WHAT IF THE ELECTORAL UMPIRE IS PARTISAN?

This analysis delves into a critical aspect of Nigeria's democratic process: the perceived partisanship of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the President's authority in appointing its chairman. The piece highlights the inherent tension between the need for an impartial electoral body and the political reality of presidential nominations. It uses the analogy of a football club chairman selecting the referee for his own team's match to illustrate the potential for bias, even if the appointee acts with professionalism. The author thoughtfully navigates the argument, questioning whether stripping the president of this appointment power is the sole solution, given the president's role in appointing heads of other crucial institutions like the judiciary, police, and the Central Bank. The piece suggests that a complete removal of politics from such appointments might be unrealistic in a democracy, where political considerations often influence leadership selections across various sectors. It prompts a deeper consideration of how to sustain the non-partisanship of bodies like INEC when the very process of selecting their leadership is intertwined with politics. The Nigerian perspective here is crucial: while striving for electoral integrity, the article acknowledges the deeply political nature of governance and the challenges of insulating institutions from it entirely. This is a debate that resonates strongly within Nigeria, where elections are often high-stakes contests.

“

elections in Nigeria are almost like civil wars.