US embassy cable - 02ABUJA1595

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 001595 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
KAMPALA FOR AID-D. LIBERI 
RIYADH FOR POL- R. HANKS 
 
 
E.O. 12598:N/A 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, PHUM, KDEM, NI 
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: ASSOCIATIONS CHALLENGE ELECTORAL 
COMMISSION'S AMENED REGISTRATION GUIDELINES 
 
 
REFTEL: AUBJA 1496 
 
 
1. Summary: The thirty-three political associations railed 
against party registration guidelines the Independent 
National Electoral Commission (INEC) revised on 5/17, 
arguing that the amended guidelines were as unconstitutional 
as the ones they rejected earlier this month (reftel). 
Though the association plans to meet INEC's May 28 
application deadline, they are threatening to take INEC to 
court over provision they believe contravene the 1999 
Constitution. This is the latest in the volley in the 
running feud between the yet to be registered associations 
and INEC. While some of what we see is theatrics, this 
episode demonstrates the lack of confidence the association 
has in INEC. They continue to believe that the "I" in INEC 
does not stand for "independent" but "instrument" of the 
President. End Summary. 
 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Associations challenge INEC draft guidelines 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
 
2. Thirty-three political associations seeking party 
registration unanimously rejected the amended draft 
guidelines INEC issued on May 7. INEC had amended the 
guidelines after a stormy meeting with representatives of 
the association on May 17. The association argues vehemently 
that the provisions of the guidelines exceed constitutional 
requirements. The associations claim that INEC cannot impose 
requirements not specifically contained in sections 222, 
223, and 224 of the 1991 constitution-the sections relating 
to political parties. Section 222 (c) requires parties to 
provide INEC with one copy of their constitution, but INEC 
wants twenty copies. Section 222 (a) requires parties 
provide INEC names and address of the political parties 
national officers; however, INEC requires signatures and 
"state and local government area of origin" for all party 
members. 
 
 
3. INEC Chairman Dr. Abel Guobadia asserts that sections 
relied on by the associations are just minimal standards 
that the constitution contemplate and that the National 
Assembly and INEC will produce additions and laws of 
regulation, respectively. Guobadia cites Section 228 of the 
Constitution as giving INEC the power to register parties 
and establish regulations beyond what is specifically 
contained in the Constitution so long as INEC does not 
isolate provisions of the Constitution. The parties want the 
courts to decide on whether the guidelines are 
constitutional. 
 
 
4. Comment: Many of the issues raised by the association 
seem unimportant. However, the associations contend that 
they must fight the Electoral Commission in these minor, 
alleged constitutional violations. If they acquiesce, they 
fear they will be in a weaker position to argue with INEC on 
more serious arrogation of authority in the future. Again 
this fear that INEC is setting to entrap them illustrates 
how much the association distrusts INEC. End Comment 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------ 
The 10/24 rule and the Election Law 
------------------------------------ 
 
 
5. The most controversial provision of the May guidelines 
required that parties win 10% of the seats in local 
elections in 24 states to be eligible to participate in 
state and federal elections. The amended guideline makes no 
explicit reference to this requirement. Some observers 
believe this omission means that INEC will no longer hold 
parties to any requirement. However, others point to the 
fact that the amended guideline states that comply with the 
2001 electoral act which still includes the 10/24 threshold. 
They believe that INEC has not dropped the 10/24 threshold 
but was trying to use subterfuge and indirection to sneak 
through the backdoor a provision the association openly 
railed against. 
 
 
--------------------------------- 
INEC: Partial to the Presidency? 
--------------------------------- 
 
 
6. The association has also excoriated INEC for basing its 
guidelines on the discredited 2001 election law. The 
National Assembly amended the law and measures are now 
awaiting President assent. INEC's critics state the body 
should have based its registration guidelines on the 2002 
measure not its tainted predecessor. 
 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
 
7. The association seems intent on bullying INEC inch-by- 
inch. This means that there will be other issues the 
association will bring to court. Resorting to the court is a 
function of the association's suspicion. Some of their 
doubts are exaggerated; some are well founded. While the 
courts can have a salutary effect in resolving some issues, 
the judiciary cannot cure what requires a political remedy- 
the perception that INEC is an appendage and not an 
independent entity.  In the end, INEC has to do a much 
better job consulting with the political associations and 
civil society and take action to demonstrate its 
impartiality. 
JETER