"APC Registration: INEC Moves To Frustrate Merger"- LEADERSHIP There are strong indications that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the presidency are set to frustrate the merger of three opposition political parties – Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). This is in spite of the fact that the merging political parties have met all the requirements stated in the Electoral Act 2011, as amended, for a merger to take effect. LEADERSHIP Weekend learnt that there are plans to advise the leadership of the three merging parties to change the proposed name, on the pretext that a rival political association with the same acronym as APC has a subsisting suit in court to stop the merger. It was learnt that the plan to stop the registration of APC was perfected during a meeting of INEC top guns on Tuesday at the commission’s headquarters in Abuja. Despite the fact that the 30-day mandatory period the Electoral Act gives INEC to register parties seeking merger has elapsed, the Tuesday meeting, it was learnt, resolved among other things to formally write the leadership of the three merging political parties, saying the commission would be using the requirements for the registration of political associations as contained in Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. It was learnt that after the leadership of the merging parties had submitted the requirements as provided for by Section 84 (1-3) of the Electoral Act, the INEC had written them requesting their compliance with the provisions of Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. However, the spokesman of INEC, Mr Kayode Idowu, has denied the report of any plan to frustrate the merger, stating that there was no basis for the parties to exercise any fears as the Electoral Act was clear on merging processes. He also noted that there is no court injunction compelling INEC to stop the merger. However, an executive member of one of the merging political parties has faulted the move, insisting that by the provision of the Electoral Act in Section 84, Subsection 4, the merger is deemed to have taken place since INEC did not communicate to the parties 30 days after receiving its letter of intent to merge. Section 84, subsection 4 of the Electoral Act states: On receipt of the request for merger of political parties, the Commission shall consider the request and, if the parties have fulfilled the requirements of the Constitution and this Act, approve the proposed merger and communicate its decision to the parties concerned before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the formal request. Provided that if the commission fails to communicate its decision within 30 days the merger shall be deemed to be effective. Arguing that its letter of intent to merge was received by INEC on June 10, 2013 and that it complied with the additional request made by the electoral body in a June 12, 2013, letter, the party chieftain who spoke on the condition of anonymity explained that merger should be deemed to have taken effect. The party chieftain, while confirming the surreptitious move to halt the merger by writing the parties to change the name citing a case filed by one political party, African Peoples’ Congress (APC), said there was no basis in law for INEC to toe that line unless it is being teleguided by partisan members in the electoral body and the presidency. He said: We are aware that, at the meeting on Tuesday, some of the commissioners who are card- carrying members of the PDP had been putting enormous pressure on the INEC leadership to stop the merger. We have fulfilled all the requirements needed for a merger and we really don’t understand why this sudden political manoeuvring by an electoral body that is supposedly independent. When you look at the Electoral Act, after 30 days of submitting this request, we are assumed to have been merged because INEC did not communicate to us. Now, 10th June was the day we submitted it, so, 10th July they were supposed to have either communicated to us indicating yes or no or automatically we become merged. On Tuesday, it will be 30 days since we complied by submitting required documents in a letter dated July 1, 2013, but we hear they are planning to write to us ether on Monday or Tuesday to tell us to look for another name. Now, when they held meeting on Tuesday, some of them said we cannot even register these people because someone has filed a case at the court. Mind you, what they are talking about, up till now, the judge has not uttered a word. There is no order either saying INEC should maintain the status quo, or they say INEC we grant injunction, don’t go ahead. Just because they had been served notice that there is a matter in court which they have been joined or for which they are being sued. This is the lawyer of the plaintiff. How do you expect INEC to act in anticipation of what the court might say? In his reaction, Idowu said though there is a pending case at the court, there is no injunction restraining INEC from performing its duties regarding the merger, adding that the agency started the countdown of the stipulated 30 days from the date the APC submitted the required documents. He said: Since there is no court order enjoining the commission not to register the merger, it cannot on its own decide not to. Any position by the APC that INEC plans to stop its registration is baseless and false. Did the APC also inform you that we have been in constant touch with them in correspondence and visits to the offices they indicated as their address? On the effective date of APC application for merger, he asked: Is it proper that we should take the date of application from the day the APC wrote INEC for recognition on merger or on the day they furnished the commission with the necessary documents? I am sure the proper date is the one they submitted the required documents. And with such date in mind, the 30 days stipulated by the Electoral Act has not expired. And even if it does, the law is also very clear that whether we write them or not, the law takes care of any ambiguity. I don’t see any reason for confusion in the matter so far until the expiration of 30 days provided for by the law. @TAA
Posted on: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 17:48:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015