The proposal by the National Assembly to conduct the next presidential and governorship elections, as well as that of state and national assembly elections in November next year has not gone down well with some Nigerians, particularly the coalition powered by African Democratic Congress, ADC.

The federal lawmakers are proposing that the next general elections should be conducted six months before the end of the current administration’s tenure, instead of February or March as has been the tradition in the past.

The proposal, contained in a draft amendment to the 2022 Electoral Act, seeks to ensure that elections into the offices of President and Governors are held not later than 185 days before the expiration of the tenure of the incumbents. It is specifically proposing November 20, 2026 for the election into the offices of the President and Governors.

This development is not sitting well with some people who have argued that governance would suffer if the bill pulls through.

They are of the view that if that becomes the case, the current political leaders, that is the president and the state governors, would abandon governance and focus on their reelection, thereby denying the people the dividends of democracy and imposing more hardship on them.

It is their belief that once elections are to be conducted in November next year, all the allocations coming to the states henceforth, would be diverted towards the election instead of using them to provide infrastructure for the citizens.

Interestingly, the argument of those behind the proposal is that it will offer ample time to finish all electoral litigations before swearing in the winners.

They are of the view that a situation where somebody is sworn into an office of the president or office of the governor and he or she is using the state’s resources to pursue his or her electoral matter in the court is not a good idea.

They are uncomfortable with a situation where somebody would be removed from the office of the governor or president, sometimes two years after being sworn in, following the outcome of electoral litigation is not good for the country’s democracy. This is because, according to them, a wrong person would have presided over the affairs of millions of people and decided their fate for over two or three years, as the case may be, and that is not good for the country’s development

However, there are those who have thrown their weight behind the proposal, saying it would reduce to the barest minimal electoral malfeasance.

This, according to those on this side of the argument, is because when the elections of the president and governors are held on the same day, the practice of the president helping the governors to rig in their favour or the governors helping to rig for the president would not arise.

One of the strong proponents of the proposal is a Lagos lawyer, Kayode Akiolu, who gave an example of how the whole idea would play out if it becomes the norm.

He said: “This will actually reduce or even eliminate, to some extent, electoral fraud because while the president will be busy fighting for his survival and not remembering that any governor exists, the governors will also be busy fighting for their survival, not equally remembering that the president exists.

“For instance, if both governorship and presidential elections were held on the same day during the 2023 election, somebody like Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State would not have won the election; he would have lost to the Labour Party, LP, candidate Rhodes Vivour.

“This is simple; the LP won the presidential election fair and square in Lagos but because the then candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Bola Tinubu was declared the winner of the presidential election, the party had to deploy federal forces to ensure that the APC candidate, Sanwo-Olu won the election.

“If both elections were held the same day, Tinubu would not have had the time to help Sanwo-Olu in any way and the governor would have been defeated just as the president was defeated in the state. This scenario applied in some other states.”

To drive home his point, Agbaje also gave instances of some unknown persons who won both state and national assembly elections, even from unpopular political parties, because the president and national assembly elections were held on the same day just as the governorship and state assembly elections were held the same day.

“You discover that because the president was focusing on his own election, he didn’t care about any legislator’s victory just as the legislators didn’t care about the president’s victory but their own victory on election day.

“They may have campaigned for the president before the election but on that Election Day when they engage in all sorts of electoral malpractices, they don’t remember the president again; it is their own personal survival that they are interested in. That is why in 2023 and even previous elections, many candidates from the main opposition party and even unknown parties were able to win elections into both the state and national assemblies.

“If Presidential and national assembly elections were to be held on different days, you will see that any party that wins the presidency, will automatically take over 95 percent of the national assembly seats but because they are held on the same day, you always see candidates from different political parties winning, depending on how popular such candidates are to their constituents.”

Section 4(7) of the proposed amendment states: “Elections into the office of the President and Governor of a state shall be held, not later than 185 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of the office.” And by this calculation, the 2027 general election would fall in November 2026.

The draft amendment came to light at a one-day public hearing organised by the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters of both chambers of the National Assembly, recently. The lawmakers also proposed similar timelines for elections into the National and State Houses of Assembly, stipulating that such polls should be held not later than 185 days before the date each house stands dissolved.

Chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Adebayo Balogun, noted that the proposed shift was designed to address one of Nigeria’s recurring electoral challenges, which is the backlog of litigations after elections.

He said: “We are proposing this adjustment to allow enough time for all election cases to be concluded before the swearing-in of elected officials.

“To achieve this, we are also proposing to reduce the duration of tribunal and appellate court judgments, so that all election disputes will be resolved within the 185-day window before inauguration.”

He explained that under the proposed review, the time frame for election tribunals to deliver judgments would be reduced from 180 days to 90 days, while appeals at the Appellate Court would be concluded within 60 days, leaving adequate time for the Supreme Court to give its final ruling.

To accommodate the change, the joint committee also proposed amendments to sections 76, 116, 132 and 178 of the 1999 Constitution, effectively transferring the power to determine election timelines from the Constitution to the Electoral Act.

The committee’s draft stated: “Section 28, now section 27 (5–7), was introduced due to the amendments to sections 76, 116, 132 and 178 of the Constitution, which seek to remove the determination of election timelines from the Constitution to the Electoral Act.”

Beyond the proposed shift in election dates, the lawmakers also recommended early voting for certain categories of Nigerians who typically perform essential duties on an election day.

Section (2) of the draft amendment provides that, “There shall be a date set aside for early voting not later than 14 days to the day of the election.”

Those eligible for early voting include security personnel, INEC officials, accredited domestic observers, journalists, and ad hoc staff of the commission.

However, just as some Nigerians have kicked against the proposal, the ADC has also kicked against it, saying it would undermine governance in the country.

A statement by its interim national publicity secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, argued that if the general election is held in November, it would set the country on a perpetual campaign, and that would be detrimental to governance and development.

The party warned the national assembly to jettison the idea and focus on genuine electoral and judicial reforms that ensure credible elections and timely resolution of disputes without undermining governance stability.

The party noted that though the bill is intended to create more time for resolution of election petitions before the swearing in of a new administration, it will create more problems than it set out to solve.

It noted that, “By cutting the current political calendar by six months, the proposal threatens to push Nigeria into a state of permanent electioneering, where politics dominates governance and development is perpetually on hold.

“In practice, elections happening in November 2026 mean campaigns will begin as early as 2025. That leaves barely two years of real governance before the political noise takes over.

“The President, ministers, governors and other public officials vying for office or campaigning for others will shift their focus from performance to positioning. Policies will stall, projects will be abandoned and the entire system will tilt towards 2026 instead of 2027.

“Even without the amendments, we can see with the current APC government what happens to a country where an administration is obsessed with power rather than the welfare of the people. Even under the current timetable, the incumbent structures at the state and federal levels are already campaigning. In this regard, moving the elections backward will only accelerate this unhealthy trend and reduce our democracy to mere electioneering.”

The party contended that Nigerians are not just voters, but citizens who expect good governance as dividends of democracy. “Nigeria cannot afford a system that allows the government to campaign for two years and govern for two,” it warned.

Corroborating the ADC’s position, a public affairs analyst, Prince Johnson Meekor, argued that if the objective of the proposal is to ensure that election petitions are concluded before swearing in, as the movers of the proposal want us to believe, then the solution lies in strengthening institutions and reforming the electoral laws, as well as improving the capacity of the judiciary and INEC.

“Other democracies have shown that it is possible to maintain fixed electoral timelines, while ensuring quick adjudication of disputes. In Kenya, for instance, the Supreme Court must resolve presidential election petitions within 14 days under the 2010 Constitution.

“Indonesia’s Constitutional Court decides similar disputes within 14 working days after hearing, while Ghana’s Supreme Court is required to conclude presidential petitions within 42 days. Even in South Africa and other democracies, electoral cases are handled through expedited judicial processes.

“As these examples have shown, the amendment that we need is the one which ensures timely electoral justice through institutional efficiency, not by altering the election calendar to accommodate inefficiency.

“Changing the date of elections without fixing the underlying weaknesses in our electoral matters adjudication and other fundamental electoral weaknesses will not solve the problem. Countries that manage early campaigns effectively do so with firm institutional safeguards,” he submitted.