Daily Independent Online.
*
Monday,July 19, 2004.
Funding the electoral process; a Rep’s perspective
By Uchenna Awom
National
Assembly Correspondent,
Abuja
If there is any public institution that has come under heavy
public scrutiny in recent times, it is the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) and its counterpart in the states, State Independent
Electoral Commission (SIEC).
Perhaps the performance of the SIECs especially during the
last local government election has left the people more bewildered, confused
and skeptical on the readiness of the country to attain the genuine democratic
height that will ultimately lead her to the much-cherished land of fairness and
justice. The problem created by the SIECs was so bad that it even attracted the
ire of its parent body - INEC - though the indignation was never voiced
out in an open condemnation lest ‘they too be scorned at for its more
damaging performance in the 2003 general elections’. Rather, the
commission chose the part of intellectual self-scrutiny where all the
stakeholders would make contributions as to what went wrong in the entire
electoral system.
In his paper presented at the occasion, Chairman House
Committee on Internal Affairs, Ehiogie West Idahosa, a constitutional lawyer,
x-rayed the funding process, and the way forward and arrived at the painful conclusion
that the electoral process would continue to be enmeshed in controversy just as
INEC would remain unacceptable to the people as a free and fair umpire so long
as the present funding pattern of the agencies are maintained.
He said that the method of funding the electoral process of
any democracy is a key determinant of the ultimate colour that would
characterize such process. It will determine whether such a process would be
efficient, transparent, unbiased, reliable, respectable and acceptable.
Idahosa told the audience that though in many countries of
the world, electoral umpires are funded in varying ways, yet a great majority
of them enjoy some level of support from government. In Nigeria, like most
other countries, the electoral umpire enjoys some level of funding from
appropriate governments. With respect to the federal electoral umpire, there is
a national funding and in the case of the states, the various state governments
also fund their respective SIECs.
Dwelling on INEC as a body charged with the conduct of
presidential, National Assembly and gubernatorial elections, he said these
functions underscore the country’s resolve to maintain a democratic
culture in line with the new world order and as such the mode of funding
especially as it relates to salaries and allowances will remain a direct
influence or otherwise on its independence and acceptability.
On this issue, Idahosa said the remuneration, salaries and
allowances payable to the chairman and members of the Commission are charged
upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation pursuant to Section 84 (2)
(4) of the 1999 Constitution, but sadly, the operational and recurrent costs
are to be authorized by an Appropriation Act. This he stated is where the big
worry is. The processes involved in the passage of an act of the National
Assembly do not make for a sensitive body like INEC to perform its duties.
The executive
in Nigeria, the lawmaker opined is known for its clumsiness in presenting
annual budget estimates to the National Assembly that will in turn subject the
bill to the rigours of legislation, going through the first, second and third
readings before sending the bill to the joint committees on Appropriations and
Finance to harmonize. The 2004 Appropriation Bill for instance was submitted in
November, 2003 and passed in April, 2004 and eventually signed into law on the
April 21, 2004 after nearly six months.
“Had this been an election year, it would not have
been different. The delay in the passage and signing of the Act would
invariably militate against the timetable and operations of the
Commission”, he said.
The more
harrowing experience he added occurs when INEC is seeking cash backing for its
approvals. It would have to craw before powerful civil servants in the Ministry
of Finance and by so doing lose
whatever is left of its independence. “I cannot see how INEC would not be
at the mercy of such officers, who would subject, to their mighty discretion,
decide which agency or body would be entitled to funding. It remains to be seen
how such powerful officials would not corruptly influence INEC in favour of the
ruling political party and its government”.
The lawmaker said in his opinion and in the light of the
ugly circumstance, the ideal thing is to charge the entire operational and
recurrent costs of INEC to the consolidated revenue fund, adding that this
would make it unnecessary for such a critical umpire in the democratic process
to go cap in hand, begging for funds that have been duly appropriated for its
use from the unscrupulous public servants who have a covenant with corruption
and inefficiency. INEC funds he said must come timely and only then can the
body stand the test of time.
However, INEC
was berated for its clay-footedness in sourcing for funds independently from
other donor agencies. According to West-Idahosa, arising from its funding
difficulties, many have wondered why the body does not seek for funds from
extraneous sources. Some maintain that INEC can approach multi-lateral
organizations like the United Nations and African Union for financial support.
A country, he stated that couldn’t invest in its
electoral system for the purpose of producing an acceptable leadership with a
vindicated authority is an embarrassment to itself and a nuisance to the rest
of the world. Nigeria’s position in Africa is too cardinal to be
compromised.
“While
the country may seek help in quite a number of sectors, the offshoot of its
electoral process must be completely and nationally funded to guarantee our
true political sovereignty, economic and social security.
Anything less than such a national commitment would be the
equivalent of riding on a tigers’ back with a great chance of ending up
in its’ stomach. Our electoral process would then be controlled, by those
that we imagine to be some sort of Father Christmas”, Idahosa stated.
On the vexed
issue of funding political parties, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker
from Benin, Edo State, said under the Electoral Act of 2002, the registered
political parties are entitled to some level of qualified grants. Section 80 of
the Act prescribed the sharing formula. 30 per cent of the grant shall be
‘shared equally among the registered political parties participating in
respect of a general election for which the grant has been made’ and the
remaining 70 per cent of the grant shall be shared among the principal parties,
after the result of the election have been made known, in proportion to the
number of seats won by each party in the National Assembly.
However, severe criticisms have trailed this formula. Some
claim that the pre-election 30 per cent to be shared is inadequate for the
purpose of creating a level playing field against the background of the
involvement of moneybags in some of the parties who can run their parties with
or without such government grants. Others argue that the said formula
anticipates that all parties must win seats in the National Assembly. Yet, many
argued that the sharing formula is an invitation to the parties to win at
grievous cost to the polity.
West-Idahosa, stated further that the same formula is
provided by Section 81 of the Electoral Act for the distribution of operational
costs to the registered parties and the same criticisms have followed. Section
82 of the same Electoral Act, which seeks to prescribe the conditions for which
a party can receive a grant, is a blunder. The said Section 82 provides;
“No political party shall be eligible to receive a grant under Section 93
unless it wins a minimum of 10 per cent of the total votes cast in the local
government election in at least two-thirds of the states”.
He said Section 93 provided for no grant. That Section deals
with limitations of political broadcasts and campaign by candidates in an
election. Section 82 he said is therefore an invitation to litigation.
But Section 83 of the Act he stated seeks to limit
contributions by individuals and corporate bodies to any political party. This
he said is a responsible attempt to prevent wealthy individuals from
personalizing the operations of political parties.
Concluding the
lecture, the lawmaker said on the whole, there is no doubt that the most common
criterion for the distribution of money to political parties is the number of
seats and or votes won. Nigeria he observed definitely got it right in her
approach. What is however overriding in his opinion about funding political
parties, is that the process should be transparent, honest, efficient and must
enjoy the application of common sense adding that in the Nigerian situation, it
is clear that political financing regime should consider the specific features
of the national polity in addition to the peculiar democratic problems, above
all, “our extant laws” in his opinion “must be made to bite
and not merely to bark”.
