Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Maduabuchi, has described the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of provisions requiring political parties to submit their membership registers to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, before conducting primaries as “perfect”, saying the decision affirms the commission’s constitutional authority over elections.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Maduabuchi said the Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, particularly those relating to membership registers, the conduct of party primaries and the timing for submitting the registers to INEC.
“If you don’t submit the register, you will not have candidates. We must interpret the decision of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis the provisions of the Constitution which gave INEC the power to organise, undertake and supervise elections. So, if INEC must organise and the law says give them your membership register, I don’t think there is anything unconstitutional about that,” he said.
Maduabuchi said requiring political parties to submit their membership registers to INEC 21 days before their primaries did not amount to interference in the internal affairs of political parties, arguing that parties remained responsible for determining their membership and choosing their candidates.
“It does not determine who is a member of a political party. Determination of who is a member of a political party is in the hands of the political parties. But when you have decided who is your political party, tell me who they are. So, when I am organising my election, I will know who I am dealing with. That is just a simple thing the Supreme Court said,” he said.
He added that political parties were still free to determine how their candidates would emerge, provided they complied with the law.
“When you want to select or however, whatever you call it, your candidates, do it openly so that everybody will see what you have done, either directly or by consensus. These are the two things that the Supreme Court said. Anybody saying they are unconstitutional is wrong,” Maduabuchi said.
He also argued that the judgment could affect anyone who acted on the earlier Court of Appeal decision declaring the provisions unconstitutional, stressing that the Supreme Court ruling was delivered by the full court.
“And if anybody had acted pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision, it would be unfortunate, because they are now caught by this Supreme Court decision. And it is a judgment of the full court. Seven justices. In other words, you need seven justices to set it aside,” he said.
On concerns that the judgment could undermine the autonomy of political parties, Maduabuchi disagreed, saying the Supreme Court did not prescribe how parties should conduct their internal affairs.
“I don’t seem to agree with you. Because it does not tell you how you become a member of a political party. The Supreme Court never said anything about that,” he said.
According to him, the decision only sustained the requirement that political parties could use direct primaries, indirect primaries or consensus in selecting their candidates, which he said could help reduce the influence of money in party politics.
“The reason is very simple. We want to wipe out money politics from Nigeria. If you have delegates, big men buy up the delegates and the will of the masses, the will of the people does not prevail. But when they say everybody should come out and elect the candidate of their choice, even though it has its own shortfalls, but I think it accounts more with democracy than by using delegates, which has been the position before,” he said.
Maduabuchi maintained that the requirement for parties to submit their membership registers to INEC did not constitute interference in their internal affairs.
“If you want to elect, you decide how you want to elect, you decide who your chairman is, you decide who your members are. The law says if you have made that decision, tell me 21 days before you do your primary, let me know who your members are. That is not interfering with anybody’s internal affairs. And you must let me know 21 days. And it didn’t tell us what and how to arrive at that. So I don’t see how it’s an interference,” he said.
On whether the Supreme Court judgment would have a retroactive effect on candidates who had already conducted their primaries, Maduabuchi said the effect of a judgment should be considered in relation to the law applicable at the time the issue arose.
“The judgment takes effect the day the suit was filed. And what we are declaring is the law as it is today. What was the position of the law as it was when they took, when the primaries were conducted? That is the law you’re interpreting. If the law is as the Supreme Court has said it is today, that is the law that will apply. It is not a matter of retrospective or not prospective,” he said.
However, when asked specifically whether the ruling would affect candidates such as Chinda and others, Maduabuchi said he could not make a definitive determination without knowing when they joined their respective political parties and when their membership registers were submitted to INEC.
“Chinda is not on the ballot. No, I cannot say that because one, I don’t know when he joined the political party. Two, I don’t know when they sent the register to INEC. These are two very important things. Actually, I don’t know whether the name of Chinda is in the register of political parties submitted by APC,” he said.
He said the same limitation applied to other aspirants and political figures whose status could be affected by the ruling.
“I cannot now get up and say Chinda is no longer, will not be on the ballot. The Kwara Central senatorial aspirant will not be on the ballot. Peter Obi who left ADC for NDC, I can’t say that because I’ve not seen their registers. I don’t know when they submitted them and I don’t know what names are there,” he said.
Addressing concerns that the 21-day requirement could place pressure on the internal workings of political parties, Maduabuchi said the provision was not new or sudden, arguing that political parties had been aware of the requirement.
“No, it is not. It is not sudden. The law was made and I think it was passed early this year and everybody knew what the law was. That is why they even went to court to challenge it,” he said.
He further said the issue of giving INEC advance notice had been raised previously.
“The question of 21 days’ notice to INEC has been there. I think I raised it first in 2011 or 2012. I said they didn’t give enough notice and I went to court. So the question of 21 days is not new at all,” Maduabuchi said.
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
