2027: It Is Unacceptable For An Individual To Be A Member Of Two Parties - Itodo

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-14

[00:00:01]Welcome back. Let's talk about electoral management or election management and electoral acts and all the permit my words political shenanigans that is going on and what the law says as well as what morality is expecting director of Yaga Africa joining us virtually. Mr. Tito, thank you for coming on the program.

[00:00:22]>> Thank you very much. Good morning.

[00:00:24]So provide a bit of clarity to what people are saying and getting confused.

[00:00:29]As I was I was on my way here and I was driving I listen to the radio a lot of people complaining. I think they were mentioning in this week we w a couple of other politicians were saying how can people be double let me use the normal word double dating um being in this party and working for the other party.

[00:00:47]We've also seen situations where people we know are members of say the PDP. Uh we heard the B from in the APC to be nominated as candidates of that particular party for election. So there's a lot of um maneuvering going on with the politician. So let's establish what is in the law, what is not in the law and what morality expects. But we can only take laws and legality to court. That is what is justiceable. Not morality. That's just a value expectation. So talk to us about issues around membership of political parties, nomination of candidate by political parties and all of that package that confuses people.

[00:01:30]Well, thank you very much um good morning to you um Bala. I think that let's make this clear that it is unacceptable for one individual to be a member of two political parties.

[00:01:49]And a member of a party is one who has acquired membership through registration at a designated word and has a membership card. Um and that individual pays you know the prescribed membership dues and contributes to the development of that particular political party and the end product of that is that that person's name is entered into the register of that particular political party. Now when you have obtained membership of a political party, a political party exists to aggregate social interest but also contest for political power. And these parties are quite different in their ideology, in their identity and in their philosophy.

[00:02:43]Therefore, it is just immoral for one individual to belong to two major to two political parties. Now, membership, you know, can be legal and but individuals can also be members of political parties, but they remain support because they have a right to do so to support any other political association as they wish. But when it comes to the issue related to what the law says, the law is clear that when it comes to the nomination of candidates that a candidate cannot be presented by two political parties and you know a party cannot also nominate one candidate for two offices. That's the provision you know of the law. Few weeks ago, particularly in March, the House of Reps passed an amendment to section 77 of the act that criminalizes dual membership, you know, of a political party. The reason why that particular proposal was made was to make clear prescriptions within our laws to condemn and sanction dual membership of political parties. So the house of passed that bill but the Senate is yet to pass that bill.

[00:04:15]Therefore, as it stands within our electoral law, dual membership of political parties is not expressly condemned and it's not expressly sanctioned. But you can you know look at this you know from a different perspective and and some people have argued that it can you can infer you know from guidelines and from the laws that you cannot be a member of a particular political party because the question is should our laws always make these clear prescriptions in other times the prevailing political culture does not tolerate you know these kinds of behavior where you have individuals and either supporting or being members of a political party whether directly or indirectly but that's the position of the law and I think that whether the law makes those clear prescriptions it is condemnable and it's unacceptable for one individual to be a member of two political parties. There's something I would like you to speak to quickly uh before comes in and that is what may likely happen with the APC because the issue of consensus which I would like you to speak to later on I know you've written about it as well uh what people are considering to be consensus there's a English consensus there's a legal consensus and then there's a power block kind of consensus is a mixed bag of everything but if you look at section 77 of the electoral acts Subsection five, the one that was passed by all. It says only members whose names are contained in the register, that's the register that was submitted based on section 76774 uh the 21 days. Now only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and convention. as by today APC is going to release the names of the people that are successful in their screening for all of the positions that people are vying for.

[00:06:26]We also know that as a Sunday or so which was the 10th that would have been the last day for any party to have submitted their uh digital and physical copies of their register. Given this provision and what we are hearing in some corners that some persons may be defected, doesn't this provision stop anybody that at this point if you were not in any political party, it's too late?

[00:06:53]First, the law is clear that submission of party register right shall be effected 21 days to the date of a primaries and therefore parties should have you know submitted their register of members and once you have submitted your register of members within the time frame only those whose names are contained in that register can either vote and be voted for. Now if you have defections, if those defections happen after a register have been submitted and the timeline has elapsed, that particular defection to the extent of its existence, I would say is an effort in futility because it would not be reflected in the register that has been submitted you know to ink based on the timelines and parties cannot submit it, you know, registered after timeline has elapsed because when you do so, it just becomes a me academic exercise and would not enjoy or would not be recognized by the law and so parties really need to understand the implications of submitting registers out of time. Um, INC will not even accept it based on the provisions of the law. So for those who are defecting after the fact after parties have submitted their register of their members I don't know what magic they're going to do but parties need to be very careful uh because the law is very clear the provisions are clear um once the timeline has elapsed any register submitted to INET will not be accepted.

