Nigeria’s New Election Law Leaves Gaps: 5 Reforms For Free, Fair And Credible Polls

Voters queue to vote in 2023 elections, Lagos, Nigeria. NurPhoto/Getty Images

BY EMMANUEL REMI AIYEDE

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS,

GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC POLICY,

UNVERSITY OF IBADAN

Nigeria’s new Electoral Act, passed in February 2026, is a significant attempt to overhaul the country’s electoral framework.

The act establishes a dedicated funding framework and requires that election funds be released no later than six months before a general election.

Technology will be the only method allowed for voter accreditation, and results will have to be transmitted electronically.

There will be stricter penalties for electoral misconduct such as falsifying results and manipulating or buying votes.

Political parties must maintain a digital membership register and submit it to the electoral commission at least 21 days before their primaries.

With these and other provisions, the act provides a stronger foundation for Nigeria’s elections than its predecessor. It helps in the push for technological integration and financial autonomy for the electoral commission.

However, laws alone do not guarantee credible elections.

It’s my view, as a scholar of electoral systems and governance in Nigeria, that the act doesn’t tackle some of the real problems of electoral governance. There are deeper structural issues that should be addressed to improve electoral integrity.

I submit that Nigeria needs five urgent reforms to create a free and fair voting system. These are:

strengthening the independence of the electoral commission

improving the candidate selection process

enhancing electoral transparency

addressing voter apathy

ensuring severe punishment for vote-buying.

My recommendations are based on the gaps in the recently enacted legislation and the historical context of Nigeria’s democratic journey.

Democracy in Nigeria is the primary mechanism for managing the country’s diversity and ensuring that its resources translate into shared prosperity rather than elite enrichment. Nigeria has a history of military rule, secessionist attempts, and inter-ethnic mistrust. Free, fair and credible elections are crucial for resolving political competition without violence.

1. Strengthen the electoral commission

The credibility of any electoral process is tied to the independence and capacity of the electoral management body. The Electoral Act 2026 takes a crucial step by establishing a dedicated fund for the Independent National Electoral Commission.

However, analysis of Nigeria’s electoral reforms since 1999 shows that administrative success is linked to the commission’s ability to exercise political independence. Its leadership appointments should be more transparent and insulated from presidential discretion.

The 2026 act expands the commission’s authority to review questionable result declarations made under duress. To solidify this reform, leadership must be insulated from partisan interference. Only persons with impeccable credentials and a proven record of non-partisanship should be considered.

The president should not be the one to appoint the head of the commission. Several suggestions have been offered, including the one by the Uwais committee that it be done by the National Judicial Council or a multi-stakeholder appointment committee. What matters is that the process be competitive and open. The election focused NGO Yiaga Africa has suggested that the president should publish the list of potential nominees for public scrutiny before sending a name to the National Assembly. An appointment committee should represent various interests, including professional bodies like the Nigerian Bar Association, Nigeria Union of Journalists, and civil society organisations.

2. Strengthen democratic candidate selection

Since 1999, primaries – internal processes through which political parties choose their candidates for public office – have been dominated by money and a small cabal of delegates. Both undermine the will of ordinary party members.

The 2026 Electoral Act confronts this issue by abolishing indirect primaries, which limit voting to selected party delegates. Now, all registered members of a political party will be able to vote in choosing the party’s candidate, except in the case of consensus.

Section 77 mandates that political parties keep a digital register of members and submit it to the electoral body at least 21 days before any primary, congress, or convention. The success of this hinges on the integrity and accuracy of the new registers.

3. Enhance transparency

The 2023 general elections exposed weaknesses in collating and sending results. This erodes public trust.

The 2026 act seeks to address these weak spots by making technology mandatory. Section 47 mandates the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System to check that the person casting a vote is who they claim to be. Section 60(3) makes the electronic transmission of results to the viewing portal compulsory.

A loophole remains. The act permits the use of a manual form to send results where the electronic technology fails. The law does not define what “failure” is, nor does it establish an independent process to certify such failures.

This ambiguity recreates the discretion that led to the widespread failures of 2023, where only a fraction of results were uploaded in a timely manner.

4. Address voter apathy

The steady decline in voter turnout from 52.3% in 1999 to an alarming 26.72% in the 2023 general elections is a threat to Nigeria’s democratic legitimacy. It’s not a problem of civic laziness or voter fatigue. In my view it reflects an erosion of trust in the electoral process itself. When the electoral body failed to deliver on its promise of real-time electronic result transmission in 2023, it was a betrayal of citizens.

Restoring voter confidence requires showing that votes count, through electronic transmission of results. Electoral offenders must be prosecuted. Judicial decisions must respect voter intent rather than technicalities.

Immediate practical reforms are possible. They include introducing early voting for the over one million essential workers, security personnel, election officials, journalists and observers who can’t vote on election day. The 15 million Nigerians in the diaspora should be able to vote too, through provisions already adopted by 40 African nations.

5. Criminalising vote buying

Widespread poverty and inequality make Nigerian voters susceptible to vote buying. This reduces elections to auctions rather than choices. Without aggressive enforcement, the secret ballot becomes a commodity. Then democracy becomes a market for the highest bidder, keeping corrupt politicians in office.

Moving forward

Electoral reform is not a single event but a continuous democratic project. Its success will be measured not by statutory text, but by the integrity of the 2027 elections and beyond.

It requires sustained citizen engagement, civil society vigilance, and political determination to build an electoral system that commands the trust and participation of all its people.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Autocracies In Transition: In 2025, Cameroon And Tanzania Rulers Clung To Power — But Look More Vulnerable Than Ever

Supporters of the opposition presidential candidate protest on the streets of Garoua, Cameroon, on Oct. 26, 2025, during the country’s latest – and disputed – presidential election. AP Photo/Welba Yamo Pascal

BY YONATAN MORSE

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Autocratic leaders in Africa like their numbers to be in the high 90s, it appears.

In October, Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan won a highly dubious 98% of the presidential vote, perpetuating the ruling party’s grip on power to 60 years. During the same month, Cameroonian President Paul Biya, who has ruled the country since 1982, secured an unprecedented eighth term in office. It will allow him to serve until he turns 99.

In neither case were elections deemed free or fair, and in both cases protests and severe government crackdowns followed.

Yet, while the outcome was ultimately the survival of incumbent governments, these elections are quite telling about the changing fortunes of autocracy in Africa.

In 2019, I wrote a book titled “How Autocrats Compete” that used Tanzania and Cameroon as contrasting examples. The divergent origins of their respective autocracies sowed the seeds for the kinds of challenges that each country would eventually face. Both country’s governments, which observers widely see as repressive and antidemocratic, have lost key sources of underlying strength, making them more vulnerable than they have been in decades.

The roots of 2 autocracies

“How Autocrats Compete” showed how Tanzania and Cameroon used to reflect two different strains of autocracy: party-based and a personalist.

