BY MAYOWA SAMUEL
Nigerians waited anxiously for President Muhammadu Buhari’s assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2021. But in a rather unusual lengthy letter to the National Assembly on Tuesday, December 21, 2021, he informed the principal officers of his refusal to sign it. The decision immediately sparked a lot of speculations and conspiracy theories, especially among opposition politicians.
The Bill was transmitted to him on November 19. After waiting for over three weeks and counting, Nigerians began to grumble aloud, expressing fears about the fate that would befall the bill.
But Buhari, in a letter dated December 13, and sent to the National Assembly on December 21, gave very cogent and convincing reasons why he could not assent to it. He came down hard on the provision of ‘direct primary’ as the only option political parties could explore in selecting their candidates for elective offices. Buhari saw it as prescriptive and dictatorial and would have none of it.
The President reasoned that apart from being undemocratic and dictatorial, it would lead to an astronomical increase in the cost of prosecuting elections, just as it would heighten the security risk factor across the country.
He wrote: “The conduct of direct primaries across the 8,809 wards across the length and breadth of the country will lead to a significant spike in the cost of conducting primary elections by parties as well as increase in the cost of monitoring such elections by INEC who has to deploy monitors across these wards each time a party is to conduct direct primaries for the presidential, gubernatorial and legislative posts. The addition of these costs with the already huge cost of conducting general elections will inevitably lead to a huge financial burden on the political parties, INEC and the economy in general at a time of dwindling revenues.
“Asides its serious adverse legal, financial, economic and security consequences, the limitation or restriction of the nomination procedures available to political parties and their members constitutes an affront to the right to freedom of association. It is thus undemocratic to restrict the procedure or means of nomination of candidates by political parties, as it also amounts to undue interference in the affairs of political parties.”
The President further explained that “All I said (is that) there should be options. We must not insist that it has to be direct; it should be consensus and indirect. There should be options, you can’t dictate to people and say you are doing democracy. Give them other options so they can make a choice.”
However, the President’s letter came on the day the National Assembly was proceeding on end of year break. The Bill was reworked in accordance with the wishes of President Buhari. The National Assembly did not just add indirect mode, it also included consensus as a way of selecting party candidates.
“So, everything is in order if the parties agree to have consensus, so there’s no problem with what the APC has done, if that’s the way they want to do it. They did it, they agreed, no problem. If they choose their presidential candidate by consensus and they don’t kill themselves in the process, that’s good for them too”
The full provision this time reads:
“Nomination of candidates by parties:
Clause 84(2): The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct, indirect primaries or consensus.
Consensus Candidate:
Clause 84(9):
(a) A political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.
(b) Where a political party is unable to secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the purpose of a consensus candidate, it shall revert to the choice of direct or indirect primaries for the nomination of candidates for the aforesaid elective positions.
(c) A Special Convention or nomination Congress shall be held to ratify the choice of consensus candidates at designated centres at the National, State, Senatorial, Federal and State Constituencies, as the case may be.”
It would seem that the adoption of a consensus candidacy by political parties is now gaining wide acceptance just as much as it is resented. While some politicians and analysts describe choosing an individual either as a party candidate for an elective post or party offices without the conduct of an election as a form of imposition, others see it otherwise, since the Nigerian electoral law is not opposed to it and the individual political parties’ constitutions recognize it.
To many, the choosing of a consensus candidate practically may seem undemocratic, as it negates the choice by popularity and denies the majority of making their popular choice which defeats the principles that democracy entails, especially when electoral votes are not involved.
This was the opinion of a coalition of civil society organisations who expressed worry over the inclusion of the consensus option. The group stated that the option denied aspirants the rights to equal participation in party primaries, denies voters the ability to choose their preferred candidates and makes for the emergence of unpopular candidates who weren’t chosen from a democratic primary election.
A chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress, who craved anonymity, described it as “benevolent dictatorship wearing the cloak of democracy”. He was critical of the consensus mode, saying it allows leaders and big men in the party to push only their favoured godsons at the expense of others.
But then, he also commended the system for its ability to rein in dissension and foster unity and peace, whether good or bad.
“Let me be frank, consensus is good but not good. It is a form of benevolent dictatorship that is presented as wearing democracy garbs. It allows the leaders and elders to push their godsons and god-daughters at the expense of other party members. To be frank, consensus is the choice of the leader, period.
