The President and his party’s scorecard on democracy by Dr Umar Ardo

As we celebrate 13th
Democracy Day today and
over two years of the
Goodluck Jonathan’s
presidency, it is pertinent to
take stock of ‘the state of the
nation’s democracy under
this regime’. Let me say
from the onset that, based
on what I saw happened in
the PDP, INEC and the
Judiciary, and my personal
experience trying to vie for
the office of Governor of
Adamawa state, what we
have in Nigeria today is
civilian and not democratic
rule. Yes, democratic tenets,
principles and values are
espoused by our political
leaders in lectures,
conferences and public
addresses, but none are
practiced. Although ordinary
Nigerians are committed to
entrenching real participatory
democracy so as to attain
good governance in our
polity, several actions or in-
actions of the ruling party,
INEC and leadership of the
country have been
inconsistent with the
democratic wind of change
presently blowing across the
country, nay the continent.
Although PDP prides itself as
the largest party in Africa, it
cannot claim to be the most
Democratic Party in Nigeria.
As once said by former Vice
President Atiku Abubakar,
‘the democratic practice of a
nation is a reflection of the
democratic maturity or lack
of it of the political parties in
that nation; and the maturity
of a political party is
measured by the level of its
internal democracy, which
comprises basically two key
elements, i.e. the election of
party EXCOs by members of
the party in a free, fair and
transparent manner, and the
nomination of Party
Candidates for elective public
offices by party members
also in a free, fair and
transparent manner’.
These two elements
constitute internal
democracy. Their
entrenchment in the electoral
process automatically vests
all powers in the hands of
the people at all levels of the
party organs, while also
guaranteeing fairness, level-
playing field and justice to all
its members and aspirants in
all manner of elections within
the party. Conversely, where
these elements are lacking,
there is no democracy. With
all due respect for my party,
the PDP, and in all honesty,
these two critical elements of
internal democracy have
been lacking in the PDP
before and since the advent
of this regime. In my view,
this is centrally responsible
for the inability of the PDP
regime both to capture and
retain the support and
confidence of our people,
and manage the democratic
society on the principles of
transparency, due process,
accountability, consultation
and the rule of law.
Consequently, fundamental
rights of citizens are abused,
the independence of the
Legislature and the Judiciary
are violated and the
supremacy of political parties
compromised; giving way to
corruption, impunity and
lawlessness in the polity at
the expense of national unity,
stability, growth and
development.
Few illustrations will suffice.
First is the party’s
compromising stance on its
constitutional provision on
zoning. Although I personally
do not believe in zoning, but
the fact that it is provided for
in our constitution, we are
duty bound to comply. The
failure of the party to comply
negates the principle of
constitutionalism; a
fundamental element of
democracy.
Secondly, both elements of
internal democracy as
outlined above have been
lacking in the PDP. Since
Goodluck came to power as
president, PDP’s leadership
has been unstable, many and
undemocratically constituted.
Within a period of less than
two years the party had three
substantive Chairmen (Prince
Vincient Ogbuolafor, Dr. E.
Nwodo and Alh. Bamanga
Tukur), three Acting
Chairmen (Dr. Bello Haliru,
Dr. Bello Haliru and Alh.
Kawu Baraje). Ogbuolafor
was removed untowardly and
replaced by Dr. E. Nwodo
without being elected. Nwodo
himself was removed giving
way to long successive Acting
capacities of Haliru and
Baraje. Bamanga was
subsequently put into office
in very undemocratic
manner. All these, singularly
and collectively,
compromised elective
element of internal
democracy within the PDP.
Also, the second element of
internal democracy, i.e.
democratic nomination of
party candidates, was not
spared. On this matter, both
the provisions of the Electoral
Act and Party Guidelines were
completely ignored. For
example, let’s take for
analysis the party’s
nomination of its presidential
candidate. A close look at the
process will show that
President Jonathan did not
win the contest as stipulated
by the Party Guidelines in a
free, fair and transparent
manner. Indeed, the integral
nomination processes leading
to the election at the Eagle
Square were characterized by
fundamental electoral flaws
and frauds, which were so
many and so serious as to
render, in my opinion, the
whole procedure a charade
and a mockery of democracy.