For decades, Julius Nyerere was the driving force in Tanzanian politics. An immensely popular anti-colonial leader, Nyerere in 1965 created a single-party state governed by a robust and effective political party apparatus – first under the Tanganyika African National Union and later recast as Chama Cha Mapinduzi, or CCM.

The party attracted a wide swath of rural voters, had national functioning institutions and a widespread grassroots presence. Importantly, when Nyerere stepped down from power in 1985 – then a precedent in African politics – he established an internal primary system to select CCM’s future presidential candidates.

Cameroon’s autocracy emerged from much different terrain. After independence, political power was heavily centralized in the presidency. The main source of power was the president’s ability to use carrots and sticks to bring together a multiethnic coalition of elites into a transactional relationship.

By 1972, all political parties had been absorbed by the ruling Cameroonian National Union, later known as the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement.

The ruling party played a secondary role compared to the presidency, withering away and not even meeting for years. Under Cameroon’s first president, Ahamdou Ahidjo, power was oriented to the north of the country, while under Paul Biya it has been oriented to the south.

These different foundations for autocracy translated into unique adaptations to multiparty elections. In Tanzania, the ruling CCM could rely on widespread turnout, and the candidate selection processes appeared to minimize elite discontent within the party.

Between 1995 and 2010, CCM and its presidential candidates could win determinative vote shares while minimizing costly repression and fraud.

Elections were still not free and fair, but there were not systematically high rates of violence or coercion. In fact, at the time many considered Tanzania somewhat of a democracy.

The same could not be said of Cameroon, where elections were initially much more challenging for the ruling party and President Biya.

In the 1990s, the ruling CPDM suffered a barrage of defections and Biya won only 40% of the 1992 election.

But, largely shielded from international scrutiny, he could deploy highly repressive tools that allowed him to build an image of invulnerability. Former opponents rejoined the CPDM, and the opposition wilted away to an enclave in majority Francophone Cameroon’s English-speaking regions. At the core remained Biya, with virtual control over all political and economic life.

The erosion of hegemony in Tanzania

When I wrote “How Autocrats Compete,” I argued that CCM’s core strengths in Tanzania would ultimately erode. As younger generations became removed from the mythology of Nyerere, CCM’s voting constituency would diminish.

And indeed, according to Afrobarometer, the percentage of Tanzanians who felt close to CCM declined from 91% in 2001 to 69% in 2012.

CCM’s advantages as a ruling party also incentivized opposition parties to emulate it. There is extensive research on how the main Tanzanian opposition party Chadema mimicked CCM’s grassroots approach to party building.

These changes were accompanied by increased factionalism within CCM. The key moment was the 2015 election when front-runner presidential candidate Edward Lowassa was disqualified and John Magufuli nominated instead. Magufuli, seen as an institutional choice, had no strong ties to any specific faction, and thus a tenuous grasp over the party elite.

The answer to all of these challenges has been for the ruling party to crack down on opposition and impose discipline. Since 2015, Tanzania has become a demonstrably less open place, ratcheting up the brutality against opposition elites and civil society writ large.

Meanwhile, to control its own elite, CCM has had to restrict its ability to maneuver. Despite promises of reform and conciliatory gestures, Hassan appears driven by the same political logic – the party cannot lose and can no longer rely on the tools of the past. The only way to secure victory is through much more overt repression.

The limits of personal rule in Cameroon

The personalized nature of the Cameroonian government has made the question of succession a perennial puzzle.

Absent any credible mechanism for choosing a successor, Biya’s solution has been to kick the can down the road. In 2008, despite public discontent, he controversially removed term limits, seemingly signaling his willingness to stay in office indefinitely.

But Biya’s ability to hold together the historic multiethnic coalition has appeared severely weakened in recent years.

Cameroon’s English-speaking regions, representing nearly a quarter of the population, grew more vocal in their demands for equality in Cameroon’s heavily centralized political system. The government’s response has been violent, and since 2017 these regions have been mired in a civil conflict.

Biya has also faced growing opposition from the the wing of his coalition representing the Bamileké, an important ethnic group that has largely remained within the ruling fold. Since 2012, when one of its leaders, Maurice Kamto, defected to challenge Biya, the government has routinely responded by arresting the opposition figure and many of his supporters.

These factors, along with growing impatience over the question of succession, likely influenced the decision of the northern-based leader Issa Tchiroma to leave government and challenge Biya in the 2025 election. The north-south coalition had been the most important axis of Biya’s coalition.

Given the size and importance of the northern bloc, overt repression of Tchiroma was much riskier for Biya. He could not simply disallow Tchiroma’s candidacy as he had done for Maurice Kamto.

So Biya’s government rigged the results.

To raise the costs of fraud, Tchiroma declared himself the winner immediately after the election. Cameroon’s election management body took a painstaking 15 days to declare Biya the victor with just 54% of the vote, his lowest showing since 1992. Given the obvious factionalism and Biya’s weakness, it would have been inconceivable to claim any larger of a victory.

The shifting tides of authoritarianism

While each election might have been a victory for autocracy, these are different autocracies from what they were 20 years ago. Importantly, the electoral contests tell us that authoritarian governments are dynamic – and even potentially at risk.

In the case of Tanzania, there has been a gradual unwinding of key sources of longevity in favor of more blatant and brutal tools of authoritarian rule. Hassan vote share is a reminder of sham results seen in places like Equatorial Guinea or Rwanda.

On the other hand, in Cameroon we are witnessing the logical unfolding of a highly personalized autocracy that has been unwilling to deal with its own internal contradictions. In both 2025 and 1992, Biya faced a frayed political coalition that sensed his vulnerability. The difference this time is that Biya does not have another 30 years ahead of him to rebuild a political coalition.

At the end of the day, these are autocracies in transition and entering into a new status quo that seems much more fragile. It is unclear what new equilibriums will emerge.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

In Defense Of History: The Imperative To Immortalize Professor Humphrey Nwosu

Humphrey Nwosu

BY JONES ONYERERI

The hallowed chambers of Nigeria’s 10th Senate recently descended into a disheartening spectacle—one that laid bare the fragility of our collective memory and the perils of politicizing history. At the center of this travesty was a motion to immortalize the late Professor Humphrey Nwosu, former chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), whose stewardship of the 1993 presidential election remains an indelible chapter in Nigeria’s democratic journey. That this motion was dismissed under the flimsy guise of “procedural breaches” and spurious claims of “controversy” is not merely a legislative failure; it is an affront to the very ideals of integrity, courage, and patriotism that Prof. Nwosu embodied.

