Not once since Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999 has a legislator been successfully recalled from office despite several previous attempts. With the most recent petition against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan falling short, there are questions of whether it is a necessary democratic safeguard or just one of the many provisions in the constitution that remain largely theoretical, SODIQ OMOLAOYE reports.
The recent dismissal of the recall petition lodged against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan representing Kogi Central, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has again brought the debate about the efficacy and fairness of the recall process in Nigeria to the front burner.
Despite being enshrined in sections 69 and 110 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended) respectively, the recall mechanism has indeed faced significant challenges in its implementation.
Sections 69, 110, and 160 of the Constitution and sections 2(c) and 113 of the Electoral Act (2022) empower INEC to conduct recall proceedings against a member of the National Assembly, State House of Assembly, or Area Council of the FCT, upon the receipt of a valid petition alleging a loss of confidence in the member by more than 50 per cent of voters registered to vote in that member’s constituency.
Upon receiving the petition, INEC is mandated to verify its authenticity and, if found valid, to conduct a referendum within 90 days. If a majority of voters in the referendum support the recall, lawmakers are constitutionally required to vacate their seats.
However, the president, vice president, state governors, and deputy governors are exempted from recall. The constitution only stipulates processes for their impeachment by the legislative arm of government.
But since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999, there has not been a single case where a legislator has successfully been recalled. Many see this situation as more of a theoretical provision than a practical tool for democratic accountability.
However, The Guardian’s findings reveal that attempts to recall lawmakers have always failed largely due to legal interventions, procedural inconsistencies, and political sentiments.
For instance, one of the most high-profile recall attempts in the country’s democratic history was the move against Senator Dino Melaye in 2017. The Kogi West constituents, whom Melaye represented in the Eighth Assembly, were reportedly aggrieved by his controversial conduct and alleged lack of representation and initiated a recall process.
But even with INEC verifying over 188,000 signatures from his constituency, the recall process collapsed under some legal gymnastics, delays, and alleged manipulation. The signature verification exercise recorded a woeful turnout of about 5.3 per cent of registered voters, which was well below the constitutional threshold required for a recall.
Yet, Melaye’s travail was not the first. The first shot at the recall process was in 2000, and it involved Mark Okoye, who represented Njikoka II State Constituency in Anambra State, on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Okoye claimed that the signatories in the petition differed from those in the voters’ register, leading to a court order restraining INEC from conducting the referendum. But the electoral umpire got a ruling in its favour and proceeded with the recall, but failed at the referendum due to the low turnout of registered voters.
There was also a case of the then Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, who was reportedly targeted over his controversial involvement in the failed third-term agenda of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
INEC received the petition but paused action when Mantu, who is now late, approached the courts. The constitutionally mandated 90-day window lapsed while the case lingered, leading INEC to discontinue the exercise.
Many lawmakers, including Senator Ali Ndume of Borno South in 2016; Senator Jubril Aminu in Adamawa State, in 2005; Garba Datti Mohammed in Kaduna State, in 2018; Senator Chris Ngige of Anambra Central, in 2012, and former House of Representatives members, Farouk Lawan and Abdulmumin Jibrin, but in the end, none of them were recalled as the processes all failed.
Observers blamed the failed recall attempts on stringent constitutional conditions required to initiate and complete the process. Among other things, the law demands that over 50 per cent of registered voters in a constituency should sign a recall petition, which many believe is too high.
In the case of Akpoti-Uduaghan, INEC found that only 208,132 out of the 250,000 signatures submitted were valid, falling short of the required 237,278. This was after one of the petitioners, Charity Omole, had alleged that over half of the 474,554 registered voters spread across 902 polling units in 57 Registration Areas (Wards) in the five local councils of Adavi, Ajaokuta, Ogori/Magongo, Okehi, and Okene, signed the petition.
INEC, while halting the process, said that it could only ascertain 208,132 signatures and thumbprints from the submission made by the petitioners, which translated to 43.86 per cent of the registered voters, thereby falling short of the constitutional requirement by 29,146 signatories.
The failure to meet these requirements meant that the petition could not move forward to the next stage, which would have involved a referendum to confirm the recall.
