A ruling from the Independent National Electoral Commission appears to have squashed the recall attempt against Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The commission’s report shows just how challenging Nigeria’s recall law is, thanks to one provision that stands out compared to other countries that regularly use the electoral device.
While they may seem like an unusual weapon – the Los Angeles Times once called it “freak legislation” – recalls have become a very popular electoral tool across the globe. The United States of America, which only allows recalls at the state and local level, had almost 100 officials forced to an early ballot last year, with 77 of them losing office. The country has held some of the most prominent recalls, including the 2003 recall effort in California that led to the election of movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.
|
|
But the device has been active throughout the world. In the 21st Century alone, there also have been recall votes against the Presidents of Mexico, Venezuela and Romania, as well as mayors of Frankfurt, Germany; Lima, Peru; Warsaw, Poland and Kaohsiung, Taiwan. The United Kingdom adopted a recall law in 2015 and has already seen it used four times. Canada had its first recall election ever two years ago. And Taiwan’s legislature is currently undergoing an all-out recall battle, with duelling petitions taken out against 79 members of the Yuan (parliament).
Wherever recalls exist, the signature collection requirement is generally the biggest challenge stopping recalls. But the percentage totals to get a recall on the ballot in other places are frequently a fraction of what Nigeria requires. In the United States, the different states use either a percentage of voter turnout for the position at the last election or a percentage of the registered voters. The US state requirements range from 10 per cent to 25 per cent of voters. And most recall efforts fail. In a country where paying people to collect signatures for ballot measures is a regular part of the political process, somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of threatened recalls do not get enough signatures to lead to an election.
|
|
|
|---|
In other countries, the bar is also much lower. In the UK and Taiwan, the bar is set at 10 per cent of registered voters. Venezuela has a 20 per cent minimum. Mexico requires only 3 per cent.
What separates Nigeria’s recall from many of these countries is the very high hurdle to get on the ballot. Nigeria’s Constitution requires that petitioners collect the signatures and thumbprints of over 50 per cent of registered voters in the targeted jurisdiction. In Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case, that works out to 237,278 voters. Petitioners managed to get 208,132 signatures, just missing this high bar.
READ ALSO: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Nigerias politics of denying women, By Toyin Falola
In most countries that have recall campaigns, there are complaints about their usage. That is certainly the case in Nigeria, where Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan is seen as facing the recall due to speaking out about mistreatment of women political figures. Having a high signature requirement is one way to cut back. Some voters and certainly many politicians may appreciate the fact that it is not easy to qualify a recall for the ballot. But Nigeria’s requirement, which is one of the highest, makes a recall exceedingly unlikely to occur.
Joshua Spivak is a Senior Fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College and a Senior Research Fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center. He is the author of Recall Elections: From Alexander Hamilton to Gavin Newsom.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