The 1993 Election: A Beacon in Nigeria’s Democratic Darkness

To dismiss Professor Nwosu’s contributions as contentious is to rewrite history with the ink of ignorance. The 1993 election, conducted under his leadership, stands as Nigeria’s most transparent electoral exercise—a feat achieved despite the suffocating grip of military dictatorship. The innovative Option A4 Open/Secret Ballot System he pioneered dismantled the machinery of electoral fraud, ensuring that the votes of both the literate and illiterate were counted without “magomago” or “wuruwuru” (phrases coined by Nwosu himself to denounce electoral malpractice). For the first time, a presidential candidate, the late MKO Abiola, triumphed in his opponent’s home state of Kano, shattering ethnic and religious binaries. This was democracy in its purest form: untainted, unyielding, and universally acknowledged as credible.

Yet, some Senators' assertion, orchestrated by some generals that Nwosu’s legacy is “controversial” betrays a troubling detachment from historical fact. As Nnedinso Ogaziechi cogently articulated in her March 2025 analysis, Humphrey Nwosu and the Undertakers of History, the recent autobiography of General Ibrahim Babangida, A Journey in Service, confirms what scholars have long documented: the annulment of June 12 was a military conspiracy, orchestrated by power-drunk generals, not the electoral umpire. Nwosu, in the face of tyrannical pressure, held firm to his mandate. To conflate his principled stand with the venality of those who sabotaged democracy is not only intellectually dishonest but morally reprehensible.

The Senate’s Failure: A Microcosm of Nigeria’s Political Malady

The Senate’s rejection of this motion exposes a deeper malaise: the systemic aversion to honoring excellence in a polity steeped in mediocrity. How is it conceivable that Nigeria’s legislative body, tasked with safeguarding our democratic ethos, opts to dishonor a man who personified electoral integrity? That convicted electoral offenders—university professors no less—now languish in jail for rigging, while Nwosu’s legacy is debated as though it were a partisan trifle, is a tragic irony.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe’s anguished query—“What is wrong with immortalizing Prof. Nwosu?”—echoes the frustration of millions. The answer lies not in procedural technicalities but in the Senate’s reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. By reducing Nwosu’s legacy to political fodder, the Senate perpetuates the same authoritarian hangover that plagues our democracy: the prioritization of power over principle, factionalism over fairness.

Why Immortalization Matters:A Moral Imperative

To immortalize Professor Nwosu is not merely to honor a man; it is to enshrine the values he championed. Naming the INEC headquarters after him would serve as a perpetual reminder to electoral officials that integrity is non-negotiable. In a nation where monuments are hastily erected for politicians of dubious virtue, denying Nwosu his due reeks of hypocrisy.

Critics may argue that historical figures are often judged by time, not legislative fiat. Yet, as Euripides noted, “Time will explain it all. He is a babbler, and speaks even when not asked.” Time has already vindicated Nwosu. His election remains the gold standard, his methodology a blueprint for credible polls. What remains is for Nigeria’s leaders to summon the courage to align rhetoric with action.

Conclusion: A Call to Rescue History from Undertakers

The 10th Senate’s decision is a temporary setback, not a final verdict. Professor Nwosu’s legacy—rooted in the unassailable truths of June 12—transcends political machinations. To those who would diminish his contributions, I pose this question: If we cannot honor a man who defied a military junta to deliver a free election, whom then do we deem worthy of remembrance?

Let us not consign Nwosu to the footnotes of history. Let us, instead, immortalize him as a testament to what Nigeria can achieve when courage meets conviction. The Senate must revisit this motion, not as a partisan obligation, but as a debt owed to truth itself. 

5 Elections To Watch In 2025

AUTHORS:

LISANDRO CLAUDIO

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES

UNIV OF CALIF BERKELEY

GARRET MARTIN

SENIOR PROFESSIONAL LECTURER,

CO-DIRECTOR TRANSATLANTIC 

POLICY CENTER, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

JORGE HEINE

INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE FREDERICK

PARDEE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF THE

LONGER RANGE FUTURE, BOSTON UNIV

PATRICK JAMES

DORNSIFE DEAN'S PROFESSOR OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, USC DORNSIFE

COLLEGE OF LETTERS ARTS AND SCIENCES

TATSIANA KULAKEVICH

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF INSTRUCTION

IN THE SCHOOL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY

GLOBAL STUDIES, AFFILIATE PROFESSOR

AT THE INSTITUTE OF RUSSIAN,

EUROPEAN, AND EURASIAN STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

The coming 12 months can’t promise the bumper crop of elections we saw during 2024, when countries home to about half the world’s population headed to the polls. Still, voters will cast ballots in several important elections throughout the year – and many of the themes persist: the impact of inflation, the rise of the populist right and the fallout of war in Europe and the Middle East.

Only a fool or charlatan will pretend to predict the future, so it’s usually best to avoid election forecasting. So instead, The Conversation asked experts on five countries – Canada, Germany, Chile, Belarus and the Philippines – to explain what is at stake as those nations go to the ballot.

Belarus (Jan.26)

– Tatsiana Kulakevich, associate professor of instruction, School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies, the University of South Florida

Alexander Lukashenko, Europe’s longest-serving authoritarian ruler, will run for his seventh term on Jan. 26, 2025 – and he is not expected to lose.

No real opposition will participate in the upcoming elections against Lukashenko, who has run the country since 1994.

Four other persons seeking nomination include the head of the Liberal Democratic Party, Aleh Haidukevich, who ran in the 2020 elections, but withdrew his candidacy then in favor of Lukashenko; Hanna Kanapatskaya, a former member of parliament, entrepreneur and candidate in the 2020 Belarusian presidential election; Aliaksandr Khizhnyak, the chairman of the Republican Party of Labor and Justice; and Siarhei Syrankou, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus. But all have expressed their support for Lukashenko and his key policies.

Current conditions in Belarus do not allow for free and fair elections. Belarusians living abroad will not be able to vote. After the mass protests in 2020’s election, the Belarusian authorities stopped setting up polling stations at diplomatic missions.

That year, protesters claimed widespread election fraud in favor of Lukashenko and argued that most people actually supported Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, his main opposition rival, who now leads the opposition in exile from Lithuania.

Repression continues in the wake of the 2020 protests, with over 1,200 political prisoners currently detained. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Belarusians have fled the country.

If Lukashenko wins the 2025 presidential election, Belarus will likely continue to serve as a key ally of Russia, hosting Russian nuclear weapons and providing a launchpad for military operations, as seen in the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Germany (Feb. 23)

– Garret Martin, Hurst senior professorial lecturer of foreign policy and global security, American University

The German public knew that it would be called upon to vote in a federal election in 2025. But the recent collapse of the German coalition government means that the vote will happen on Feb. 23 – seven months ahead of the anticipated schedule.

Indeed, after weeks of fighting over the budget, Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner in early November. As a result, Lindner’s Free Democratics party left the coalition, meaning that the two remaining parties – Scholz’s Social Democrats, or SPD, and the Greens – no longer command a majority in the German parliament. This left the chancellor with little choice but to look for snap elections. And after losing the confidence vote on Dec. 16, Scholz got that outcome.

The February election will take place in a particularly challenging global context for Germany. Besides the ongoing war in Ukraine straining Berlin’s diplomatic and economic position in Europe, Germany is also sandwiched between the continued industrial competition from China and the prospect of Donald Trump launching a trade war. All of this is adding to Germany’s ingrained woes.

Its economy has been stuck since COVID-19 hit, and the country is facing a second year of recession.

Domestically, the various parties will joust over the hot-button topics of migration and funding greater investment at home. But spending more will be politically fraught – Germany’s constitutional “debt brake” currently forces the government to keep a balanced budget.

Polls suggest that Scholz faces a major challenge to stay on as chancellor. His approval rating has been dismal, and his party is polling well behind the center-right Christian Democratic Union and its Christian Social Union sister party. The SPD is in a tight race for second place with the far-right Alternative for Germany, which is hoping to capitalize on its recent successes in state elections.

Barring a major surprise, Friedrich Merz, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, will become the next chancellor. But forming a stable coalition that can command a majority could prove challenging.

Philippines (May 12)

– Lisandro E. Claudio, associate professor of Southeast Asian studies, University of California, Berkeley

Since the end of the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, Philippine presidents have been restricted to single six-year terms but face midterm elections in which Filipinos elect local officials, district representatives to the lower house and 12 nationally elected senators – 2025 is one such year.

On paper, these senatorial races amount to a referendum on the sitting president. But it’s more accurate to think of them as displays of the incumbent’s awesome control over political machines. Most senatorial candidates who win have the president’s backing.

And there’s no reason to think this dynamic won’t prevail in the May 2025 election. Surveys, which have tended to be more accurate in the Philippines than in the U.S. in recent years, show President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s senatorial bets could win as many as nine or 10 of the 12 open positions.

This will be important for Marcos Jr., who needs to consolidate his power amid a feud with Vice President Sara Duterte, the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte, the previous occupant of the presidential palace who presided over a ruthless and bloody drugs crackdown. Though she ran as Marcos’ ally – vice presidents are elected separately – in 2022, the marriage of convenience quickly fell apart once it became clear that Marcos didn’t have Duterte in mind as his successor.

A Marcos-dominated senate would increase the likelihood of a conviction should Duterte undergo an impeachment trial for alleged mismanagement of confidential funds.

Not only would a conviction remove her from office, it would also bar her from running for president in 2028. And a restoration of vindictive Duterte power could mean trouble for the Marcoses – one of Asia’s most corrupt families, with many skeletons in its closet.

Marcos Jr. must bury the Duterte dynasty while he still can. In a place like the Philippines, where voters are often asked to choose between the lesser of two evils, such a resolution would be welcome to many.

Canada (Before Oct. 20)

– Patrick James, dean’s professor emeritus of political science and international relations, USC Dornsife

It is looking increasingly likely that a federal election in Canada will take place well ahead of the constitutionally mandated deadline of Oct. 20, 2025.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, well down in the polls even before a series of jarring events, now faces the possible – or even likely – fall of his fragile coalition government.

Trudeau, recently taunted by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump as the “governor” of Canada and threatened with a 25% tariff, experienced another shock on Dec. 16: Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned over irrevocable differences on key policy issues.

Trudeau may become the latest political casualty among global leaders committed to the priorities of the contemporary left rather than the populist right.

The Liberal leader is a long-standing champion of the cultural left and advocate of strong action over the threat of climate change. The result has been massive levels of government spending and soaring deficits.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, Trudeau’s likely chief rival in the 2025 election, has built a huge lead in the polls that appears based on public anger over high inflation and other material shortcomings.

Trudeau is embattled both from within and beyond Canada. Trump demands that Canada move away from what he has called exploitation of the U.S. in trade and calls on Canada to step up border security in particular and defense spending in general.

Poilievre calls for a shift back toward Canada’s abundant fossil fuels to improve the economy – a direct threat to Trudeau’s climate change agenda.

The coming election may even be about the identity of Canada itself. Will Trudeau somehow hold onto power and continue to implement a socialist agenda after the election? Or will Poilievre win and shift the country toward a more conservative populism? Or, again, will another coalition government come into place, with a set of policies that end up pleasing no one?

Pressure on Trudeau to resign, at this time of writing, seems to be approaching an overwhelming level. Time will tell – and maybe very soon.

Chile (Nov. 16)

– Jorge Heine, professor of global studies, Boston University

Chile’s presidential election is due to take place on Nov. 16, 2025. Given its ballotage system – meaning that candidates need 50% plus one of the votes to be elected, something which no presidential candidate has managed to do in the first round since 1993 – a runoff will likely take place on Dec. 14. That will be between the top two candidates.

The incumbent president, Gabriel Boric, is barred from running for a second consecutive term. Elected in 2021 at the age of 35 – making him Chile’s youngest-ever president – Boric has had great difficulty enacting the program of his Broad Front, a left-wing coalition with a platform of sweeping political, social and economic changes. This is in large part due to the coalition’s lack of a parliamentary majority.

In fact, Chile under Boric has the dubious distinction of being the only country to have rejected not one but two different constitutional texts submitted to the electorate – one for being too left-wing, the other for being too right-wing – placing Chile in a constitutional cul-de-sac.

Yet, after several years of upheaval that started with a 2019 social uprising – the most serious in Chile’s two centuries of independent history – and continued into the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit Chile badly, the country has now regained a modicum of political and economic normalcy. Foreign investment is up, but so is crime, which has become a major concern to voters.

In keeping with a Latin American – and worldwide – trend, most polls point to a likely 2025 win for the opposition, the right-wing coalition Chile Vamos, led by the former mayor of Providencia, Evelyn Matthei, who ran for the presidency and lost in 2013 against Michelle Bachelet.

The ruling coalition has found it difficult to come up with a strong candidate to face Matthei. Two of the likeliest ones – Bachelet herself and Tomás Vodanovic, the mayor of Maipú, a Santiago suburb – have indicated they are not interested, and a third one, Home Affairs Minister Carolina Tohá, is hampered by perceived difficulties in bringing the law-and-order situation under control.

That said, the ruling coalition did better than expected in the October 2024 local and regional elections, and an opposition win in 2025 is by no means a done deal.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Senegal Parliament Delays Election Until December After Opposition Lawmakers Are Blocked From Voting

FILE - Senegal’s President Macky Sall speaks during a plenary session at the COP28 U.N. Climate Summit, Friday, Dec. 1, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Senegalese President Macky Sall on Saturday, Feb. 3, 2024, postponed presidential elections scheduled for Feb. 25, citing controversies over the disqualification of some candidates and allegations of corruption in election-related cases. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool, File)

BY BABACAR DIONE

DAKAR, SENEGAL (AP) — Senegal’s parliament voted Monday to delay the West African nation’s presidential election until Dec. 15 in a chaotic voting process that took place after opposition lawmakers were forcefully removed from the chambers as they debated President Macky Sall’s earlier decision to delay the crucial election.