If the process had succeeded, INEC would have issued a “Certificate of Recall” to the presiding officer of the legislative house, where the legislator serves.
Many Nigerians argued that such stringent conditions attached to the recall process were necessary to avoid abuse by politicians, who would always make their colleagues jugular in some cases.
For instance, the attempt to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan is seen by many as part of the fallout of allegations that she levelled against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.
So, looking at the broader picture, it appeared that most recall processes are driven by political calculations rather than a genuine loss of confidence in their representatives, by members of the electorate.
But as a way out of the perennially unsuccessful exercise, stakeholders believe that reducing the percentage of registered voters required to initiate a recall petition would make the process more inclusive and less cumbersome.
Another issue that complicates the recall process is that even when enough signatures are gathered to meet the initial requirement, voters’ turnout at the referendum stage often fails to reach the necessary threshold. This is in addition to the fact that many Nigerians are ignorant of their right to initiate recalls.
During an X Spaces hosted by INEC recently, a Special Adviser to INEC Chairman, Prof. Mohammed Kuna, explained that a recall election involves significant resources, including staff mobilisation, technology, recall material deployments, and transportation.
He noted that the process is more expensive than a senatorial election, requiring efforts equivalent to conducting three such elections.
Also, the absence of sanctions for individuals or groups who abuse the recall process, in addition to the lack of constitutional limits on the frequency of recall petitions, constitutes another concern that stakeholders believe must be addressed.
There is no clear provision on how often a recall petition can be filed or any penalties for frivolous or politically motivated attempts. This lacuna is partly responsible for opening the door for dissatisfied parties to initiate recall processes, even after previous petitions have failed.
In other democracies, especially the United States, recall provisions exist at the state and local levels, with requirements ranging from 10 to 25 per cent of voters’ signatures to initiate a recall.
In contrast, Colombia’s recall process requires signatures from 30 per cent of the votes obtained by the elected official, while Ecuador mandates 10 per cent of registered voters’ support.
The National Secretary of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Oladipupo Olayokun, told The Guardian that though the recall process is seemingly tedious, it should be retained in the constitution to safeguard against manipulation by selfish politicians.
According to him, some desperate political opponents could hijack a less rigorous process to pursue their selfish interests against lawmakers whom they perceive as disobedient.
“Nigerian society is largely illiterate, and because of the ravaging poverty in the country, a lot of Nigerians will jump at any empowerment programme, only for them to discover later that it was a scam, meant to gather signatures for somebody’s recall.
“So, I think we should retain the letters as we have them in the constitution so that Nigeria does not fall into the hands of people who can twist the constitution to achieve their selfish aims. The INEC should, however, be diligent in the recall process,” he said.
Human rights lawyer, Obed Agu, does not see the recall procedure as cumbersome. While cautioning against political manipulation of the process, citing the attempt to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, he said democracy ordinarily should empower citizens to hold elected officials accountable and not allow a few individuals to hijack public mandate.
“It is not a tedious process. In the issue between Natasha and the people of Kogi Central, where she comes from, how did it start in the first place? If you look closely at that action on its own, would you say that Natasha was not representing her people well? Does it warrant any of the constituents of Kogi Central expressing a vote of no confidence in her? These are the factors that we have to consider. And when we break it down, we begin to see that the process is quite simple.
“If truly a lawmaker’s constituents feel deeply that he/she is not representing them well, and want to recall him/her, they can. What happened at that time was that power returned to the people who had elected them in the first place. But the unfortunate reality in this country is that the power that should ordinarily reside with the people has been taken away from them. If the people are allowed to express not just their opinions but the power they truly have, they will understand that even the president cannot stand against them.”
The Executive Director of Connected Development (CODE), Hazmat Lawal, held that any attempt to weaken the recall process might spell doom for the nation’s democracy. He argued that despite its complexity, the current conditions remain one of the few tools available for citizens to hold elected officials accountable.
“To be fair, being an elected lawmaker is not child’s play. It takes a process, first from the internal party process to getting on the ballot. And you are representing a constituency, which comprises a couple of local councils, or in some even cases, a geopolitical zone. So, I don’t think the process should be easy to recall.
