The Oracle: Are INEC Resident Commissioners Homeless Bats? (Pt. 1)

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

I watched and listened very carefully to my good friend, Chief Festus Okoye, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s cerebral Commissioner for Information and Voter Education, on his recent television interviews on Channel and AIT stations. I completely disagree with his take and analysis of the place and space of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the organogram and scheme of things concerning the electoral process in Nigeria. His analysis, which literally dismissed the RECs with a wave of the hand in a most cavalier manner, if swallowed hook, line and sinker, has the dangerous effect of not only completely defanging RECs and rendering their electoral efforts at the State grassroots levels completely useless, but also of creating avoidable turmoil and schism within INEC itself, as one homogeneous and independent family unit. It can also have the unintended serious consequence of self-immolation which can self-destruct. It amounts, in my humble view, to saying that the RECs who are constitutionally created across the 36 states of Nigeria, simultaneously and indeed under the same sections with INEC Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners that Okoye harped on, are no more than mere appendages to INEC Commission headquarters, and therefore toothless bulldogs and amoebic bats that neither belong to the animal kingdom, nor to the birds kingdom.

It appears to me there is a deliberate and sustained effort by INEC Headquarters to diminish RECs powers and clip their wings, for reason best known to it. If RECs’ monitoring and conduct of elections at state level levels can be whimsically and capriciously discarded because, according to Okoye, they are mere delegates of the national body of INEC Commission that comprises only of the Chairman and 12 members, then one must ask why the Constitution created them at all in the first place. Can the human anatomical body be whole simply by having a head and stomach alone, without the brain, limbs, eyes, teeth, ears, tongue and nose? I think not. How come, if we were to follow Okoye’s argument to its logical conclusion, that a mere witlow suffered by a person on his tiny thumb ,keeps the person’s entire body in pains, agony, pangs and sleeplessness throughout the night?

SOME LEGAL ANALYSIS

Section 153 (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the establishment of certain federal bodies, which includes INEC.

By virtue of section 153 (2) thereof, the “composition” and powers of the bodies established in section 153 (1) above (which includes INEC), are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution.

Now, Paragraph 14 (1) of the said 3^rd Schedule clearly provides that:

“INEC shall comprise the following members –

(a) Chairman, who shall be the Chief Electoral Commissioner;

(b) Twelve other members to be known as National Electoral Commissioners …”.

However, the same paragraph 14, but under subsection (3), immediately provides for the establishment of the office of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) “for each state of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”. There are 36 states of Nigeria by virtue of section 2(3) of the Constitution. Without these states, there is no sovereign entity by the name “Nigeria”. The criteria for appointing the Chairman, 12 Electoral Commissioners and the REC is that they must be non-partisan a person of unquestionable integrity. But while the age of the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners is fixed at 40 and 35 years respectively, that of the RECs is fixed at 35. Being constitutional creatures, the Chairman, 12 National Commissioners and RECs all enjoy the same statutory protection, recognition and respectability. None has powers to undermine or ignore the other.

WHO THEN IS A MEMBER OF INEC COMMISSION

The answer as regards membership of INEC the Commission can be found in section 153 (2) of the Constitution. It provides that the composition and powers of the Commission are as contained in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule.

“Composition”, by definition according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, simply means, “the manner in which something is composed”.  “composed of” is itself defined at page 286 of the Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial edition, as, “formed of; consisting of”.

Even the New Webster’s Dictionary of English Language (International Edition), at page 200, also defines “composition” as meaning “content with respect to constituent elements”.  To be sure, the word “constituent”, according to page 207 of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, means “essential part; component, element”; or “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”.

It is therefore crystal clear and beyond disputation (except for those who may want to engage in banal intellectual masturbation) that the word “composition” as deployed in section 153 (2) of the Constitution regarding the membership of INEC simply means nothing beyond the aggregation of those bodies established under section 153(1). Only this meaning logically accords with the clear words and phrases used in all the definitions above stated.