Security forces stormed the legislative building and forcefully removed several opposition lawmakers who were trying to block the voting process on the unprecedented delay of the presidential election initially scheduled for Feb. 25. The adopted bill extends Sall’s tenure — which was due to end on April 2 — until a new election.

Authorities on Monday restricted mobile internet access amid growing protests by opposition supporters against the delay.

As the lawmakers debated the bill, security forces fired tear gas at protesters gathered outside the legislative building. Many of the protesters were arrested as they poured into the streets of the capital, Dakar, burning tires and criticizing the country’s leader.

On Monday, two opposition parties filed a court petition challenging the election delay. It was not clear what would become of their request for Senegal’s Constitutional Council to direct “the continuation of the electoral process.”

Analysts say the crisis in Senegal is putting one of Africa’s most stable democracies to the test at a time when the region is struggling with a recent surge in coups.

Sall — who in July said he would not seek a third term in office — had cited an electoral dispute between the parliament and the judiciary regarding the candidacies as reason for the postponement but opposition leaders and candidates rejected the move, calling it a “coup.”

The African Union urged the government to organize the election “as soon as possible” and called on everyone involved “to resolve any political dispute through consultation, understanding and civilized dialogue.”

“We will not accept a constitutional coup in this country. It is up to the people to come out and liberate themselves,” said Guy Marius Sagna, an activist and opposition lawmaker, who was among the protesters.

The private Walf television network, whose signal was cut off as they broadcast the protests on Sunday, said their broadcasting license has been revoked.

The Ministry of Communication, Telecommunications and Digital Economy said mobile internet services were cut Monday “due to the dissemination of several hateful and subversive messages relayed on social networks in the context of threats and disturbances to public order.”

“The government’s abrupt shutdown of internet access via mobile data and Walf TV’s broadcasting ... constitutes a blatant assault on the right to freedom of expression and press rights protected by Senegal’s constitution,” Amnesty International’s regional office for West and Central Africa said in a statement.

Sall had said the dispute between the judiciary and parliament over the disqualification of some candidates and the reported dual-nationality of some qualified candidates has resulted in a “sufficiently serious and confusing situation.”

Political tensions have run high in Senegal for at least a year. Authorities also cut internet access from cellphones in June 2023 when supporters of opposition leader Ousmane Sonko clashed with security forces. Sonko is one of two opposition leaders whom election authorities disqualified from the final list of presidential candidates this month.

Sall’s decision to postpone the election “reflects a sharp democratic decline” in Senegal, said Mucahid Durmaz, a senior analyst at global risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft.

“The growing democracy deficit not only threatens to tarnish Senegal’s reputation as a beacon of democratic stability in the region but also emboldens anti-democratic practices in West Africa,” said Durmaz.

Associated Press writer Chinedu Asadu in Abuja, Nigeria contributed.

Follow AP’s Africa coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

US Supreme Court Decision On Trump-Colorado Ballot Case ‘Monumental’ For Democracy Itself, Not Just 2024 Presidential Election

SCOTUS (Wikipedia)

BY TEREK T. MULLER

Momentous questions for the U.S. Supreme Court and momentous consequences for the country are likely now that the court has announced it will decide whether former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the Colorado ballot.

The court’s decision to consider the issue comes in the wake of Colorado’s highest court ruling that Trump had engaged in insurrection and therefore was barred from appearing on the state’s GOP primary ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maine’s secretary of state also barred Trump from the state’s primary ballot, and more than a dozen other states are considering similar moves.

The Conversation’s senior politics and democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Notre Dame election law scholar Derek Muller about the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case, which will rest on the court’s interpretation of a post Civil War-era amendment aimed at keeping those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from serving in political office.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how big is this?

In terms of potential impact, it’s a 10. It is excluding a former president from appearing on the ballot for engaging in insurrection.

That’s monumental for several reasons. It’s the first major and material use of this provision of the Constitution since the Civil War. It’s the first time it has kept a presidential candidate off the ballot, much less a former one and the apparent front-runner for the Republican Party nomination.

But on the flip side, what are the odds of that actually happening? That’s more speculative. And so the number is probably less than 10. This was an extraordinary major decision from the Colorado Supreme Court. But you have to temper that by saying, well, there’s a chance it gets reversed, and then Trump appears on the ballot and this mostly goes away.

What are the risks here for the court? Legal scholar Michael W. McConnell at Stanford said in The Washington Post, “There is no way they can decide the case without having about half the country think they are being partisan hacks.”

This is a binary choice that either empowers the Republican candidate or prevents voters from choosing him. So when you have a choice in such stark, political and partisan terms, whatever the Supreme Court is doing is often going to be viewed through that lens by many voters.

I think it’s a reason why there will be as much effort as possible internally on the court to reach a consensus view to avoid that appearance of partisanship on the court, that appearance of division on the court. If there’s consensus, it’s harder for the public to sort of point the finger at one side or another.

That’s much easier said than done. The court decides questions with major political consequences all the time. But to decide the questions in the context of an upcoming election feels different.

The justices granted only Trump’s appeal to consider the case, not the Colorado Republican Party’s. Is this significant, and if so, how?

The Colorado Republican Party and the Trump campaign were on two different tracks in their appeals. When you grant both cases, you invite two sets of attorneys and parties to participate and add complexity. I think the decision to grant only Trump’s case is a decision to make this as streamlined a process as possible.

Will whatever decision the court makes put to rest the ballot access questions in all the other states?

There are a couple of very narrow grounds the court might rule on. For example, they might say, we’re not ready to hear this case because it’s only a primary, or Colorado so abused its own state procedures as to run afoul of federal constitutional rules. Those would be kind of rulings only applicable to the Colorado case or only applicable in the primaries.

There’s a chance the court does this, but my sense – not to speculate too much – is that’s going to be deeply unsatisfying for the court, knowing that if they delay in this case, another case is likely coming later in the summer where these questions will have to be addressed in August or September. That’s much closer to the general election. Those are months when the court is in recess, and they would have to come back from their summer vacation early. So my sense is that the court will try to resolve these on a comprehensive basis. They’ve scheduled oral argument on Feb. 8, 2024 so they want to move on as quickly as possible to put this to rest.

You submitted an amicus brief in the Colorado case for neither side. What was it you wanted to tell the court?

I raised two general points and then one specific to Colorado. The two general points are that I think states have the power to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates and keep them off the ballot. And states have done that over the years to say if you were born in Nicaragua, or you’re 27 years old, we’re going to keep you off the ballot.

But I also say states have no obligation to do that. You can look throughout history, going back to the 1890s, where ineligible candidates’ names have been printed and put on the ballot. And this isn’t a question of whether or not the state wants to do it – they have the flexibility to do it. So I wanted to set those two framing questions up so the court doesn’t veer too much in one direction or the other to say “states have no power,” or “of course states have power regardless of what the legislature has asked them to do.”