[00:08:46]>> Oh wow quite a lot to chew on there. Uh but there's more uh where the electoral act is concerned and this is a continuing conversation from you know yesterday on gray areas around the electoral act and this has particularly been brought to our notice by former INC national commissioner uh sections 137 and 138 which he describes as dangerous inclusions into the electoral act uh that may impact negatively on the election. As a matter of fact, he describes them as, you know, uh, components that, um, make it easy to rig the election abin isue. uh 137 uh subsection 3 says where the petitioner complains of the conduct of an electoral officer, a presiding or returning officer, it shall not be necessary to join such officers or persons not withstanding uh the nature of the complaint and the commission shall in the instance uh be made a respondent.

[00:09:50]That's 13 uh 7 subsection 3. Uh but 138 is perhaps the bigger one and that talks about an act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provision of this act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election. Mr. I'm glad that you are a lawyer. First of all, my question would be how were these provisions uh included in the electoral act because there were consultations ahead of the 2026 amendment and uh should litigations around arise around elections doesn't this preclude or exclude INC officials from responsibility and make it easy to rig the election uh from the beginning?

[00:10:47]Well, first this particular provision was contained in the 2022 act and we have constantly held a view that you cannot make laws that prevent or protect misdemeanor committed you know by election officials. Now the bigger question is why should angle officials who are involved in the conduct of elections be shielded or protected especially in cases where you know they have run foul of the law that particular provision we have held the view consistently that it has no basis there's no rationale there's no justification whatsoever for that particular provision and it's our considered opinion that that particular provision gives you know um some some level of alibi or what you call excuse for rogue election officials to commit all forms of atrocities because they would escape liability at the end of the day because you say that if they if they involved in an act that is that is um and if you look at what the provision says is that when an act or mission you know may be contrary to an instruction or directive it is not a basis you know for um questioning that election.

[00:12:22]Why?

[00:12:23]When the official is the same law that makes the preciding officer the authority in a polling unit that responsib comes with some measure of responsibility and where there's responsibility there must be accountability and so we have to be very conscious of these particular provisions and that's why yes it's already part of the law but in framing its guidelines and regulations need to make express provisions that clearly that clearly states and reinforces that where a preciding officers you know engage in acts or decisions that negates the regulations that also negate the electoral act that they will be held to account and it's it's something that needs to be on the front burner of public discourse and so it's really problematic but that's not the only problematic provision in this bill in this act. If you look at section 65 that talks about you know what are the conditions for to activate his power of review. The law says that where elections have been declared, where results have been declared under ders, where results have been declared contrary to the the procedure but um collation of results that has 7 days to review the results. Now what the law this particular act now says which is a new insertion you know that is draconian and unacceptable is that in can only activate that power where the report comes from its officials. The problem with that particular uh provision in the act is that the act is saying in the event that it's a rep a resident electoral commissioner or INC official that is responsible for regaining elections that it's that same official that must submit a report to INC before I ink activate his power of review. I think that we are just making a mockery of the entire accountability mechanism introduced in the act. We know for sure that there's no way a compromised INC official will file a report to report themselves that they have rigged elections. It it it just wouldn't happen. This is why we we we were strongly opposed to that particular provision and Nigerians need to keep an eye you know on what happens because at the end of the day if the reports must only come from officials then what's the basis of having accredited party agents what's the basis of having accredited observers what's the basis of even having accredited media officials it's all to provide oversight but if all of these manipulations happen and you say you can only activate your power only when you receive reports from your officials.

[00:15:26]>> I I think that this this is the this is the height of you know legislative um I will see a responsibility >> Mr. the the the Ink boss, the current INC boss is a professor of law as a matter of fact with expertise in evidence, the evidence act uh amid all of these concerns and conversations. Why is it silence that we're getting or a total lack of scrutiny from the leadership of INC over this concerns around you know uh reg legislative um rascality if you like?

[00:16:02]But the credentials of the INC channel are not in that but in does not make you know the law and I can give you a bit of history on that particular provision.

[00:16:12]Now after the EDO elections that civil society election observers and even media organizations you know condemn that because it failed to meet the integrity test. We called on Ink to issue specific regulations that guides you know this whole process of review.

[00:16:32]It was after the EDO elections that in issued supplementary guidelines and in that supplementary guidelines in highlighted that reports can only come you know from three officials the resident electoral commissioner the returning officer and the national commissioner. We at Yiga Africa issued a statement rejecting that particular supplementary guidelines.

[00:16:58]Unfortunately, that guidelines was now imported into the 2026 um electoral act particularly this provision because this provision you know now says that only reports from INC officials. Now the current IN chairman was not an IN chairman when the act you know um when this provision was inserted and was considered and so what we would expect that in the regulations that INC is working on we would like to see INC make further regulations you know to expand the scope of reports that it can receive from accredited observers from party agents when they raise objections because when you results are declared under duress and we know the character of some of our political class. Look at the way they're preparing for the next elections as though we're preparing for what it's not a do or die affair and this is why they continue to compromise an egg officials.

[00:17:58]I can say this and you know this for sure that a compromised official will never file a report to the commission.

