The concept of recall in Nigeria’s democracy

By Olusola Oladipo

One of the important instruments of authority vested in the people in a democracy is recall.

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines recall as removal of a public official from office by a popular vote. Recall is the process by which a legislator may be removed from his legislative seat before the expiration of his constitutional term by the electorates of his constituency on grounds of loss of confidence.

Recall is a unique political device exercised by the electorates to scrutinize the performance of representatives in the legislature and to remove the incompetent ones and those that do not pay enough attention to their constituents.

The recall of a legislator from the legislative house is representative of the impeachment of the executive heads of government.

The two processes seek to remove political office holders from office before the end of their constitutional term.

However, unlike the impeachment of the executive heads of government which is the responsibility of the legislature, the recall of a legislator is entirely the responsibility of the electorates of the legislator’s constituency.

Therefore, recall is to the electorates what impeachment is to the legislature.

It was based on the belief that Nigerians have an idea of the goals of nationhood and the objectives of representation.

In simple terms therefore, the following are some of various reasons for the recognition and codification of the power of recall in the constitution:

1. By virtue of section 14 (2) (a) of the 1999 constitution, the sovereign power at all times belongs to people. In the spirit of this provision, they retain the mandate to vote in or vote out any erring representative.
2. Recall enhances legislative accountability. That is, the recall provision is seen as an instrument to ensure regular and close oversight of elected legislators and to make them work continuously, rather than periodically, responsible and responsive to the will and desires of the electorates.
3. Without the recall provision, the electorates must wait until the next scheduled election to voice their opinions on an incumbent’s performance.

Processes of Recall

To start with, it is important for any member or group of people in a constituency who felt that they have lost confidence in their representative to formally write to and secure the certified true copy (CTC) of duly registered voters in that constituency from INEC if it is not available to them yet.

This would make it easier for the constituents to generate the constitutionally required signatures of more than 50% of registered voters that would be attached to a recall petition.

Section 69 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (First Alteration) Act, 2010 provides as follows: A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives may be recalled as such a member if:

(a) There is presented to the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission a petition in that behalf signed by more than one half of the persons registered to vote in that member’s constituency alleging their loss of confidence in that member and which signatures are duly verified by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

(b) The petition is thereafter, in a referendum conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission within ninety days of the date of receipt of the petition, approved by a simple majority of the votes of the persons registered to vote in that member’s constituency.

Section 68 (h) of the Constitution then provides that “a member of the senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the house which he is a member if the President of the Senate or as the case may be, the Speaker of the House of Representatives receives a certificate under the hand of the chairman of INEC stating that the provisions of section 69 of the Constitution have been complied with in respect of the recall of that member.

The constitution provides that the petition must be signed by more than half of the registered voters in the legislator’s constituency and such signatures must be verified by INEC. It is important to note that this signature threshold is too high and impracticable.

In Switzerland, Schaffhauses require only 1000 signatures on the petition. In Philippines, the signature threshold is 25% of the registered voters. In the United Kingdom, the signature threshold is 10% of the registered voters.

Recall attempts in Nigeria

Examples of recall attempts in Nigeria:

1. Recall Attempt of Ibrahim Mantu

In the year 2005, a petition was received by INEC to recall Ibrahim Mantu who was then Deputy Senate President of Nigeria. This was a reaction to his questionable role in the futile effort to amend the 1999 constitution to enable the then president Olusegun Obasanjo to prolong his tenure by another four years.

After much pushback, INEC in April 2006, announced its discontinuation of the exercise on the grounds that the 90 day period prescribed for the exercise by the constitution has expired. Note that 90-day period did not expire before senator Mantu went to court to seek for an injunction to restrain INEC from commencing the verification of signatures as a necessary step towards a referendum.

One of the vexatious issues that bogged the minds of educated people in Nigeria then was why INEC decided to obey the decision of the court not to continue with the recall exercise pending the determination of the suit unlike its reaction in a similar recall experience with Solomon Lalung earlier the same year.