The point specific to Colorado is I doubted there was jurisdiction in Colorado for the state Supreme Court to hear this case, but the court disagreed with me.

What could happen during the period between now and the court’s decision that could be consequential?

More states are going to consider these challenges as the ballot deadlines approach. And we know that there’s Super Tuesday the first Tuesday of March when a significant number of states hold presidential primaries. So I think there’s a lot of uncertainty in the next six weeks about which states might exclude him.

On top of that is voter uncertainty. Voters are making their decisions and weighing the trade-offs of who to vote for. Right now, this is a cloud hanging over the Trump campaign. It’s not just that he’s been declared ineligible in Colorado and Maine. It’s the question in other states for other voters: Am I wasting my vote, is this actually an ineligible candidate? Should I be voting for somebody else?

That’s not an enviable position for voters to be in – that they might cast their ballots only to find out later that they’re not going to be counted.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Police Investigating Incidents Involving Colorado Justices After Trump Removed From State’s Ballot

FILE - Former President Donald Trump speaks during a commit to caucus rally, Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa. Police said Tuesday, Dec. 26, 2023, they are investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and providing extra patrols around their homes in Denver following the court’s decision to remove Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

BY COLLEEN SLEVIN

DENVER (AP) — Police said Tuesday they are investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and providing extra patrols around their homes in Denver following the court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The Denver Police Department declined in an email to provide details about its investigations, citing safety and privacy considerations and because they are ongoing.

The department “is currently investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and will continue working with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to thoroughly investigate any reports of threats or harassment,” the email said.

Officers responded to the home of one justice on Thursday evening, but police said it appeared to be a “hoax report.” That case is also still being investigated police said.

The FBI said it is working with local law enforcement on the matter.

“We will vigorously pursue investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation,” a spokesperson for the Denver’s FBI office, Vikki Migoya, said in a statement.

In a 4-3 decision last week, Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but had said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause was intended to cover the presidency.

The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.

Supreme Court Rejects Prosecutor’s Push To Fast-Track Ruling In Trump Election Subversion Case

The Supreme Court is shown in Washington, Monday, Dec. 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib. File)

BY MARK SHERMAN AND ERIC TUCKER
Updated 3:14 PM PST, December 22, 2023

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will not immediately take up a plea by special counsel Jack Smith to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results.

The ruling is a scheduling win for Trump and his lawyers, who have sought repeatedly to delay the criminal cases against him as he campaigns to reclaim the White House in 2024. It averts a swift ruling from the nation’s highest court that could have definitively turned aside his claims of immunity, and it further throws into doubt the possibility of the landmark trial proceeding as scheduled on March 4.

The issue will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has signaled it will act quickly to decide the case. Special counsel Jack Smith had cautioned that even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the Supreme Court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break.

Smith had pressed the Supreme Court to intervene, citing significant public interest in a prompt resolution to the case. The request to leapfrog the appeals court, which Smith himself acknowledged was “extraordinary,” also underscored prosecutors’ concerns that the fight over the issue could delay the start of Trump’s trial beyond next year’s presidential election.

The justices turned down Smith’s request in a single-sentence order Friday. As is customary, the court gave no explanation for the decision.

With the justices remaining out of the dispute for now, additional appeals are likely that could delay the case. If the appeals court, which is set to hear arguments on Jan. 9, turns down Trump’s immunity claims, he could then ask for the Supreme Court to get involved — giving the justices another opportunity to decide if they want to weigh in.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has already put the case on hold while Trump pursues his claim that he is immune from prosecution. Chutkan has raised the possibility of keeping the March trial date if the case promptly returns to her court.

She earlier rejected the Trump team’s arguments that an ex-president could not be prosecuted over acts that fall within the official duties of the job.

“Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in a Dec. 1 ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

In a statement Friday, Trump insisted anew that he was “entitled to presidential immunity” and was looking forward to having his case heard before the appeals court.

There are still more Trump-related cases that the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by him, is poised to grapple with.

Trump’s lawyers plan to ask the court t to overturn a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring him from that state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

And the court separately has agreed to hear a case over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that has been brought against Trump and more than 300 of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the current immunity case, Smith had tried to persuade the justices to take up the matter directly, bypassing the appeals court.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors, Smith and his team wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

Trump’s lawyers have for months signaled that they would ultimately ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity question. But they urged the justices this week to stand down for now, saying there was no reason to rush a decision.

“Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot at the Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The high court still could act quickly once the appeals court issues its decision. A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, but on rare occasions, the justices shift into high gear.

Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides.

It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

The case in Washington is one of four he faces.

He’s also been charged by Smith with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case set for trial next May, and is accused by state prosecutors in Georgia of scheming to subvert that state’s presidential election and in New York in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.

Eds: This story has been corrected to fix headline: Prosecutor was rejected, not Trump.

Madagascar’s Top Court Ratifies President’s Reelection In Vote Boycotted By Opposition

FILE - President Andry Rajoelina addresses supporters at an election rally in Antananarivo, Sunday Nov. 12, 2023. Madagascar’s top court has ratified the victory of incumbent President Andry Rajoelina in last month’s election. It gives him a third term as leader following a boycott of the Nov. 16 vote by opposition candidates. (AP Photo/Alexander Joe)

BY SARAH TETAUD

ANTANANARIVO, MADAGASCAR (AP) — Madagascar’s top court on Friday ratified the victory of incumbent President Andry Rajoelina in last month’s election, giving him a third term as leader following a boycott of the vote by opposition candidates.

The High Constitutional Court said Rajoelina received 58.96% of votes in the first round and was reelected without the need for a runoff. The results had already been announced by Madagascar’s electoral commission but the constitution requires they are ratified by the top court.

Rajoelina, 49, first served as president of a provisional government from 2009-2014 following a political crisis and a coup in the Indian Ocean island. He won a vote in 2019.

The Nov. 16 election was marked by trouble. It was delayed for a week because of a series of anti-Rajoelina protests led by the opposition. A curfew was announced on the eve of the election after protesters torched some ballot stations.

A coalition of opposition candidates called for a boycott, although their names still appeared on ballots. Turnout was low, with only 46% of those registered casting a vote.

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

Canada Announces Public Inquiry Into Whether China, Russia And Others Interfered In Elections

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic LeBlanc speaks at a news conference on the appointment of Quebec Court of Appeal Judge Marie-Josee Hogue for the inquiry into foreign interference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Thursday, Sept. 7, 2023. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press via AP)

TORONTO (AP) — Canada announced Wednesday that a judge would lead a public inquiry into whether China, Russia and other countries interfered in Canadian federal elections in 2019 and 2021 that re-elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

Opposition Conservative lawmakers have demanded a full public inquiry into alleged Chinese interference since reports surfaced earlier this year citing intelligence sources saying China worked to support the Liberals and to defeat Conservative politicians considered unfriendly to Beijing.