“But then, once they have the ability and capacity to keep everyone quiet, and there is peace and unity, whether peace of the grave yard or not, it is okay. Once they are able to secure a written agreement, which is the most important thing. Once they get that written consent, it is done and life continues,” he submitted.
Expressing his thoughts, the National Chairman of the National Conscience Party, Tanko Yinusa told The Point that although the adoption of consensus candidacy by political parties is constitutional, it gives room for rancour by aggrieved aspirants and their supporters who now believe that the different interests of party members have been trampled upon by one person’s personal interest which isn’t the case in direct primaries where an aspirants who didn’t amass majority of votes won’t have a reason to complain for losing a free and fair election.
Yinusa said, “Is it contained in the constitution of the party? If it is, then it’s part of democratic tenets. So, that’s where the problem is, but then, the contemporary way of thinking is that democracy is about selection and election. Where that does not happen, it creates a big problem, and always has a ripple effect because those who were being trampled upon will later come to fight even if they’ve agreed but they can later on start creating problems within the party.”
He added that “But you see, if you were legally defeated in an election, you have no room to doubt the electorates or the people who have made their own choices. Unfortunately, those who want to trample upon the interest of another will use consensus as a way to negate the actual votes of the people which actually negates the basic principle of democracy.
“In a way, we can now say that consensus has come in now to deny the right of the people to make an informed choice. You could see a member of the APC crying that he has been working for the party for years, only for somebody to come from another place to pick up the position, and that is not acceptable in a democratic situation. We will advise that they should look at the basic principle of democracy, so that in a way, the National Assembly can take a second look at it within the simple time that is available,” he advised.
A Lagos Central Senatorial District aspirant under the platform of the People’s Democratic Party, and former Lagos governorship candidate, Adetokunbo Pearse, told The Point that he isn’t against consensus candidacy, since it was backed by law and as long as the contestants voluntarily agree to the consensus.
In his words, “Consensus is a legitimate process if it is truly consensus. In other words, the parties involved must agree. What happened, for instance at the APC Convention, is a good example of how consensus can work. They had agreed before the day that this is what they were going to do and they did it.
“By the way, at our own National Convention in December, which was also consensus, 99 percent of it was also consensus. Nobody challenged the National Chairman. It was only two or three positions that we had elections. So, everything is in order if the parties agree to have consensus, so there’s no problem with what the APC has done, if that’s the way they want to do it. They did it, they agreed, no problem. If they choose their presidential candidate by consensus and they don’t kill themselves in the process, that’s good for them too.
“All we are saying is, let’s have a convention, bring out your candidate, we bring out our own candidate and then we’ll see what happens at the general election. The most common way is election but it doesn’t have to be. If the members of a party agree to a consensus, and they don’t challenge the issue of consensus at some point, it’s acceptable. There’s nothing wrong with the process, so long it’s not a force consensus, they didn’t force anybody, and they signed a peaceful agreement before the day that they are going to step down for the person that is going to get the position, that’s it, nothing wrong with that,” Pearse stated.
In his own submission however, former Minister of Works and former senator representing Lagos East, Adeseye Ogunlewe, also threw his weight behind the adoption of consensus but advised aspirants who are opposed to the chosen consensus candidate and are so sure of their popularity, to demand for the conduct of an election, to confirm their eventual loss, as the choices of the state governors in the party and party leaders are the same choices delegates will vote for if the election took place.
He said, “As far as I’m concerned, it’s okay. The lady who ran for the woman leadership position refused and we went to vote. So, if you still refuse, then you can go for the elections but you will lose because most of the delegates know where the party stands. You’ll just waste your time and you’ll be beaten easily. If you are popular, you should insist on going for the election and it will be okay.
“It can be expediency, it can be zoning, it can be consensus, and it can be the idea of the authority, which is the governors who brought the delegates to the venue. If you want to go against the wishes of the governors, you are not likely to win because they will gather together and send their delegates to vote and there is nothing you can do, you’ll still lose. What is important is to allow you, if you insist on going for the election, they should allow you, so you can be beaten in whatever form,” he advised.
Ogunlewe disagreed that consensus was another form of imposition. He argued it rather eliminates imposition, since an aspirant still has the option to object and insist for the conduct of a primary election.