Let us see them once more: “essential part; component elements’’; or, “serving to form, compose or make up a unit or whole”; or “formed of; “consisting of”; or “content with respect to constituent elements”.

The next question that agitates the mind is, what then is “member”, and how do we demonstrate that the meaning of “composition” as used in section 153 (2) simply means membership of INEC?

“Member”, says page 740 of Webster’s Ninth collegiate Dictionary, simply means “one of the individuals composing a group”; or “a constituent part of the whole”. Also, “member”, according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial edition, on the other hand, means “one of the persons constituting a family, partnership, association, corporation, guild, court, legislation or the like”.

Thus, exactly the same words are employed in all the dictionaries cited above to define the two words, “compose” and “member”.  What this translates to is that the words, “composition” and “membership”, are not mutually exclusive, but can be used interchangeably to mean the same thing.

By simple analytical deduction, when section 153 (2) of the Constitution speaks of the composition of the Commission being as defined in part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution, what the section is simply saying is that the membership  of INEC shall be as contained in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule. By extension, and when stated slightly differently, the persons mentioned in the said part 1 of the 3rd Schedule relating to INEC are also all members of the Commission, notwithstanding that the word “member”, has not been specifically used therein. Membership and composition are therefore synonyms that can be used interchangeably here.

For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 14 (1) of part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution used the word “member” with respect to Chairman and 12 National Commissioners. However, subsection 3 of the same paragraph 14 went ahead to frontally make provisions for the establishment of the position of REC in each state of the Federation and the FCT. How then can it be reasonably argued that the same schedule 14 which recognizes not only the Chairman and the 12 National Commissioners, but also the same RECs of 36 states and the FCT, can decide to accord recognition to, and ascribe duties to the former alone, whilst excluding the latter?

It simply does not add up, both in realms of law, logic, morality and constitutionalism.

My humble take therefore, is that the Chairman of the Commission, the 12 National Commissioners and the 37 RECs are all members of the same INEC (Commission) family; no more, no less. None is a child of bastard. None suffers from any form of dubious or questionable pedigree. This is more so as their existence draws life from the same oxygen freely donated by the same paragraph 14, with one falling under subsection (1) and the other under subsection (2), within same part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which clearly provides for the “composition” of INEC.

To deny this is to deny that six is the same thing as half a dozen and that Hamlet is same as the Prince of Denmark. It will thus amount to the greatest illogicality and delusional fallacy of all times to argue that RECs whilst being constitutionally recognized to “compose” or form the “composition” of the INEC, are at the same time denied of being “members” of the same INEC. It will amount to giving power and recognition with the left hand, and at the same time simultaneously snatching same back with the right hand. Such will not make any common, thematic, logical, legal, grammatical or constitutional or sense.

Mr Okoye argued strenuously that Paragraph 15(h) of part 1 of the 3^rd Schedule to the Constitution provides that INEC Headquarters (the Commission) shall “have powers to delegate any of its powers to Resident Electoral Commission”. So what? Does this mere administrative function overrule the constitutional importance of REC? While Section 6(2)(a) of the Act, a  REC is answerable to The Commissioner by virtue of Section 6(2)(b), the REC holds for 5 years term which is renewable for another 5 years. And by virtue of Section 6(3), of the Act, a REC can only be removed by the President, acting on 2/3 majority vote of the Senate, due to infirmity of mind or body, or for misconduct, or for any other cause. Indeed, says Section 6(4) of the Electoral Act, the “appointment of a REC shall be in compliance with Section 14(3) of the Constitution…. and Section 4 of the Federal Character Commission (Establishment. Etc) Act”. Thus, section 6(4) of the Act imposed more qualifying criteria on the REC than the Chairman and 12 National Commissioners. (To be continued).

FUN TIMES

“MAN: I dreamt last night that women have started hating money.

WOMAN: Learn to sleep early and on a nice bed to avoid such stupid and horrible dreams”.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite”. (Charles Spurgeon).