The opposition New Democrat party later pushed to expand any inquiry to include Russia, Iran and India.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Thursday that Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josée Hogue would lead the broad-ranging inquiry and that her appointment had the support of opposition parties.

“Foreign interference in Canadian democratic institutions is unacceptable,” LeBlanc said. “China is not the only foreign actor that seeks to undermine democratic institutions in Canada or other Western democracies. This challenge is not unique to Canada.”



A Trudeau appointee earlier this year had rejected holding a public inquiry into the leaked intelligence on alleged China interference, drawing allegations of a cover-up from the Conservative opposition. That appointee, former Governor General David Johnston, stepped down from his role in June, citing the highly partisan atmosphere around his work.

The government then indicated it was open to calling a possible public inquiry, and invited all parties into talks over the summer on the shape of such an inquiry.

LeBlanc, who is also the minister for democratic institutions, said the inquiry will study allegations related to China, Russia, Iran and India linked to the 2019 and 2021 federal elections and report by the end of next year. He said the inquiry will also examine the flow of foreign-interference assessments to senior government decision makers.

Earlier this year, Canada expelled a Chinese diplomat whom Canada’s spy agency alleged was involved in a plot to intimidate an opposition Conservative lawmaker and his relatives in Hong Kong after the Conservative lawmaker criticized Beijing’s human rights record. China then announced the expulsion of a Canadian diplomat in retaliation this month.

China regularly uses threats against family members to intimidate critics in the Chinese diaspora.

China-Canada relations nosedived in 2018 after China detained former diplomat Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavor, shortly after Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of telecoms giant Huawei and the daughter of the company’s founder, at the behest of U.S. authorities who accused her of fraud.

An Attack On Democracy, From Racial Voter Suppression To Invalidating Elections Altogether

BY MARC MORIAL

In 1963, just as Martin Luther King Jr. and the other “Big Six” civil rights leaders were in the final stages of planning the March on Washington, my mother, Sybil Haydel Morial, incorporated the Louisiana League of Good Government, a nonprofit created to help African Americans overcome deterrents to voting such as literacy tests.

She’d been banned from joining the Louisiana branch of the League of Women Voters because of her race. “That shut door was an epiphany for me,” she wrote in her memoir, “Witness to Change: From Jim Crow to Political Empowerment.” Rather than be deterred, she devoted herself to preparing Black New Orleanians for Louisiana’s nearly-impossible literacy test.

Registrars – who were all white – had wide latitude in determining who passed or failed such tests, and they used their authority to fail most Black applicants, thereby keeping them from voting. Ironically, one of the tests required applicants to read the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, intended to “establish Justice” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” in the words of the Founding Fathers who authored them nearly two centuries earlier.

But in Louisiana, in 1963, justice and liberty still were reserved mostly for white people.

On the very day that civil rights activist Medgar Evers was gunned down in his own driveway in Jackson, Mississippi, in June of 1963, my mother picked up the phone to hear, “Morial is going to get what that [racial slur] in Mississippi got.” We had been receiving threatening calls ever since my father, Ernest “Dutch” Morial,” had assumed the presidency of the NAACP in New Orleans (and later the first Black mayor of the city). But after that threatening phone call, my parents took extra precautions: My father would blast his car horn when he pulled up to the house each night, and my mother would flash the carport light several times, all to scare off would-be assassins.

The voting rights struggle of my parents’ generation was a steep uphill climb, but as the years went by, they saw barrier after barrier fall, from the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision (where the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional) to the Civil Rights Act to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Now, 60 years after the March on Washington, we are seeing many of those same barriers – and new ones – rise up once again.

My parents fought Jim Crow, who used bogus literacy tests and threats of violence to keep Black Americans from the voting booth.

By the time I assumed leadership of the National Urban League in 2003, our adversary was James Crow, Esq., who used racial gerrymandering to dilute the political voices of Black Americans.

Today, we are battling Jimmy Crow, who wants to disregard the results of elections entirely.

The current assault on voting rights is a direct response to the rising influence of the Black vote since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As we noted in last year’s State of Black America report, which was subtitled “Under Siege: The Plot to Destroy Democracy,” an anti-democracy wave began to rise after record-high Black voting rates in 2008 and crested with the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder to gut the Voting Rights Act. Now, that wave has broken against “The Big Lie,” the relentless campaign to invalidate the free, fair and validated results of the 2020 election. Those who marched in 1963 were fighting for their right to participate in democracy. Those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were fighting to obliterate democracy.

So far, in 2023 alone, state lawmakers have introduced at least 323 bills to restrict the vote in 45 states. At least 13 of these bills, in 11 states, have passed into law. Even more alarming is the rise of election interference legislation, which would allow partisan interference in the election process. At least 78 bills have been introduced this year in 20 states that would make it easier to, for example, criminally prosecute election officials for simply doing their jobs, set up bogus partisan “review” procedures, or prohibit the use of machines to count ballots for any election. At least four states already have passed such laws.

The campaign to exclude Black Americans from the democratic process is gradually being supplanted with a campaign to eliminate the democratic process altogether.

Earlier this summer, with its decision in Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “independent state legislature theory” that extremists have pushed in order to give state legislatures free rein to gerrymander electoral maps and suppress voters of color – and to give cover to their sinister efforts to overturn elections.

Still, the court’s decision is unlikely to deter these extremists, who are intent on returning a man to the White House who faces numerous indictments for attempting to invalidate the results of the 2020 election. If those forces succeed, the two-century moral arc that has bent slowly, if unevenly, toward universal suffrage could come to an end.

SOURCE: U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

Nigerian Court Asked To Stop President-Elect’s Inauguration, Extend Incumbent’s Tenure

BY CHINEDU ASADU

ABUJA, NIGERIA (AP) — A court in Nigeria has been asked to stop the planned inauguration of the country’s next president and to extend the incumbent’s tenure, court documents obtained Friday show.

Five Nigerians made the request to the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that President-elect Bola Tinubu was illegally declared the winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election and therefore should not be sworn into office on May 29.

The petition is among several challenges to the ruling party’s victory and raised concerns in the West African nation about a possible constitutional crisis should President Muhammadu Buhari remain in office until the case is decided.

Chuks Nwachuku, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said Tinubu’s being declared president-elect was unconstitutional because he failed to win at least 25% of the votes cast in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city.

To be elected president, the Nigerian Constitution requires a candidate to win both the highest number of votes overall and not less than one-quarter of the votes in each of at least two-thirds of the country’s 36 states and Abuja.


The interpretation of that constitutional provision has remained a subject of debate in Nigeria.

“There can be no swearing in of anyone who has not satisfied the provisions of the constitution. We are asking for a declaration that the president remains in office until the issue of succession is sorted out,” Nwachuku told The Associated Press.