2. Recall Attempt of Solomon Lalung

This happened in 2005 when the governor of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye was arrested in London for alleged money laundering, but he managed to escape to Nigeria where he has immunity against prosecution.

To get rid of this immunity, agitations were made for him to be impeached, a process which is the responsibility of the Plateau State legislature, headed by Solomon Lalung (the then speaker of the House).

The later however refused to impeach the governor. For this, the move to recall him kicked off with a petition in that regard to INEC.

No sooner had he received the petition than he ran to court and successfully obtained an order restraining INEC from continuing with the recall exercise. Ignoring the decision of the court, INEC went ahead to conduct the referendum which however ended in favour of the embattled speaker as only 27% of the total votes was recorded against him.

3. Recall Attempt of Senator Dino Melaye

Dino Melaye was a senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District. The petition to recall him was received by INEC on 21st June, 2017.

Some of the reasons that informed the recall petition include his insults to leaders, elders and personalities without much ado. Just like other attempts to recall some legislators in the past, this attempt failed.

This time around, the reason for the failure was that the total number of signatures verified fell below the constitutional requirement.

One notable feature of Dino’s recall was the response of the court to the delay tactics employed by the senator to frustrate the recall exercise. His efforts to prevent the recall exercise proved abortive as the court held that the 90 days provided in the constitution does not include the time spent in litigation.

Other notable challenges with recall include: Judicial interference or sharp practices by Lawyers, political apathy, bias by INEC, security challenges, capital requirement (funding).

In conclusion, the instrument of recall is definitely a means of ensuring legislative accountability. Any absence of a recall provision denies the electorates the power to curtail legislative excesses.

Luckily though for Nigeria, sections 69 & 110 of the 1999 Constitution guarantee the right to recall an erring legislator. Therefore, the country has experienced several recall attempts, the recent of which is the failed attempt to recall Senator Dino Melaye.

However, it is important to note that none of the recall attempts was successful due to a number of factors. These include political and judicial interference in the exercise of the right to recall a legislator, high signature requirement, political apathy by the electorates, indifference of the electoral body, security challenges and some challenges inflicted by the Constitution itself.

Worst still, a further critical examination of the recall provision under our law revealed certain loopholes which, except where urgent legislative or judicial attention is given, will contribute a great deal of confusion, abuse and frustration of the recall process.

For instance, the recall provision does not clearly spell out what conduct that may inform a loss of confidence in a legislator. This obviously creates room for recall frenzy.

In order to forestall the aforementioned challenges to recall, the following steps are deemed necessary:

1. There is a great need for the electorates to be sensitized on the processes for a recall through all possible means including the media.
2. Integrate Civic Education into the Curriculum: Ensure that all students receive education on electoral rights and processes, including the recall provisions outlined in Sections 69 and 110 of the Constitution.
3. Teacher Training and Resources: Invest in training teachers to deliver civic education effectively, providing necessary resources.
4. There is a great duty on the part of INEC officials to carry out their functions without any iota of fear or favour. This can also be done in collaboration with civil society organizations.
5. The minimum percentage of signature requirement under the Constitution is too high and certainly constitutes a major barrier to a successful recall process in Nigeria. Therefore, there is need for the percentage to be reduced so as to reflect international best practice which obtain in developed countries.
6. Unlike some developed countries, Nigerian Constitution is silent on what conduct that may warrant a ‘loss of confidence’ in a legislator. This may lead to abuse of the recall provision. Therefore, the Constitution should be amended to contain not just the requirement of a reason to back the petition but it should clearly itemize all such grounds that may inform loss of confidence in a legislator.
7. Lawyers are advised against the use of delay tactics where the interest of the society is at stake. Also, it is submitted that lawyers should shape their minds in line with the rulings of His Lordship, Nnamdi Dimgba in Dino Melaye V. INEC as it relates to future cases on recall.

Prince Olusola Oladipo is the chairman of COPDEM National Media Committee.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook