 The Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project CERAP has filed a lawsuit against the Independent National Electrical Commission for failing to prosecute those suspected of vote-buying and electoral bribery during the recently concluded election. CERAP noted that, according to reports, there was a brazen pattern of vote-buying and electoral bribery at several polling units during the recently concluded elections, including bargaining prices for votes and payments made in uncompleted buildings. Joining us to discuss this and break it down is the Deputy Director of CERAP, Oluwadare Kolawoli. Thank you so much, Mr Kolawoli, for joining us. Thank you very much, Mary Ann. I'm happy to be here. Thank you. Now, I have had at least three of the running of formal governorship candidates for equity state elections. I had a couple of them in the studio. One succinctly said here in this studio that he saw vote-buying happening right under his nose and he could not do anything about it, but that he could see it happening. One would also wonder why INEC is being sued because INEC's job is to conduct these elections. How does INEC also play the role of a law enforcement in cases like this when they are also saddled with the responsibility of making sure that the elections go as planned? Thank you very much, Mary Ann. I think we need to put that in proper context. In this instance, INEC is the empire and the empire has to do the job in a way that the objectives are met. Elections being a very important part of the democratic process means you must be free and fair and there must be done in a way that the winner can come out in line with the provisions of the law. To do that, INEC is repealed by the constitution and principally by the Electoral Act 2022. In this instance, INEC has that responsibility to ensure that elections are free and fair. While it plays a role in doing that, that does not take away its role to prosecute those who are found culpable. That is what makes the Electoral Act 2022 very interesting. It empowers INEC not only to monitor and do everything in accordance with the Electoral Act to make sure that elections are free and fair, but to also prosecute those who are found culpable. The Electoral Act says that INEC will be the prosecutors in cases for fences under the Electoral Act. I think it's beyond doubt that this is happening in the United States. The law is very clear. The Electoral Act itself criminalizes both by section 121 of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act is very clear. Section 121 of the Electoral Act is also very clear to us on due influence among other Electoral Offences that we saw upon investigation. So the least INEC can do is to investigate. They can always partner with the anti-production agencies in the regard of the law enforcement agencies, including the ICPC and the general employees, to do the investigating part and then they can do their part and to prosecute. A lot of advocacy has gone towards this, but I think it's more of an unwillingness to those who have participated in various acts of electoral map processes in the United States. We have written to INEC and then we did not get any results. We had to go to courts. The basis of the law system is very simple. We are asking the court to compel INEC to do what the law system should do, basically with this to investigate those allegations. There are two different allegations of today until they are proved before the court of competent jurisdiction and to make sure that INEC prosecutes those individuals who are found liable across all the political parties and to ensure that they face justice. What we've seen in Electoral Act, the process in any way, would mind is so serious that it is criminalized in Electoral Act. So we've seen more movement from Barnett's strategy to vote by and the other side must put his foot down, so to speak, to ensure that this is needed. So that we don't carry these over into going into the debate. We've seen it happen to make it a state, nothing was done. And then it happened again in National State and nothing has been done so far. So what guarantees that INEC will be able to ensure that this does not repeat itself in 2023? Are the rather old full tonneau of elections in 2023? And we are very hopeful that the cultural agreement goes into effect. It's hard to see the court deciding otherwise. As much as you have explained to us what the process should be, I'm thinking, if INEC is now compelled, if INEC is compelled to do what you have said, do what they originally are supposed to do, because this is what the Act, the Electoral Law says. I'm thinking to myself, is INEC now supposed to work with security agencies because sometimes this vote buying, and I'm not making any case for the vote buyers, I'm just saying sometimes it doesn't happen directly under the watch of INEC, like you have said, they have a responsibility, but sometimes this vote buying has happened just before the process in itself kick starts. So as Sarah, what do you do in partnering INEC to make sure that this is done the right way? Because again, INEC will tell you they still do not have powers to enforce if these vote buyers are caught, for example, they have to be apprehended by security agents, but if INEC sees that this party or party A or party B, party C, and their agents were most involved, should that mean that INEC needs to cancel the election? What exactly happens at the end of the day? Will everyone believe that this can lead to Constellation? That is within the poverty of INEC anyway. But this is not what the lawsuit or this advocacy is about. It is INEC doing the job that the law empowers them to do. And so the least we could expect INEC to do is to engage the law enforcement agencies. INEC has not come out to say they are engaging a young police force or waiting to them in any way to investigate these allegations. There are video clips in the public domain showing actions of vote buying and on the influence on libraries. So what has INEC done about that? That they engage the police to investigate these allegations and that turn out. So investigating these allegations is different from prosecuting the allegations. Investigation will establish whether there is a problem of the C case and then INEC can prosecute that in court. But if INEC is not doing the investigation naturally, it cannot proceed to prosecution and we have not seen INEC come out to say that it is doing anything at all to investigate these allegations. And we are not asking INEC to investigate the case. INEC can work with the law enforcement agencies to investigate. Then INEC can prosecute. The way INEC prosecution goes in court is to ensure that everyone has to pretend that they favor the prosecution against those who are brought before the court. But INEC is not doing any of this. To speak directly to your question, a set up is doing its bit. We are doing the work we can do right now. We have had a discussion about it. This is part of the legal arbitration on these kind of issues. And I decided to let everyone to INEC to investigate and to prosecute these offenders. And I believe that the court should be able to do this to compare INEC to at least start the process of investigation. Right now it looks some months away. Let the prosecution start. Then we will talk about whether we will get convictions or not. But you would agree with me that INEC taking this step will go a long way. And not as a deterrent for those who might want to do that. Which is the major reason why INEC should do this right now is to ensure that these actions of work that appears to be going day by day does not happen. And it does not matter that the 2023 elections. If you were made to speculate because we are here to of course seek answers to reasons why INEC is yet to take action. What would you think is the reason why INEC is dragging its feet on this particular matter? I am guessing also on the one hand that INEC is supposed to be as objective as possible to make sure that we have free fair and credible elections. So I am not thinking that they are delivered. But then if you were made to speculate, what would you think is responsible for the foot dragging? It would be interesting to see the differences that were brought before the court to defend their inaction in this instance. But also as I guess I would say it looks like INEC does not have the boldness to take this step as a number in the electoral process. And actually they are bold enough to take this step. This is not the way we are chanting any political party. It is INEC doing what the law asks them to do. And in this instance doing this also empowers INEC to do better or makes the job of INEC easy. Because INEC takes this, INEC has taken this step in equity. Possibly we are going to see less of this in motion. And if INEC does not act about equity and motion now, then they would expect more of that to happen in the 2023 elections. Which creates more of a problem for INEC. So it is actually the best in terms of INEC to do this right now. I really cannot say with specifics why INEC is not taking this step. But last, even then, with Monday's and the duty to do so, we hope that the court will compare them ultimately to do so. I always like to make reference to the fact that Serb has so many suits against governments, government agencies. Seriously, like you said, these are part of your advocacy to get people to do the right thing. But let's look at the loopholes that may have been created by this new electoral law. And some of the worries that we might have come 2023, like one that you have also pointed to, if we don't deal with this issue of vote buying. Yes. No law is made to be perfect. Laws and instrument of social union goes through various changes. It's like a test trial. Then we are now in the game to super purpose. Which is why again, one of the reasons why the electoral act was amended in 2022. There are issues with electoral act, but the major issue is in the lack of institutions of government. I like in this instance, I think the general police force and anti-corruption agencies to implement the law as it is. So in that way, we cannot even begin to find out whether the witnesses in the areas of the law, when the law is not applied as it should. And so the electoral act 2022 is not a bad law, but has been tested in the sense to make sure that we can then tweak it if there are issues. So for instance, when you look at the issue of vote buying, criminalizing vote buying in India in section 121 of the electoral act is in reality, it is in conformity with all local realities. We know vote buying is rampant. And to show you the seriousness of this offence, it carries the energy of 500,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment in lieu of the fine. And the same thing goes on being influenced on election today. So that is 100,000 or 12 months imprisonment. So the law understands that it is a serious offence and it is taking steps. But the law is not in law, it must be enforced, it must be applied. So if these individuals are not investigated, if they are not prosecuted, then there is no law for the judge to pronounce on. No one will go to jail for this, and then people are emboldened to do the wrong thing. A very good part of the electoral act is also, which fits the context of this discussion about