[00:18:05]Therefore, mindful of this, what we expect is that the current INC will look within its own powers to say in drafting our regulations, we can consider reports, you know, credible reports from our credited observers, from partying agents, especially when there's primary fashion evidence that results were declared under jurist or results have been mutilated. In today's election management ecosystem, you have to look at a diverse ways of gathering evidence and when there is sufficient for instance if chance is on the field and you're reporting real time what happens on the field on election day and you capture a situation where there has been manipulation will just sit back and wait until the official what if the official does not file a report in can rely on credible reports from other sources to make this administrative review. In any case, it's an administrative review.

[00:19:04]These are kinds of you know innovations we would like to see that would inspire trust and confidence you know within this um electoral commission and the electoral process that there is commitment expressed through you know fashioning out regulations and guidelines that deepens transparency that empowers citizens to share reports and experiences from their electoral from their from their polling units and then I make takes decisions based on that but to or close other sources of report on dur manipulation and just limit it to any officials. I think it does not in any way and it will not in any way confer any form of legitimacy or integrity to the process.

[00:19:51]There's a lot to chew on and I was going to look at there's a provision I'm trying to catch it is it 58 or so that I remember the police had complained about if you can remember in one of the public hearing the police had complained that I think there should be section 58 of 2022 or so where if somebody behaves in a disorderly manner or unruly manner whatever that description is is the polling unit officer or the polling officer can order that person to leave but when the person restrains to call the police. The question is what if it is the INC official itself that is acting out of order. What then does the police do?

[00:20:31]Well, the general rule is that the preciding officer is the highest authority in a pol in a polling unit. And the reason is when you the conduct of elections it's it's it's it's an independent electoral commission. Therefore, it has the powers to administer elections and so the preciding officer has the authority on the INC chairman and is protected by law to govern a particular polling um unit where the preciding officer engages in acts that undermine the integrity of the electoral process. That's why you have party agents. That's why you have election observers. That's how you have INC um monitors where they do not and when they are not available the police you know would have to intervene especially and we have to be careful because we don't want a situation where the security agencies continue to interfere with the management of elections and we've seen that actually happen in some instances and we have to be very careful about the kinds of powers that are given to security agencies to interfere you know with the um um election process. But the question is when it is clear that there's imminent danger and there's threat to the life of the preciding officer, the INC official and the voters. The reason why the security agencies are there is to ensure protection. So they have a responsibility to ensure safety of all those who are in the polling unit. But they do not have you know powers to interfere with the electoral process because in any case they are not trained like I official. They don't have the expertise of the presiding officer. So we have to be careful about the kinds the extent to which the police or security agencies can interfere with the conduct of elections. It's just a balancing act. But if the presiding officer is involved in corrupt practices, you have party agents who can report. you have an election observers and I think the last responder should be a security um agent because um we've seen instances and there are you know credible reports about some level of interference whether is with management of elections at a polling unit or is even interference with the coalition process which has been part of our electoral process you know for several decades.

[00:23:04]>> Interesting interesting perspective.

[00:23:06]We're hoping that uh this election uh is going to be better than the other. What What do you Let me just before we let you go, I know that there was a document released. I've forgotten the title of that document, but we discussed it extensively about projection of participation. We are still not doing well in terms of our voter turnouts below 30% maybe in the last election and maybe around 30% generally. Do you hope for a better turnout this time?

[00:23:38]I'm very hopeful. Um but quite frankly um I I think that I I am not confident that there will be higher turnout um in the 2027 elections. The only way we would see turnout in the 2027 elections, it's if all the stakeholders in the electoral governance architecture, if IMC, if the security agencies um are able to engage in actions that inspire trust and confidence in the electoral process, if the political parties in these primaries uphold the principles of transparency, this quote candidate in position that we masquerading as consensus will further discourage people from coming up because people will not be given the choices that will inspire them you know to come out to cast their vote. The issue about security is also one biggest concern. So there are plethora of issues but my call you know to voters is regardless of what you see happen in the polity today stepping back and not showing up in the next election is the greatest disservice. Um you you you the greatest disservice to our nation and it will not solve the problem. Staying back will not solve the problem. In any case, the politicians don't want you to come up come out to vote because the lesser the voters, the easier it is to manipulate electoral outcomes. But when you show up in your large numbers protecting your mandate at your polling station, we make it difficult for election riggers to have their way on the day of elections. But sitting back and not showing up to vote will only extend and continue to help you know irresponsible leaders stay in office.

[00:25:39]Thank you so much for coming through. We appreciate Thank you. He's the executive director.

[00:25:43]>> Thank you.

[00:25:44]>> of Yaga Africa. Thank you sir.

[00:25:48]We take a break now. When we come back, we switch gears to something around a community that has not been with light, we understand, for about 10 years in Delta State. So, if you're in Delta State, for instance, and uh you are interested in the development of that state, this is a good one for you to be part of because we're going to be asking questions and if you have a contrary position to what the claims are, would like to have it as well. 10 years without electricity, we'll find out what exactly is going on in that part of Delta State. Stay with us.

[00:26:22]HEAT.