THERE appears to be an erroneous assumption that when the Presidency and its complements of staff have been elected and appointed, then the structures of governance have been formed and other structures become dispensable or redundant. Even more worrisome is the scant regard paid to the statutory guidelines enabling the governance structures of some Federal Commissions, Boards, Agencies and other relevant institutions.

An important example is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), wherein paragraph 14 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly stated  that the Board of INEC shall comprise 13 members without floating any provisos requiring piecemeal, staggered or discretional constitution of the board. But since the inception of the current administration, Nigerians have witnessed serial constitutional violations, first an illegitimate appointment of an interim-Chairperson of INEC by autarkic proclamation, which made no reference to the Council of State consultation and Senate approval as required under Section 154 of the constitution.

This was followed later by a piecemeal appointment of the Board of INEC, without an amendment of the constitution to enable piecemeal appointments, yet the National Assembly, both the Senate and the Representatives appeared cowed and intimidated to ask the executive to follow the path of constitutionality by exercising their oversight functions.

The proper constitution of governance structures in a democratic society is not a discretional whim of the President; those who are appointed may be by his discretion, except where specific directional orders are made by statute, but the proper constitution of such institutions centres around the core notion of governance. It is, therefore, a developmental defect in governance when the executive arm of government  discretionally decides to appoint seven instead of the 13 members required by law, to make decisions which are only considered legal and constitutional when a minimum of five of the statutory 13 members meet to take such decisions on election matters.

The case of INEC is particularly worrisome because when the President dissolved the boards of federal agencies in July 2015, the President rightly exempted those Executive Boards mentioned specifically in Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution such as INEC, NPC, the Code of Conduct Bureau, etc. Whereas the Presidency conceded to the importance of such boards, yet it did not follow up with the proactive appointment of the full board of INEC, despite the fact that the board was primed to conduct gubernatorial elections in 2015 and 2016. Strengthening institutions which form multiple pathways of decision-making blends the gap between representative and participatory democracy.

The constitutional requirement for a properly constituted INEC is clearly stated as 13 national commissioners, who in making decisions for elections and election matters according to Section 159 of the constitution must have a quorum of not less than five, determined only from a full Board of 13. At the moment INEC has an inconclusive and inchoate board of only seven members and if they sit as five members or seven, what quorum does this represent? Is it a five-member quorum of seven or a five-member quorum of a hypothetical but non-existent 13? The minimum quorum envisaged by the constitution is that calculated or determined from a 13-full-member Board and not a mere bringing of five people together to assume the role of a “provisional” board.

The regression currently in INEC is a sad commentary given that constituting such a board properly in line with the provisions of the constitution is for national development. Moreover, a new appointee is alleged to have questionable records of financial probity related to a previous recommendation by the EFCC for prosecution over placement of public funds in private accounts for private gains under his charge. Nigerians watched one of these characters in revulsion on television a few days before the Bayelsa elections as he portrayed the new face of INEC, speaking incoherently without articulate grasp of the issues on various questions put to him.

It is not only worrisome that President Buhari almost eight months in office has been unable to properly constitute the Board of INEC that was previously made up of men of integrity that made it possible for him to win the 2015 election. It is disappointing that in making the limited appointments he has done, he has not given the Commission the needed credibility it requires by appointing people with proven track records that will attract the confidence of all political stakeholders. The President’s appointments  so far into INEC fell short of concern for public sensibility, it portrays insufficient due diligence on the required background check of those individuals he appointed, whose public records are reachable even through social media.

Nigerians have high regard and expectation from President Buhari,  but by constraining the possible achievements of his government through limiting the governance space as foreseen in the creation of national institutions for public decision making in different spheres,  he might be unable to achieve the many things he hopes to achieve in the limited period of four years. Delays in setting up such national institutions  by appointing the full boards with credible and effective people will only widen the governance gap and limit democratic development under his regime.

• Dr. Adewale wrote from Ibadan.