Recently, the nation witnessed a spike in the conduct of local government elections as state governors race to institutionalise elected officials at the third tier of government in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In the last three weeks, Anambra, Kwara, Kebbi, Rivers, Benue, Akwa Ibom, and Plateau states, among others, have held local government elections with Nasarawa, Kano, and Kaduna, working assiduously to establish executive structures at their council areas.
While this looks plausible, the devil, as they say, is in the details. These elections, which were conducted by the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) as mandated by the 1999 constitution (amended), failed the basic test of election: fairness and integrity. They are, to be charitable, a sham.
One unique trend running through all these elections is that the ruling party in the state wins all or almost all of the seats, except for Akwa Ibom, where the APC, as the opposition party in the state, won one local government.
Any attempt to excuse this worrisome trend by perceiving it as suggesting that the ruling party is popular in the state could be patently misleading. These trends result from deliberate manipulation of the electoral process by the governors and their cronies to achieve a pre-determined outcome. In this, all the governors are guilty.
In Rivers state, for instance, an unknown Action Peoples Party (APP) surprisingly clinched all the local government chairmanship seats simply because it got Governor Sim Fubara’s endorsement. The crisis that development is generating in that resource-rich state is to be expected.
To ensure that trusted friends and loyalists emerge as elected officials, the governor influences the membership of the SIECs that oversee the conduct of these elections. He nominates persons who are either members of or are loyal to him and the ruling party. Of course, these members are easily confirmed by the state assemblies, which are always controlled by the governors and charged with ensuring only candidates of the ruling party get elected as councillors or chairmen.
The process is so brazen that once someone emerges as the ruling party’s candidate, he or she starts receiving congratulatory messages as if they have already won the election.
It is essential to point out that while the nation has won one leg of the struggle to ensure a vibrant local government administration based on the Supreme Court’s verdict, the battle is far from over. Unless there is a transparent leadership recruitment process at the third-tier of government, we may have scorched the snake and not killed it.
To address this, this newspaper is persuaded to advocate again as it has done on several occasions, the scrapping of SIECs. Instead, local government elections should be conducted by INEC as malleable as it has proved to be in other national exercises it organised. It is the lesser of two evils because it can superintend the emergence of seemingly competent, independent-minded leaders at the local government levels.
What currently exists in leadership at the local government level would not enable the third tier of government to function effectively. The only criteria for emerging as a councillor or chairman is the governor’s endorsement through the recommendation of some party lackeys.
The nation has more people who get into positions as councillors and even chairmen without being fully equipped for the challenges of the offices. Most councillors don’t know they can impeach the chairman if and when necessary.
While financial autonomy is the first step to repositioning the council areas, concerted efforts must be made to radically change the leadership recruitment process, equip the legislative arm at the local level, and ultimately ensure anti-graft agencies beam the needed searchlight on how the councils expend their finances.
Fundamentally, beyond the euphoria that greeted the Supreme Court verdict granting financial autonomy to the council areas, there is a need to address the recruitment process for leadership at the local government levels.
It is known that governors literally handpick those who get ‘elected’ through the usual charade coordinated by SIECs to perpetuate their control of council areas. As should be expected, those who emerge as leaders at this level are pliable tools of the governors.
If there is any lesson to be learnt from the elections conducted by SIECs so far, it is that the council areas are still under the firm grip of governors because those who emerge as chairmen are either selected by the governors or by persons acting on the governors’ directives. To assume that things will change at the local government levels with this arrangement is to indulge in self-deceit. What is happening through SIECs is a sham, pure and simple.
