EUEOM report on Nigeria’s elections and legal reliance
By Olawale Iskil Lawal (PhD)
Although the terms “election monitors” and “election observers” have often been used interchangeably, scholars in Political Science prefer separate usage, not just as a matter of correctness but to create strict delineation for their conceptual usage and normative framework. I made similar but humble submission in my recently published work titled: The Challenges of Election Observation in Africa in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS) ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume VII Issue IV April 2023. For this purpose, election monitors have direct impact on elections of a state. They provide the framework, legal environment, structures, logistics etc. for elections. Example is usually electoral commission of a state. Election observers do not have immediate impact on elections of a state, to the extent that they only observe and make recommendations to ensure electoral integrity. What they observe do not take effect on the elections they are observing but their recommendations may influence subsequent elections. This is the fulcrum of the difference between “observe” and “monitor”.
READ ALSO:
ICPC recovers N455b assets diverted from federal coffers
The recent release of the EU Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) about the just concluded general elections in Nigeria ignites a recourse to writing this. In its report, the EUEOM observes that “although the election showed serious commitment to democracy, it also exposed enduring systemic weakness and therefore signal a need for further legal and operational reforms”. And there, the EUEOM has done its work.
However, a strong resonance develops, when Nigerians transfer political energy and legal amplitude into the otherwise EU recommendations. Almost immediately some politicians from the two divides combust on the possible impact of this on the ongoing election tribunals. The opposition jubilates in the hope that the EU report will influence adjudication conclusion of the jurists while the those in the ruling party fear that the EU EOM is not fair to have released the report in the middle of a judicial process. They quipped a prejudice vulnerability.
It does not work that way, unfortunately. The EUEOM and all international observation missions do not make their report fit for judicial proceedings, one, because they are not electoral agency of a state and two, because credible assessment of an electoral process requires reasonable separation from the administration being observed. The legal utility of observation mission is only to provide and observe how legal evidence is handled and provide recommendation where this is not handled properly. As the EOMs are required to maintain noninterference in the political process of a state, they also observe strict legal neutrality and why a municipal law should not rely on them for supply of evidence,
Smarting from the above, one will observe that there is no single paragraph in the EUEOM report that anyone can rely upon to initiate or submit for judicial proceeding. And because the EU is a diplomatic organ, it is not stark in its pronunciamiento, thus, creating some imbalance when it is to be relied upon for legal interpretations. The EUEOM is not an appendage of any political interest thus, it will not strengthen any judgment, whether political or legal. International election observation missions are more interested in reforms than outcome and that is why for every observable shortfall, they make clear recommendations for improvements. Now, their recommendation cannot be used as basis of derelictions for judicial notice but for reform purposes. Aware of the political components of their reports and possible legal assistance accruals, details of finding of electoral observation missions, are absolutely protected.
Finally, whether elections run in conformity or counter-conformity with established procedures, election observers do not interfere with the electoral process as clearly spelt out “Non-interference in the election process. International observers must not interfere with the work of electoral administrators. Their mandate is not to supervise, correct mistakes or resolve local conflicts, but only to observe, report and assess”. Therefore, the goal is, in the longer term, to help ensure electoral integrity, and strengthen civil society’s capacity to promote citizen participation, engage in policy advocacy and foster governmental accountability within and well beyond the election cycle.
Olawale Iskil Lawal (PhD), is a Senior Lecturer, Department of History and International Studies, Lagos State University