Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan Challenges INEC’s Handling of Recall Petition, Citing Bias and Procedural Flaws
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, has vehemently criticized the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for its handling of a petition seeking her recall. The Senator argues that INEC’s response, which acknowledges deficiencies in the petition while simultaneously offering the petitioners guidance on rectifying those deficiencies, demonstrates a clear bias and compromises the commission’s neutrality. At the heart of the controversy is the petition itself, which purportedly contains signatures from over half of the registered voters in the senatorial district, a prerequisite for initiating recall proceedings. However, the petition lacks crucial information such as the contact details of the petitioners, a violation of INEC’s established regulations.
INEC, in a public statement, confirmed receipt of the petition and acknowledged its shortcomings. While noting the absence of essential contact information, the commission indicated its willingness to proceed with the verification process once the petitioners provide the missing details. This stance has drawn sharp criticism from Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and her legal team, who contend that INEC’s decision to offer guidance to the petitioners instead of outrightly rejecting the flawed petition constitutes a breach of due process and an indication of partiality. They argue that the commission’s role is to impartially assess the validity of the petition based on established regulations, not to assist petitioners in correcting deficiencies.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her lawyer, Victor Giwa, has formally communicated her objections to INEC. In a strongly worded letter, the Senator’s legal team emphasized that INEC’s response, as conveyed in its press release, indicates the commission has “taken sides” and become “partial” in favor of the petitioners. The letter asserts that the correct course of action would have been to declare the petition “incompetent” and dismiss it due to its procedural flaws. Instead, the commission has chosen to act as an “adviser” to the petitioners, guiding them on how to meet the necessary requirements, thereby undermining the integrity of the recall process.
The Senator’s legal counsel stresses that INEC’s responsibility is to maintain impartiality and uphold the established regulations governing recall procedures. By offering guidance to the petitioners, the commission has compromised its neutrality and created the perception of bias. They argue that the proper procedure, in accordance with INEC’s own regulations, is to declare the petition incompetent and notify the petitioners accordingly, effectively bringing the process to an end. This approach, they assert, would have demonstrated INEC’s commitment to fairness and adherence to due process.
Further bolstering her argument against the validity of the petition, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan highlights the limited geographical scope of the addresses provided by the petitioners. The addresses are reportedly all located within Okene, Kogi State, suggesting that the signatures collected may not represent the entire senatorial district, which encompasses a wider geographical area. This observation raises further questions about the petition’s legitimacy and underscores the need for INEC to adhere strictly to established procedures to ensure a fair and transparent recall process.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and her legal team have urged INEC to reconsider its position and uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality. They maintain that the commission should declare the petition incompetent and bring the recall process to a close, thereby restoring public trust in the electoral process. The Senator’s challenge to INEC’s handling of the recall petition underscores the critical importance of adherence to established procedures and maintaining neutrality in electoral matters, particularly those with significant political implications. The outcome of this dispute will likely have broader implications for the integrity of recall processes and the public’s confidence in the electoral system.