From the provisions of the
Electoral Act, it is clear that
the nomination exercise is
not a one-day event but a
chain of events that
ultimately leads to the
emergence of the Flagbearer.
However, in the case under
review, incontrovertible facts
clearly illustrate that the
nomination processes have
subverted the law, the Party
Guidelines, thus rendering
the entire exercise at the
Eagle Square a monumental
fraud now being hailed by
some ignorant, selfish,
mischievous or anti-
democratic elements as a
victory for democracy; thus
creating the basis for a
repeat exercise in the
General elections of April,
2011.
Section 87 sub-Section (7) of
the Amended Electoral Act
2010 states as follows:
‘A political party that adopts
the system of indirect
primaries for the choice of its
candidate shall clearly outline
in its constitution and rules
the procedure for the
democratic election of
delegates to vote at the
convention, congress or
meeting, in addition to
delegates already prescribed
in the constitution of the
party’.
In conformity with the
provision of this Law, the PDP
National Executive Committee
(NEC) approved and released
its Electoral Guidelines for
the Primary Elections 2010.
Part 1 of the Guidelines
stipulates for the election of
a National Delegate in the
following manner:
For the purpose of
nominating the Party’s
Presidential candidate, each
of the 774 Local Government
Party Chapters shall produce
one National Delegate to the
Special Convention through
Special Local Government
Congress;
The Party’s Executive Officers
at the Ward, Local
Government, State, Zonal and
National levels shall, by virtue
of their respective offices in
the Party, be automatic
delegates to the Local
Government Special
Congress. Other automatic
delegates include: the LG
Council Chairman, Deputy
Chairman and Councillors,
members of the National and
Sate Assemblies, members of
the Board of Trustees,
President/Vice President of
the Federal Republic, State
Governor and Deputy
Governor who are members
of the Party from the LGA.
These were to congregate
and elect the National
Delegate for that Local
Government. Investigations
reveal that this procedure
was never enacted to elect
any National Delegate in all
the 774 Local Government
Areas across the country.
Instead, individuals were
simply short listed by
Governors, Aspirants or Party
Officials and presented as
‘Delegates’. On this score, I
challenge any and all of those
so-called National Delegates
who participated in the
Presidential Primaries,
officers of the Party from
Ward to National Chapters,
all the Automatic Delegates to
the LGA Congress and INEC
Officers of the 774 LGAs who
are by law supposed to
monitor and report on these
elections, who dispute my
claim to bring forth any proof
of the conduct of the election
of any National Delegate as
outlined above. Such proof as
date, venue, time, accredited
delegates, aspirants, agents,
electoral officers, number of
votes cast, vote counts and
scores at the LG Congress
election and name(s) of INEC
Monitoring Officer(s) and
INEC’s Check List Forms to
contradict my claim. The
truth is it is non-existent.
This explains why the
Published Delegate Booklet
contained no single name of
National Delegate. Instead,
the shortlisted names were
presented on separate papers
(some of which were hand-
written) at the election
venue. In Adamawa State, for
example, no date was even
fixed for the conduct of the
National Delegate election
and no such election took
place at any time and in any
Local Government. This, I
also know for a fact,
happened in many States and
so distorted and rendered the
entire process inauthentic
and illegitimate.
