Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission (CROSIEC) is expected to rake in N1.445 billion during the October 26 local government election in the state.
Last weekend, the chairman of the Commission, Ekong Edet Boco, announced publication of Notice of Election of Chairman and Councillors in all the 18 local government areas and 196 electoral wards in the state.
The CROSIEC Law (2002) (as amended), otherwise known as Law No.8 of 2024 that pegged the amount of money a chairmanship candidate is required to pay to CROSIEC before he or she can be eligible to contest at N5 million is outrageous and exorbitant, says human rights lawyer, Obono Obla.
Obono Obla is the former aide to President Muhammadu Buhari on prosecution and an All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain.
According to Obla, the law also fixed N1 million as the amount a councillorship candidate is obligated to pay to CROSIEC before he or she is equally eligible to contest, which is also outrageous and exorbitant.
“When you tie down payment of exorbitant fees as a condition precedent to a candidate fulfilling before he or she can contest election, you are unwittingly monetizing democracy and infringing on the fundamental right of citizens to participate in the governance of their community.
“Democracy is more or less a doctrine that promotes and encourages people to participate in the governance of their community, and therefore, there should not be any string attached to those who want to participate in the governance of their community under any guise.
“Having money to pay or buy a nomination form to contest an election does not determine whether or not a candidate has the leadership qualities or skills to lead. When you monetize participation, you are invariably encouraging those who have money to hijack and dominate the process.
“When you impose or peg payment of outrageous or exorbitant amounts as a condition precedent to eligibility to contest, you are infringing on the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly and association as enshrined in Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended).
“Furthermore, Article 13 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (Enforcement and Ratification) Act, 2004, provides that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law.
“Therefore, where the government, through a law, imposes monetary conditions that a citizen must fulfill before a citizen can be eligible to contest or someone who wishes to contest an election to represent his or her people in the governance of his or her country, it amounts to infringement of the letter and spirit of Article 13 (1) of the African Charter.
“In Bullock vs Carter 405 US 134 (1972), the appellants who sought to become candidates for local office in the Democratic Party primary election, challenged in the District Court the validity of the nomination fees up to $8,900.
“It was held that the fees contravened the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It was the view of the Judge that: “By requiring candidates to shoulder the costs of conducting primary election through filing fee by providing no reasonable alternative means of access to the ballot, the State of Texas has erected a system that utilizes the criterion of ability to pay as a condition to being on the ballot, thus excluding some candidates otherwise qualified and denying an undetermined number of voters the opportunity to vote candidates of their choice”, he said.
Furthermore, he said in Canada, candidates are no longer required to pay deposits for federal elections.
In the case of Szuchewycz vs. Canada (Attorney General) 2017 ABQB 645, Justice Avril Inglis of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, declared that the deposit requirement infringed Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified under Section 1 of the same Charter.
Before the Szuchewycz v. Canada ruling, a candidate for Member of Parliament, needed to place a $1,000 deposit.
In National Conscience Party vs Ekiti State Independent Electoral Commission (2015) NHRLR (Part 1) on Page 1, the Ekiti State High Court nullified the demand for the payment of nomination fees and production of tax clearance certificate as preconditions for contesting the 2004 Local Government elections.
The Court held that collecting such nomination fees and production of tax clearance certificates was tantamount to an attempt to alter Sections 106 and 107 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The appeal filed against the judgement by the Ekiti State Independent Electoral Commission was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
In Osun State Independent Electoral Commission vs National Conscience Party (Unreported Appeal No SC.40/2009), the Osun State High Court nullified the payment of nomination fees by all registered political parties as a condition to contest the March 27, 2013, local government election in the state.
The appellant had issued guidelines that required each chairmanship candidate to pay a sum of N50,000 and each councillorship candidate to pay N25,000 to the coffers of the Appellant.
The High Court held that the defendant lacked the power to prescribe conditions for the eligibility, qualifications and disqualifications of candidates to contest local government elections in Osun State outside the conditions stipulated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and later by the Supreme Court.
However, while political parties can not charge outrageous nomination fees, they may be permitted to direct aspirants to pay nominal fees for administrative expenses.
In the People’s Democratic Party v Edo State Independent Electoral Commission & Another (Unreported Suit No. B/18/OS/13), the Honourable Justice N. A. Imoukhuede declared the requirement of non-refundable deposit of N100,000.00 for chairmanship candidates and N50,000.00 for councillorship candidates was in breach of the provisions of Sections 7(4), 106 and 107(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Consequently, the learned trial judge set aside the collection of the deposits by the Edo State Independent Electoral Commission.
In conclusion, I urge the Cross River State House of Assembly to immediately proceed to amend the provisions in CROSEIC law that gives the power to CROSIEC to collect #5,000,000 and #1,000,000 respectively, from candidates that intend to contest the forthcoming Local Government Elections in Cross River State, as these provisions infringe on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and international law – Article 13 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Enforcement and Ratification) Act, 2004.
