The gradual progress being made in the Senate Legislative Chambers on the proposed enactment of the National Independent Local Government Electoral Commission (NILGEC) is of concern to many watchers of the country’s democracy mainly because the commission appears headed in the wrong direction. In particular, it is feared that NILGEC may simply become another Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with all the public criticisms trailing it. While there is no doubt that there is a dire need to make elections, including those at the local government level credible and transparent, care must be taken against creating another problem while trying to solve one problem; or merely transferring existing problems to another agency with a new name.
There is so far nothing to suggest that the creation of NILGEC will in any way, address the requirement of free and fair elections; rather, it may simply divert attention from the existing national and state electoral agencies to the new agency without impacting on elections’ credibility.
The solution may therefore lie in strengthening State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) and charging them to live up to their constitutional responsibility. If nothing else, that approach may help to avert a constitutional crisis, given that the constitution empowers states, through their Houses of Assembly, to enact laws to administer local governments.
On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court affirmed the disbursement of monthly allocations from the federation account directly to the 774 local government councils in a bid to ensure that sub-national entities perform their statutory functions without encumbrances. The landmark judgment, to a large extent, reignited public enthusiasm for the prospects of participatory democracy, good governance and accountability at the grassroots. Regrettably, the provision of the 1999 Constitution in Chapter 1, Part. 2. Section 7, which explicitly prescribes that local government shall be administered by democratically elected officials has been largely violated or, at best, observed in the breach since the restoration of civil rule in 1999. While some states, for years, outrightly rebuffed the conduct of local government elections in violation of the constitution, virtually all the polls conducted by State Independent Electoral Commissions across the country could best be described as a travesty of the democratic process. The decision of the apex court to prescribe the conduct of local government election as a condition for receiving statutory allocations from the federation account, therefore, aligns with popular expectations. Notwithstanding, the lingering concerns regarding the imposition of local government officials through sham local government elections remain a daunting challenge.
Beyond the challenge of financial autonomy which the Supreme Court judgment addressed, the impediments to governance at the grassroots would persist with the prevalent undemocratic culture of leadership imposition. The quest for a credible electoral process therefore becomes pertinent in the light of prevailing circumstances whereby outcomes of elections end up in favour of the candidates of the ruling party in the state regardless of the popular choice of the electorate. It should be worrisome that stakeholders across the country are frustrated by the inability of SIECs to conduct free and fair elections owing to the overbearing interference of state governors.
The proposed establishment of the National Independent Local Government Electoral Commission understandably underscores the prevailing frustration regarding the performance of SIECs. Notwithstanding, it remains uncertain if the remedy lies in the establishment of an election management body whose independence could also be at the mercy of desperate political actors who could readily deploy the federal might. It is noteworthy that the chairman and six commissioners of the proposed NILGEC will be appointed by the president subject to approval of the Senate which will also approve the funding. However, it is doubtful if that arrangement will make the proposed commission truly independent, given that the president and the Senate members may be naturally sympathetic to their parties. Therefore, opposition to the proposed NILGEC or any of such body as a replacement for SIECs should be deemed rational; and justifiably so, considering the contentious and lingering demand for genuine federalism.
It should be instructive that notable stakeholders including the pan-Yoruba socio-political platform, Afenifere have likened the proposed NILGEC to a deliberate ploy being orchestrated to further undermine genuine federalism. While genuine federalism remains the answer to the lingering structural and governance challenges in Nigeria, the seeming inability of the subnational government to conduct local government elections could no longer be condoned. The progress in deepening the quest for genuine federalism should align with a democratic culture for which transparent and credible elections remain crucial imperatives.
More important, however, is to emphasise that there has been less enthusiasm about citizens’ engagement in the governance process at the local government level due to the lack of a credible electoral process to guarantee the emergence of legitimate officials in a manner that reflects the wishes of the majority. Undemocratic leadership enthroned by political godfathers impedes the huge opportunities the local government system presents to citizens in demanding transparency and accountability. That said, the Supreme Court ruling which has been applauded as an incentive for guaranteeing financial autonomy and promoting fiscal responsibility at the local government will amount to mere grandstanding unless the failure of SIECs to guarantee credible local government elections is addressed.
Although SIECs are hardly independent in their conduct of elections at the local government level, there is no guarantee handing over their functions to a national body will not escalate the tempo of political horse-trading as the struggle for the control of local government structures between political actors at the state and federal level would become more intensified. The solution lies in addressing the systemic abuse and interference which are the major failings of election management bodies in Nigeria.
Beyond elections, a more holistic appraisal of the local system in Nigeria is required. The frenzy to impose undemocratic leadership underbellies the prevailing flawed federalism and, as a consequence, has reduced the local government system to a captured enterprise of political actors.
Partisan consideration in the composition of SIECs cannot guarantee the needed independence to assert control in conducting free and fair polls. The proposed NILGEC will be a needless duplication of the duties of the Independent National Electoral Commission. It would amount to misplaced priority to set up another electoral commission with a national focus when ideally, democratic institutions should be strengthened at the subnational levels. The composition, funding and administration of SIECs should be strengthened with the membership of non-state stakeholders that are detached from partisan politics. With proper composition and continued engagement of SIECs, the partnership with INEC should be consolidated for a more effective operation in election management towards ensuring free and fair elections with credible outcomes across the states.
