*Proposed duties already captured in EFCC, ICPC Act – EFCC boss
*Why we cannot prosecute electoral offenders – INEC
*Reps propose 20 years jail term for offenders
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday challenged the House of Representatives, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as well as the Inter Party Advisory Council (IPAC) on the proposed National Electoral Offences Commission Bill.
The EFCC rejection came as the House of Representatives proposed 15 to 20-years jail term or a fine of N40 million for people involved in ballot box snatching, vote buying, destruction of electoral materials and other electoral offences.
While the House of Representatives, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Inter Party Advisory Council (IPAC) and Foreign Commonwealth Development Office declared their respective support for the establishment of the body, the anti-graft agency rejected the proposal in its entirety, arguing that the duties of the proposed commissions will clash with its roles, and that of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
In his opposition to the establishment of the commission at the public hearing organised by the House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters, the Chairman of the EFCC, Mr. Abdulrasheed Bawa, argued that the offences outlined in the bill falls within the purview of the Police, Ministry of Justice, EFCC, ICPC as stipulated in the Electoral Act, 2022, hence there was no need to set up a new body.
Bawa, who was represented at the public hearing by the Assistant Commandant at the Commission, Deborah Ademu-Eteh, argued that a holistic review of the contents of the proposed bill shows that the offences contained therein in Part IV (Sections 13-32) largely constitute offences that have already been criminalised by extant laws such as the Electoral Act, 2022 (See Sections 114-129), The Penal and Criminal Codes, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act, 2000, and the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment)Act, 2004.
“It can be stated that the offences listed here are offences that the Nigerian Police, the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Economic and Financial Crimes (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and even the Independent National Electoral Commission (in Section 145 of the Electoral Act, 2022) are empowered under our extant laws, to investigate and prosecute.
“There is, therefore, no need for creating an agency solely for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting electoral offences most especially when our electoral process is seasonal in nature being that elections are held once in four years in the Country,” the EFCC boss maintained.
Meanwhile, the Chairman of INEC, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, made a passionate appeal for the establishment of the commission, which he stressed would drastically reduce the rate of electoral malpractices by political parties, their candidates and supporters.
.
He said: “This is the closest the nation has come to the passage of the long overdue National Electoral Offences Commission Bill into law.
“I hope in the next few months, the National Assembly will pass the Bill so that it will not suffer the fate of previous efforts which were inchoate at the end of the lifespan of the Assembly.”
He noted that the Bill for an Act to establish the National Electoral Offences Commission is a critical legislation, adding that it has been part of all national conversations on constitutional and electoral reforms for the last 13 years.
According the Mahmood, “The Justice Mohammed Uwais Committee on electoral reforms recommended it in 2009, echoed by the Sheikh Ahmed Lemu Committee following the post-election violence of 2011 and, most recently, by the Senator Ken Nnamani Committee on Constitutional and Electoral Reform in 2017″. Similar recommendations are contained in reports of police investigations, INEC administrative enquiries, court judgments, reports by the National Human Rights Commission as well as several accredited election observers.”
The INEC chairman further disclosed that the reform of the nation’s electoral process cannot be complete without effective sanctions on violators of the laws.
He said: “At present, INEC is saddled with the responsibility of prosecuting electoral offenders under the Electoral Act. This has been very challenging for the Commission. For instance, since the 2015 General Election, 125 cases of electoral offences were filed in various Courts out of which 60 convictions have been secured so far, including the most recent one in Akwa Ibom State
“The Commission would like to see more successful prosecution of offenders, not just ballot box snatchers, falsifiers of election results and vote buyers at polling units but most importantly, their sponsors. We look forward to the day when highly placed sponsors of thuggery, including high-profile figures that seek to benefit from these violations, are arrested and prosecuted. We believe the work of the proposed Commission will help in this regard.
“INEC is basically an electoral commission with extensive responsibilities which include the registration and regulation of political parties, the monitoring of party and campaign finance, their primaries, congresses, meetings and conventions; nationwide Continuous Voter registration (CVR) and the maintenance of the national register of voters; creation of polling units; delimitation of electoral constituencies; voter education and publicity; management of electoral logistics; recruitment, training and deployment of election duty officials
“For those who argue that the solution does not lie in expanding the federal bureaucracy by creating a new Commission, we believe that the National Electoral Offences Commission should be seen as an exception. While there are other security agencies that deal with economic and financial crimes, I am yet to hear anyone who, in good conscience, thinks that it is unnecessary to have established the anti-corruption agencies
“We have studied the 46 Clauses of the Bill under consideration and made 16 comments. I would like to touch on two Clauses and make a general observation while submitting our detailed comments to the Committee. First is Clause 33 (1) of the Bill which confers jurisdiction on Federal, State and FCT High Courts to try offenders under the Bill. However, these Courts are already over-burdened. It is proposed that Electoral Offences Tribunal be established with exclusive jurisdiction to try electoral offenders,” Professor Mahmood stated
