan lost to Senator Bola Tinubu, who won the party’s ticket.
Yet, APC sent the names of Lawan and Akpabio as Yobe and Akwa Ibom states’ senatorial candidates, respectively, even though, both men never bought the expression of interest and nomination forms of their party for the position of senator, and they were neither screened nor did they participate in the primary elections for such position.
While the Akwa Ibom Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mr. Mike Igini, faulted the action of APC, Haruna, on the other hand, claimed that the electoral umpire had no power to reject names sent to it by political parties. In justifying his position, he maintained that primaries were the sole prerogatives of parties, adding that INEC’s responsibility is merely to monitor the primaries and make sure they abide by their own regulations, the Electoral Act and the Constitution.
But Falana faulted Haruna based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, stressing, “Section 84 (1) clearly states that a political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions, which shall be monitored by the commission. The monitoring by INEC is mandatory. To that extent, any primary of a political party not monitored by officials of INEC is illegal.
“Contrary to the views credited to Mr. Haruna, the powers of INEC have gone beyond ‘merely to monitor’ party primaries. For the avoidance of doubt, Section: 84 (13) unequivocally provides that, ‘where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue.’”
He said the legal implication of the provision is that INEC shall not include the candidate for the particular election.
Falana stated further, “Furthermore, Section 29 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provides for the submission of lists of candidates and their affidavits by political parties, states that, ‘Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the commission, in the prescribed forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.’”
According to Falana, Section 29(1) has imposed a duty on political parties to ensure that the candidates whose names are submitted to INEC have emerged from valid primaries.
He said this position was quite different from the provision in Section 31 of the repealed Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which provided that INEC could not reject the name of any candidate submitted by the parties for any reason whatsoever.
Falana said, “Thus, in the present law, the parties can only submit for the commission’s acceptance, the names of candidates who emerged from valid primaries conducted by the parties and monitored by INEC.
“This position is clearly fortified by Section 84(13). Thus, INEC having sent a team of monitors across its 36 states offices and the Federal Capital Territory, to monitor the primaries, is legally obligated to check the names submitted to it and ensure they are confirmed by the various reports compiled by its officials.
“If the candidates, whose names are submitted to INEC have not emerged from the primaries, the commission will reject such names in exercise of its power under Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act 2022. That was what INEC did in Zamfara State, when that power was not even expressly provided for.
Despite Falana’s argument, Mr. Aniedi Ikoiwak, the former Resident INEC Electoral Commissioner, opposed Igini’s postulations on the ‘power’ of INEC to reject candidates duly elected by party and sent to the commission for the general election.
Ikoiwak, who is the Chairman of Akwa Ibom State Electoral Commission (AKISIEC), had served as Resident Electoral Commissioner in Edo and Bauchi States.
“INEC cannot reject or disqualify candidates of political parties forwarded to her by political parties even if INEC knows that a particular candidate is insane. What can be done at such circumstance is for candidates and political parties that contested the same election with the alleged insane person to approach the court and ask for the disqualification of the person.
“Zamfara and Rivers states candidates of APC were not disqualified by INEC. INEC has no such powers. Courts of competent jurisdictions disqualified them because of issues in their congresses and those cases were not instituted by INEC,” the AKISIEC boss recounted.
To be continued
