THERE was uproar yesterday in the House of Representatives over a motion which sought to disparage the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
Members were divided over the role the electoral umpire played in the last party primaries.
The motion by Ehiogie West Idahosa (PDP Ovia East/West Edo State) was entitled: INEC’s partial role in the recently concluded party primaries.”
Some members lambasted INEC for allegedly disobeying court orders on the choice of candidates for next month’s general elections. Others said politicians, who procured conflicting court injunctions should be blamed.
But despite different positions, the House resolved to “invite the leadership of INEC to explain its role in the primaries and the commission’s persistent failure to comply with court orders/judgment.”
The House also mandated its Committee on Electoral Matters to make appropriate recommendations on the alleged persistent failure of INEC to comply with court orders within one week.
Idahosa said he was worried that INEC, which has a constitutional duty to regulate the conduct of elections at federal, state and local government levels, “played a partial role as evidenced in the commission’s refusal to accept credible elected candidates from political parties.”
The lawmaker noted that he was worried that INEC’s penchant for accepting some candidates and rejecting others against valid and subsisting court orders casts doubt in the minds of Nigerians about its role as an impartial arbiter in the conduct of free, fair and credible elections.
According to him, by the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, INEC lacks the power to determine candidates to be fielded by parties.
He noted that he was disturbed that INEC’s alleged partial role “ has the tendency to overheat the polity and create room for suspicion that the elections may not be credible.”
INEC, he said, was bound to obey any judicial pronouncement which had not been discharged, adding that the commission must be compelled to respect the rule of law as one of the pillars of democratic governance.
But Elizabeth Ogbaga and Uche Ekwunife saw the issue differently.
While Ogbaga said conflicting orders from courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction made it difficult for INEC to enforce court orders, Ekwunife insisted that the House has no business blaming INEC for a problem created by desperate politicians.
According to Ekwunife, members should not sit in the chamber to condemn INEC especially when most political office seekers have refused to play by the rule of the game.
She noted that in Anambra State alone there were up to 500 court cases on the primaries.
Austin Nwachukwu urged his colleagues to tread softly so as not to overheat the polity especially when there were other avenues to discuss the concern of some members with the INEC leadership.
Friday Itulah said there were admixture of facts and fiction in the motion.
Itulah noted that while INEC should be made to obey court orders, the courts, on the other hand, should be asked to desist from issuing conflicting orders.
The lawmaker noted that the first prayer of the motion, which wanted the House to “condemn the alleged partial role played by INEC in the party primaries,” was already judgemental.
The prayer was later deleted.
Yakubu Dogars said where there were conflicting court orders, INEC should return to the court for clarification.
He added that INEC should not take the law into its hand by choosing which court order to obey.
Leo Ogor said contempt charge should be filed against INEC if it decides to flout subsisting court orders.
But Bala Ibn Na’Allah said the House had the responsibility to ensure peace and order as well as correct any bad situation.
Na’Allah added that the House has the duty to call any individual to order no matter how highly-placed.
