The chairperson of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Lawyer Emmanuel Daniel Joof, has made their position clear, that the 50 plus 1 (electoral system) and second-round of voting should be included in the Election Bills 2021.
[It is worth explaining that in a 50 plus 1 electoral system, the leading Presidential candidate in the first round of voting has to garner a majority of vote in order to win the first round; failure of which the top-two candidates in the first round face each other in the second-ballot, otherwise called a re-run or run-off.]
Appearing before members of the National Assembly Joint-Committee on the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), and Human Rights and Constitutional Matters, on Wednesday, 5th May 2021, Joof divulged that they also suggested the need to include 50 plus 1 second round of voting, for the Presidency.
The bill, he pointed out, talks about voting, deposits, thresholds and many things, but the second-round of voting for the Presidency is not captured in the bill.
“We looked at the bill and the second-round of voting was stipulated in the constitution once upon a time, but it was easily removed. So, we thought that the 50 plus one should have been included in the Elections Bill 2021,” the prominent human rights lawyer told the NAMs in the joint committee.
Further, Joof said they have observed clause 4 sub-clause 2 (G) of the said Bill, which relates to the powers and functions of the IEC. He said their concern is with the issue of issuing permit to the political party for campaign, processions and rallies, as stated in section 25.
He submitted that the latter section ‘guarantees and talks’ about the right to freedom of assembly, including the right of political parties to hold rallies, and subjecting the exercise of this right to the authority of permit.
Joof expressed the point that, subjecting the exercise of this right to the authority of permit might hinder it enjoyment; therefore they were suggesting that a law be put in place so that what will be required is notification regime, to allow the state to facilitate the exercise of this right.
The NHRC chief held, “the issue of notifying makes it easier rather than requesting, as one is begging even though it is a fundamental right”.
He told the Committee: “Let us look at the nomenclature and look at what happens in other countries, and look at what our advisory note.
“We should also change the nomenclature and make it in line with practices in those countries, for the issuing of permit [to] be based on notification.”
Joof said they had also scrutinized clause 140 which talks about results of the referendum as well as clause 141, and said that section 141 has no relevance.
The former Magistrate further told the Committee members the said ‘section has tautologized [needlessly repeated] what has been enshrined in Section 140’, which states that the results of the referendum is determined by simple majority of the votes cast at the referendum. He submitted therefore, that it’s needless to include clause 140.
He also referred to clause 68 which, he stated, talks about priority in voting, stating that in casting of votes, the Presiding Officer shall give priority to ‘persons with disability’, and the NHRC wanted that to be changed to ‘persons with disabilities’.
