By DAN MANJANG
Nigeria’s electoral system is one that is beset with numerous challenges, particularly at the local government level. States Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) were established to oversee local government elections with the intent of enhancing grassroots democracy. However, in practice, SIECs have become instruments of state governors, serving their political interests rather than the interests of the people. Local government elections conducted by these commissions typically result in victories for the ruling party in the state, raising serious questions about the credibility, fairness, and transparency of the electoral process.
This essay argues that SIECs, as they currently operate, are a charade. Their lack of independence, the overwhelming influence of governors, and the predictable outcomes of elections demonstrate that they are nothing more than tools of political manipulation. The case for their abrogation and the transfer of their duties to a more impartial body, such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), is long overdue.
The emergence of SIECs
The States Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) were established under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, specifically in Section 197(1)(b). Their primary function is to organize and conduct elections into local government councils, including the election of local government chairmen and councilors. SIECs are meant to ensure that the democratic process at the grassroots level is conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner, thus empowering citizens to elect leaders who will address their local needs.
At the local government level, elections are of immense importance. They are the closest form of governance to the people, and elected officials are expected to serve as representatives of their communities, ensuring that the grassroots have a voice in governance. Ideally, SIECs should play a critical role in deepening democracy and fostering development through fair elections. However, the reality is far removed from this ideal.
SIECs as instruments of political control by governors
In practice, SIECs have been co-opted by state governors to further their political agendas. One of the most significant flaws in the current structure of SIECs is that they are not independent bodies. The members of these commissions are appointed by the governors, who also control their funding. This dependence on the executive branch of state governments compromises the neutrality of SIECs, making them susceptible to manipulation.
The consequence of this manipulation is that SIECs serve as tools for governors to install their political allies and loyalists in local government offices. Rather than acting as impartial electoral bodies, SIECs typically deliver results that overwhelmingly favor the ruling party in the state. This has been the case across several states in Nigeria, regardless of which party is in power.
The outcomes of local government elections conducted by SIECs are often predictable. In most instances, the ruling party in the state wins every available position, from the local government chairmen to all the councilors. This trend has been observed in several states, providing ample evidence of the compromised nature of these commissions.
For example, in 2021, the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Oyo State won all the local government chairmanship seats and all but one councilorship seat in the local government elections conducted by the Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC). The elections were widely criticized by opposition parties and civil society organizations, who accused the commission of bias and irregularities.
Similarly, in Lagos State, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured all the local government chairmanship seats and the vast majority of councilor positions in the elections conducted by the Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission (LASIEC) in 2017. Despite allegations of voter suppression, poor organization, and lack of transparency, the APC emerged victorious in a clean sweep of the polls.
These examples highlight a pattern in which SIECs deliver results that overwhelmingly favor the ruling party, raising serious doubts about the credibility of the elections they conduct. The predictable nature of these outcomes further erodes public trust in the electoral process and diminishes the democratic legitimacy of local government elections.
Installation of stooges by governors
One of the most troubling aspects of local government elections conducted by SIECs is the installation of political stooges by state governors. Rather than allowing the electorate to choose their representatives, governors often handpick individuals who will remain loyal to them and execute their directives without question. These individuals, once elected, owe their positions to the governor, not the people, and are expected to serve the interests of the state executive rather than those of their constituents.
This practice undermines the principles of democratic governance and local government autonomy. Local governments, which are meant to be independent bodies that address the needs of their communities, are instead reduced to extensions of the governor’s office. The chairmen and councilors installed by SIECs become mere puppets, serving at the whim of the governor and lacking the independence necessary to truly represent the people.
With local government autonomy increasingly becoming a topic of national discourse, the actions of governors in manipulating SIEC-controlled elections stand in direct contradiction to the goals of decentralization and grassroots empowerment. The installation of stooges at the local government level ensures that even if financial and administrative autonomy is granted, these local governments will remain under the effective control of the state executive.
SIECs elections far from being free and fair
The flaws in the structure and operation of SIECs have made it virtually impossible for local government elections to be conducted in a free and fair manner. Reports of electoral malpractices, including vote-buying, voter intimidation, and ballot stuffing, are rampant in elections conducted by these commissions. In many instances, opposition parties are either prevented from participating or face significant obstacles that make meaningful participation difficult.
For example, in the 2020 local government elections in Kano State, the ruling APC won all 44 chairmanship seats and 484 councilor positions. The results were criticized by opposition parties, including the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which alleged widespread irregularities, including the use of state resources to favor the APC. Similar accusations of manipulation and rigging have been made in local government elections across various states, further undermining the legitimacy of SIECs.
The lack of competitiveness in local government elections is another indication of the compromised nature of SIECs. Opposition parties are often left with little chance of winning, as the entire process is skewed in favor of the ruling party. This lack of competition not only undermines democracy but also stifles the development of alternative voices and ideas at the grassroots level
The charade of local government elections conducted by SIECs is not only undemocratic but also a waste of time and resources. The organization of these elections requires significant financial and logistical investments, yet the outcomes are predetermined. Taxpayer money is spent on elections that do not reflect the will of the people, but rather serve as a rubber stamp for the ruling party’s dominance.
This waste is compounded by the fact that local governments, once elected, often lack the autonomy to address the needs of their communities. With political stooges in place, these local governments become ineffective and unable to fulfill their constitutional mandate. As a result, the resources expended on these elections are essentially squandered, with no real benefit to the electorate.
The persistence of SIECs in their current form is an insult to the collective sensibilities of Nigerians who value democracy and good governance. Local government elections should provide an opportunity for citizens to elect representatives who will address their local concerns and advocate for their interests. Instead, these elections have become a mockery of the democratic process, where the ruling party’s victory is assured regardless of public sentiment.
This situation breeds disillusionment and apathy among voters, many of whom feel that their votes do not matter. The predictable outcomes of local government elections conducted by SIECs discourage political participation and contribute to the overall weakening of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Not to be
Given the overwhelming evidence of their failure to conduct free, fair, and transparent elections, there is a strong case for the immediate abrogation of the laws that give legitimacy to SIECs. These commissions have become tools of political manipulation, serving the interests of state governors rather than the people. Their continued existence undermines democracy and perpetuates the dominance of the ruling party at the local government level.
The responsibility for conducting local government elections should be transferred to a more impartial and independent body. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is responsible for conducting federal and state elections, is better suited to oversee local government elections as well. While INEC is not without its flaws, it operates with a greater degree of independence and transparency than SIECs. Transferring the responsibility for local government elections to INEC would help ensure that these elections are conducted in a more impartial and credible manner.
Final words
In conclusion, the States Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) have become a charade in Nigeria’s political system, serving the interests of state governors and reinforcing the dominance of ruling parties at the local government level. The lack of independence, the installation of political stooges, and the manipulation of election results have rendered SIECs ineffective in conducting free and fair elections. They represent a waste of time, resources, and an insult to the collective intelligence of Nigerians who believe in democracy.
The immediate abrogation of SIECs and the transfer of their responsibilities to a more impartial body, such as INEC, is necessary to restore credibility to local government elections. Only then can Nigeria ensure that local government elections truly reflect the will of the people and serve as a foundation for grassroots democracy.
Manjang, one-time Commissioner of Information and Communication, Plateau State, can be reached on dmanjang@gmail.com