Nigeria’s two main opposition parties previously contested the All Progressives Congress party’s presidential victory, alleging the election results were rigged.

While the opposition’s election challenge was not expected to stop Tinubu’s inauguration, analysts warned that extending Buhari’s tenure could create a crisis for a country with a checkered history of long military rule and electoral violence.

“The petition is a recipe for crisis. All the previous elections were disputed, but at no point in time did anybody push that the constitutional provision of inaugurating the winner should be stopped, so it is very worrying,” Idayat Hassan, who leads the Center for Democracy and Development, a research and advocacy organization based in Abuja.

NIGERIA: AS TRIBUNAL DECIDES ELECTION WINNER

THIS DAY

BY MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE

Precisely 19 days from today, President-elect, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his vice, Senator Kashim Shettima, would be sworn in at Eagle Square Abuja to assume the political headship of Nigeria. But whether they will continue on the job for the next four straight years shall depend on the outcomes of the processes that have just begun at the presidential election petitions tribunal. Surely, having been declared winners by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu and Shettima deserve to cherish the approaching moment. So do their supporters and those who voted for them on February 25 this year. It’s also within the constitutional tasks of the president-in-waiting to get ready to form the government that would take over seamlessly from that of President Muhammadu Buhari. Those most pained by the result of that poll have come to terms with these realities, I hope.

But then, the activities underway at the tribunal present something that’s equally valid and undeniable, and potentially upturning. Wazirin Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) who came second and third respectively in that outing, and three other contenders are praying the five-member body of eminent jurists to reverse the pronouncement of INEC. Abubakar and Obi specifically are laying claims to outright victory. Their lawyers, many of whom are senior advocates, are armed with what they consider to be concrete proofs of their clients’ successes in arguably one of Nigeria’s most keenly contested presidential elections. Persons who are persuading these two men to “sheathe the sword” have probably not critically thought of the implications of the figures announced by the commission at the end of that exercise.

Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) polled approximately 8.8million votes, Abubakar garnered 6.9million, while Obi received 6.1million. I can’t remember if the country had ever recorded such close numbers from any previous apex election. Truly, there can always be a first time. That truism would have sufficed in dissuading the plaintiffs, but for the shortcomings that are too loud to be ignored. We know that election malpractices of various degrees are not new here. As in the past, the last set of polls witnessed criminalities of different shades. It’d be difficult for any party to claim innocence in this regard. Even though the ruling party which, being in power, is viewed, understandably, as having a lopsided influence on INEC, security agencies, and access to larger war-chests, the opposing sides, not strangers to the game, do commit significant infractions of their own.

The poll in contention, however, paraded some peculiarities. The INEC carried out concerted campaigns just to assure the electorate of its readiness to conduct the nation’s all-time best general election. The kind of expectation that the people had no reasons to place in any government agency in recent times was, therefore, put in the Professor Mahmood Yakubu-led body. Unfortunately, nothing crushed that anticipation more that the failure of the multibillion-naira technology acquired to directly transfer results instantly to the central server from all the polling units scattered across the federation. Mysteriously, the same software didn’t fail to transmit the tallies of the senatorial and House of Representatives votes held simultaneously with the presidential ballot. Most of the election observers simply refused to believe in such coincidences and said so immediately. That some of them, like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have recently tried to rephrase their earlier stand could be a function of necessity or opaque diplomacy.

There are indications that other issues which border on Tinubu’s credibility or eligibility will be cast on the table, in addition to the alleged voting and collation anomalies. That sounds like a buffet of intriguing fireworks ahead. People, especially those on the side of the winner who are irritated by the accusations against him and his electoral fortunes, should, at least, concede that the complainants who have behaved properly so far in leading their own followers on the path of peaceful objections, deserve respect and commendation. February and March are too close for stakeholders at home and outside the country to forget the heightened frustrations and disillusionment that followed INEC’s declaration in parts of the country. Not to mention the clear absence of worthwhile post-election celebrations. Actually, there were enough grounds for the types of carnage caused by the outcomes of the 2011 presidential poll. One could argue that the relative peace is indicative of the positive strides recorded since the current republic commenced in 1999. Though true, it also tells of the level of maturity being displayed by the opposition.

Their appreciable statesmanship has led to this hour when their political fate and indeed a sizable portion of our collective democratic chances are literally in the hands of few persons on the bench. And, thankfully, those individuals aren’t politicians. Since all humans are said to be political beings, the judges saddled with this adjudication can’t be denied the right to hold their own political views or even make personal choices of political office seekers. But as professionals, persons who first obtained the requisite academic qualifications and subsequently climbed through the ranks to get to their present elevated judicial positions, they should realise that the time to rise to be counted among the heroes of the nation’s democracy is now.

This isn’t too much to ask from the elite priests of the famed temple of justice. The assignment before the tribunal exceeds the mere “last hope of the common man” mantra. More importantly, it’s a call to salvage a nation in dire need of socio-political reassurance and rebirth. Only a disinterested, transparent and holistic approach to jurisprudence can achieve that at this critical point. For long, the Nigerian people have been grappling with the mostly political aspects of government. Many members and institutions of federal and state executives have fallen short of acceptable standards. And the legislators have allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by a largely imperial executive branch. Fallouts of these pitiable phenomena include growing trust deficit between government officials and the populace, rapid lowering of the confidence in the system of government, and a foggy expectancy about Nigeria’s future.

Yes, the country’s current political climate is that hazy. Although the judiciary has also experienced some ebbing of its public perception profile down the line, it still stands higher than the other two. Therein lies the rationale for the sort of faith Abubakar, Obi, and the rest disappointed with Yakubu and his crew, have in the five “wise” persons. The overall behaviour of the political class before and during the February and March 2023 elections was, to be mild, not sterling. On a good day, tribunals and courts are not supposed to be at the heart of the determination of winners of balloting. Sadly, we’re here now. This rather queer situation has been enabled, in part, by the hyper-ambition of politicians, the surprising ineptitude of the electoral umpire, and the designated law enforcement agents who sometimes show incompetence and complicity at the points of duty.

The world now stands by to see how Nigerians would find their way out of this recurring quagmire. As things stand, the responsibility of confronting the audaciousness of politicians and the instruments of electoral manipulation is on the laps these judges. It’s both onerous and historic. The citizenry is in no mood to hear about technicalities. Even though they exist and are legitimate tools by which judgments are won and lost, the raw, credible facts of the matter as marshalled by the barristers should form the bases for the resolution of the cases. Anticipated desperately: A period of quick dispensation of justice that can produce the much-desired healing and tranquility, not prolonged litigations full of vacuous legal jargons.

Quote:

The assignment before the tribunal exceeds the mere “last hope of the common man” mantra. More importantly, it’s a call to salvage a nation in dire need of socio-political reassurance and rebirth. Only a disinterested, transparent and holistic approach to jurisprudence can achieve that at this critical point