not enforcing our laws, is section 115 of the electoral act about individuals who have been seen to rob bots, two forms, two nomination forms, which is clearly an infection under section 115 of the electoral act. Again, this is in the public domain. You would expect INEP to come out to investigate and prosecute these individuals. This is not about cancellation of election. It is clearly an electoral offence and it is a crime under the electoral act. That again is not done. So it is not about the inefficiencies of the act, but the willingness to apply the law. This is not only applicable to the electoral act. It cuts across many laws in Nigeria. The act itself created weaknesses for those laws, and ultimately the institutions that this law has governed, it is not in the best interest of our democratic practice, not at all. Let me play the devil's advocate a little bit here. I hope that I don't get my head cut off. INEP can give the excuse that they are saddled with so many responsibilities and seem to be a bit wary. We see this continuous voter's registration ongoing. They had to extend to also go into cleaning of the register so that they can take out double registrations in preparation for 2023. They are being dragged in several directions. They have had to conduct a number of elections in November of last year, and then they have done a show on a kitty, and of course they are preparing for February of 2023. Could that also be a good enough excuse? Or could it also be that INEP is overly stretched and they are unable to look at some of these issues, even though there may be departments that are saddled with the responsibility of making sure that these prosecutions happen? You are making too much sense for devil's advocate. You are possibly a more fan angelic advocate in this instance. That will not stand really. That will not be a reason at all, and I don't see INEP putting that reason forward at all. This time it will be safe. These elections that INEP had known that they were going to come up at least more, they had a year's notice for their election. So they knew. And that is why they had gone into the budget and the statutory allocations for 2022. So they know that they got funding for it and they got the manpower and the logistics to do. That is not a nice case at the moment. We just found one of the basis of the advocacy we didn't put when we filed a case to challenge the discontinuation of the Continental Group of Registration exercise by banning it to the 90-day window that the electorate was giving nine-net between the active registration and the actual elections. INEP saw this election coming at least four years to be here. And INEP had no kind of a lack of funds. We have not had done anything like that. So what will be the problem? Again, it might be a sort of institutional failure, which is not usual in Nigeria, or just lack of political will to ensure that we have seamless and very effective elections. It's really that they have to conduct a number of elections, make it election also elections could not in any way impede the effect of the capacity of India to conduct three and four elections one by three. If at all this election should be a litmus space to work the system so to speak so that they can see what the challenge is there and have enough time. They have more than five months before ordinary elections to fix what could be wrong. So these elections could not be the problem. If you ask me, I think we are part of the solution to the problem. Well, quickly, I just want to ask, because we always hear every time we have these elections for Oshun, Eikiti, or Anambra, we always make reference to them every election cycle, that there are litmus tests for the main election and half the time there's not necessarily any change. I'm asking this question because of the people who are very hopeful of what to expect for 2023 and that there might just be some real change come 2023. And all of these elections as they have happened with all the allegations that have stuck with them, what's the guarantee that 2023 would be any different? Finally. I think we need to ask that question. It's very important that we pose that question to Aenek and ensure that we step up advocacy to ensure that whatever challenges we can identify now there's all. At least we can see with the Eikiti and Oshun elections that the incidence of ballot smacking appears to be dying off and then they are all fortunate to be replaced by vote buying which is another problem. So Aenek can also take steps and which is why we're doing this advocacy. The easiest thing that Aenek can do is to ensure that individuals who are accountable face the law and that way that's a very good deterrent to those whom I want to try and it also strengthens the resolve of Aenek. If people see Aenek as very determined to ensure that the vote buying and other electoral processes are going into 2023. So we talk about this every election cycle about the litmus test elections because we've seen that Aenek needs to sit up. We saw this coming. We had a lot of time to plan. Really there's no excuse for Aenek to fall short of the expectations of the Nigerians. There's no excuse. None of them are acceptable. All right. Clawalo Lluwadari is the Deputy Director of CERAP and we want to thank you so much for being part of this conversation. We're looking forward to what comes out of this. Thank you very much Mary. All right. That's the show tonight ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being part of the conversation. Tomorrow we're back 7pm talking for development and bringing you the biggest stories in Nigeria's political space. I am Mary Anacone. Have a good night.