There was also a deliberate
refusal on the part of the
PDP’s NWC to avail Aspirants
other than the President with
the list of Delegates in spite
of repeated demands in
writing up to the point of
entering the venue of the
election. An aspirant is by
right entitled to the list of
delegates long before the
date of election – or else how
could an Aspirant canvass for
votes if he/she did not know
who to canvass from? To
underscore the importance of
this point (i.e. availing
Aspirants with list of their
electors), the amended
Electoral Act 2010 provides in
Section 15 compelling INEC
as follows:
‘The Commission shall cause
a voters’ register for each
state to be printed, and any
person or political party may
obtain from the Commission,
on payment of such fees as
may be determined by the
Commission, a certified copy
of any voters’ register for the
State or for the Local
Government or Area Council
or registration area within it’
I spoke with Atiku who
confirmed to me that he
never was availed with the
list in spite of repeated
demands. This naturally
eroded a level-playing ground
for such aspirants in the
contest. Also, the
participation of Ministers,
Advisers and even non-party
members in the convention
as Delegates constituted a
major flaw in the Primaries.
Furthermore, the labeling of
Ballot Papers (including the
voting, counting and
announcing of results) on
State by State basis was a
deliberate undemocratic ploy
to expose the election
pattern, thus, compromising
and subverting the
internationally traditionally
honoured sanctity of ‘Secret
Balloting’. As a proof to this
assertion, the labeling of the
Ballot Papers was not made a
uniform policy throughout
the PDP Primaries across the
country. This obviously
explains why the Ballot
Papers in the Legislative and
Governorship Primaries were
not labeled on Ward by Ward
or Local Government by Local
Government basis
There was also the ominous
secrecy shrouding the signing
of the amendment of the
2010 Electoral Act which had
direct regulatory bearing on
Political Party Primaries which
called to question the
integrity, sincerity and
credibility of the President in
the conduct of the Party
Primaries. The amended Bill
was signed by the Clark of
the National Assembly and
forwarded to the President
on the 29th December 2010,
and the President assented to
the Bill the same day, but
was never made public till
12th January, 2011 – one
week after House of
Assembly, 5 days after
National Assembly, three
days after Governorship, but
a day before the Presidential
Primaries.
The critical question is what
is the motive and rational
explanation of the President
in hiding the coming into
force of this critical Act until
after the conclusion of all
other Primaries except his
own? The answer is obvious –
support the President’s
candidacy or face the wrath
of the Law.
Also pertinent to this matter
is the resignation of Dr.
Nwodo as Party Chairman.
Although there was a Court
Order restraining Nwodo
from parading himself as
PDP Chairman, the man was
at the convention venue.
Though Nwodo was forced to
resign afterwards, it however
did not eliminate the
confusion and therefore the
illegitimacy his action created
at the Eagle Square on the
day of the convention. The
fact that an Ag. Chairman
was appointed at the middle
of the event means that all
previous events including
Opening Prayers, National
Auditor’s Report, State of the
Party’s Report, the Rules and
Procedures of the Election
Process outlined by the
Chairman of Election Panel
and the addresses of the two
Aspirants, Mrs. Sarah Jibril
and Alh. Atiku Abubakar were
delegitimized. Certainly, the
de-legitimization of these,
most especially the last three
events, are serious enough to
call to question the standing
and legitimacy of the
succeeding events, principally
the President’s address, the
election proper and the
counting and announcing of
results.
On its part, INEC did not
stand up to its responsibility
in advancing and protecting
the nation’s democracy. It is
a fact that between 2008 and
2011, INEC wrote four letters
to the PDP deploring the
unconstitutional and
undemocratic manner in
which the party conducted its
congresses in 8 states of the
federation. In those letters,
INEC declared the EXCOs in
those state illegal and
requested the party to
reschedule and re-conduct
lawful congresses. PDP
ignored INEC’s directive and
continued with those
unlawful EXCOs.
Paradoxically, these same
EXCOs produced and
submitted to the same INEC
candidates for elective offices
and INEC accepted and filled
in these candidates for
general elections. Ditto with
Bayelsa Governorship
candidate. Almost all of them
are today elected into public
offices. With such acts from
INEC, constitutionalism, rule
of law and internal party
democracy were subverted
by the very body that is
supposed to protect, defend
and advance them.
In the final analysis,
therefore, these actions and
inactions on the part of the
President, the PDP and INEC,
have destroyed rather than
advance the course of
democracy and democratic
rule in Ni

#CONSENSUS 2015