Kogi: What INEC should have done

The death of Prince Abubakar Audu, the late candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the recent governorship election in Kogi State has undoubtedly stoked serious controversy.

Before his passing on Sunday, a day after the election, Audu had taken the lead in the vote count with 240,867 votes compared to the 199,514 votes scored by his main rival, Captain Idris Wada, the incumbent governor and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

Though largely free of violence, polling was cancelled in 91 polling units on account of violence and other irregularities.

The total number of voters captured in the 91 polling units was reported by the returning officer of the election, Prof. Emmanuel Kucha to be 49,953, a figure that is more than the 41,353 votes separating Audu and Wada.

Citing what he claimed as the guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Kucha declared the election inconclusive because the number of cancelled votes was higher than the difference between the two candidates. INEC followed up later by announcing December 5, 2015 as the date for the supplementary election and also invited the APC to present a candidate to replace the late Audu.

For a country that is still developing its democratic institutions and processes, the developments in Kogi State are indeed challenging. There are few examples to draw from with regard to a candidate dying in the midst of an election, and there are no statutes to guide the stakeholders on the appropriate way forward.

The pronouncements made by many of the officials directly and indirectly involved in the process have not helped matters. The legal opinion proffered by the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, to the effect that the APC could substitute the dead candidate in the midst of the election and in effect transfer the votes of the dead candidate to the new candidate is being disputed in court, interestingly, even by James Faleke, Audu’s running mate in the election.

There is no doubt that partisan interests have coloured the opinions of several critical players in the process. We are fortunate that this crisis has not happened at the national level in which case the foundations of the country would have been seriously shaken.

In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the development in Kogi provides an opportunity to strengthen the country’s electoral processes and prevent a repetition, not just in another state, but also at the national level.

We believe that the Supreme Court should have been approached to guid stakeholders on  legally binding steps to  take to resolve the issue and avoid an unnecessary legal quagmire.