“No, you still have the option of saying no, I don’t agree, you can still go ahead for the primary. So, as far as I’m concerned, that has reduced that idea of imposition. It is when you are excluded totally or you are precluded that you don’t have any option than to go for the primary. Like the woman leader position, the woman refused to accept the consensus, there was an election, an indirect election was used, delegates voted and she won. If you refuse and insist on election, nobody can ask you not to go ahead.
“The governors are the owners of the delegates, they will tell you who to vote for and that’s who they will vote for. You can go ahead, the only thing is that you are sure to lose, nobody can prevent you from going ahead, and that’s the beauty of it. You can insist, that is your freedom. That is why you must exercise your popularity by refusing to accept stepping down and insist on going ahead with the primary,” he stated further.
Regarding an aspirant for the office of the national youth leader of the All Progressives Congress, Dada Olusegun, who reluctantly withdrew from the race at the party’s 2022 National Convention where he was cajoled to do so by party leaders while he was fighting back his tears, Ogunlewe questioned his emotional display.
The former minister was certain that Dada wouldn’t have won if an election for the position was held because Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s preferred candidate for the position, Abdullahi Israel, was the same person all the delegates were going to vote for, as he wondered how Dada expected to challenge and defeat the governor’s preferred choice.
“The boy had no chance, why was he crying? If they went for that election, he would still lose, there is no way he could win. All of us delegates from Lagos State, we were for Israel and he is contesting the position on behalf of Lagos State delegates, so how can he win? They were not going to vote for him, they were going to vote for Israel. So, he had no chance in a million to win. How can he win? He was representing Lagos State in that slot and we in Lagos State were saying it was Israel, so if he insisted on contesting, where was his chance? He had no chance in a million.
“They should have allowed all of us from Lagos State to vote and pick our candidate. I think that’s what they should do next time. If they zone a position to a state, they should allow the delegates from the state to vote.
“The boy had no chance, why was he crying? If they went for that election, he would still lose, there is no way he could win. All of us delegates from Lagos State, we were for Israel and he is contesting the position on behalf of Lagos State delegates”
After voting, we will now present the candidate to the general delegates. So, how will you win if you are not supported by the state you want to represent? There’s no way you can win at all. As far as we were concerned, we knew Israel more than him. You must be prepared to be a consensus candidate. The governor is in a position to say this is the person that is representing Lagos State but if you are saying No, can you defeat the governor? All of us are there to listen to the governor. The boy was lucky that they didn’t allow him to go ahead, they should have said he should go to Lagos State delegates and bring his power, authority and his mandate from the people he was representing and let us see,” he explained.
Meanwhile, in his own opinion, a former Edo State Commissioner for Information and Orientation, Kassim Afegbua explained that in the Nigerian context of democracy, consensus candidacy was just a camouflage for imposition which was evident in the grumblings among aggrieved APC members at the party’s convention.
He also stated that the exercise makes President Buhari look like a dictator who makes unpopular choices on behalf of all party members without them being involved in the decision. The members are however helpless and can’t challenge his decisions because most of them have pending corrupt cases against them and won’t want it to be escalated.
In Afegbua’s words, “Consensus in democratic studies is one of the processes of reaching certain decisions, but opponents of consensus arrangements have always insisted that because they cannot be total, it is anchored on a simple majority viewpoint, it does not carry along everybody.
“Like what happened in the APC, you will realise that a lot of the governors and factors in the APC were not comfortable with the choice of Adamu. For that reason, they are just grumbling, even though they cannot look at the president in the face and challenge him. So, for consensus, it may be good to some point but in the Nigerian context, the way they play consensus is a different ball game altogether.
“The idea of consensus, in the Nigerian context, doesn’t work. It is another name for imposition because you make the president dictatorial in what some people will call democratic dictatorship. He takes a decision on behalf of the entire party structure and because a lot of these people are corrupt, they have skeletons in their cupboards, EFCC cases, ICPC cases, they cannot challenge the president.
“There are murmurs all over the place, this is where we’ve found ourselves. The earlier we begin that process of allowing people to get involved, go through primary, let them be voted for, the better for democracy, the better for the process, so that outcomes can be a reflection of the wishes and aspirations of the majority of the members,” he concluded.
