The Nigerian political landscape is abuzz with divergent views on how to fill legislative vacancies arising from the resignation or death of lawmakers. A proposal by prominent lawyer Femi Falana has reignited the debate. Falana suggested that political parties should internally nominate replacements for vacant seats, arguing that “the votes were for the political parties.” This proposition, however, has faced outright rejection from key political parties like the Labour Party (LP) and the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP), sparking widespread discussion.
The Background: Rising Costs of Bye-Elections
This debate stems from a proposal by the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, who raised concerns over the high costs of conducting bye-elections. During a meeting with political parties, Yakubu lamented that since the formation of the current legislative house in 2023, 23 vacancies have occurred due to resignations or deaths. INEC has already conducted nine bye-elections, with 14 more pending in various states.
Yakubu emphasized the need for electoral reform to ease financial burdens and allow INEC to focus on “broader electoral duties.” His comments have fueled discussions on whether a cost-effective alternative such as allowing political parties to replace lawmakers internally could work in Nigeria’s democratic system.
What Does the Law Say About Filling Vacant Seats?
The Nigerian Constitution is notably silent on filling vacancies in the legislative house caused by the death or resignation of sitting lawmakers. However, Section 32 of the 2022 Electoral Act provides guidance for handling the death of political candidates during elections. It mandates that parties conduct fresh primaries within 14 days to select a replacement candidate, postponing the election until this requirement is met.
But does this provision extend to sitting lawmakers? In November 2023, the Senate rejected an amendment bill proposed by Senator Sunday Karimi (APC, Kogi), which sought to allow political parties to replace deceased or resigned lawmakers without fresh elections. Like Falana, Karimi argued that the votes belonged to the political party, not the individual.
This reasoning was firmly opposed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, who countered, “The votes were for the person who died. It is the final election that sends someone to the parliament, not the primary.” Akpabio and other senators maintained that democracy is about individual representation, not party dominance, and bypassing elections undermines this principle.
The Core Debate: Cost vs. Democracy
Falana’s proposition, which echoes Senator Karimi’s earlier bill, has sparked a critical question: Should the cost of bye-elections justify sidelining democratic processes? While reducing costs is a valid concern, many argue that it should not come at the expense of the people’s right to choose their representatives.
The idea that votes belong to political parties rather than candidates is both constitutionally and democratically flawed. Nigerians overwhelmingly support individual candidates, often disregarding party affiliations. If votes were solely for parties, there would be no need for parties to field candidates in the first place.
Furthermore, Nigeria’s democracy differs from systems where party-based governance dominates. In countries like the United States, political parties are defined by ideologies such as conservative and liberal platforms and their members align with these ideologies. In contrast, Nigerian parties often lack unified ideological frameworks, with candidates running on personal agendas rather than shared party visions.
What’s at Stake?
Allowing political parties to replace lawmakers without elections could undermine the core tenets of democracy in Nigeria. While financial efficiency is important, it raises a critical question: What price is too high to preserve democracy? Nigeria’s democracy thrives on the active participation of its electorate, ensuring that every representative is chosen by the people, not by party elites.
Electoral reforms must balance cost-saving measures with the need to uphold democratic values. As debates continue, one thing remains clear: any solution must prioritize the will of the people over expedience or cost concerns.
