It is now countdown to the April general elections in Nigeria. Politicians across the country are finalizing and perfecting their strategies to woo voters. Incidental to this, many are also perfecting and executing strategies to cheat, destroy, kill and cause confusion in the event they do not win or cannot win. But the art of politicking is not without rules. For our purpose in Nigeria, primarily the Electoral Act 2002 governs the electoral process. But like any other law in a democracy, it is subject to the grund norm - the Constitution. Correctly put therefore, the 1999 Constitution gives the ultimate direction to the electoral process while the electoral law gives specific directions.

In December 2002, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC announced the timetable for the conduct of elections in 2003. By February 2003, a few Christian leaders, beginning with the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, Dr. Sunday Mbang, raised objection to the fixing of the presidential election on April 19, which is in the middle of the Christian Holy Week. In fact, that date is the day after Good Friday and the day before Easter, which is the most important feast in Christendom. Interestingly, Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim, is the only presidential candidate to have made a case for the shift of the presidential election date, in the interest of his acclaimed "teeming Christian supporters". More recently, the Catholic Bishops' Conference and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church have called for the shift in the election date in deference to the Easter festivities.

But there is today a new dimension to the general elections, brought to the fore by the National Democratic Party. The party has headed for court for a direction based on its perception of section 1(5) of the Electoral Act 2002. That section states: "The registration of voters and/or the up-dating of the register of voters under this section shall stop not later than 60 days before any election covered by this Act". NDP believes that the implication of this is that an election can only hold anytime from 60 days after the registration and updating of the register of voters. If this argument is sustained, the April general elections may be shifted in such a way that the earlier proponents for a change of date would have their way, but not by reason of deference to their religious festivities, but on account of what the law says.

However, the reason such a step would be difficult, nay dangerous to take lies in the provision of the Constitution, which INEC has consistently referred to in trying to assuage the feelings of Christians to bear with it on the April 19 date. Section 132(2) of the Constitution states that an election to the office of President "shall be held on a date not earlier than sixty days and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office". Section 178(2) of the constitution makes a similar provision for the office of Governor of a State.

Since the President and the State Governors all took on May 29 1999, it means that their four-year tenure ends on May 29. 2003. Now, this is where some political arithmetic (apologies to Chuba Okadigbo) comes in. 60 days to May 29 falls on March 20 whereas 30 days to May 29 is April 29. This informed the dates set out by lNEC for elections. The schedule indicates Presidential and Governorship elections for April 19 and possible run-offs on April 26 and 29, the very last day a constitutionally recognized election can be held to those offices. Given that there is a mammoth crowd of 30 political parties jostling for position in the general elections the possibility of run-offs is quite glaring. In fact, one is even not too comfortable with the decision of INEC to drag the run-off to the last cut-off date. What if any eventuality occurs that may make it difficult or impossible to hold the elections in some places? Such a situation occurred in Bayelsa State in 1999. But that is an issue for some other discourse. To say the least, the dates fixed by INEC for the general elections seem to have been cast on gold, going by the letters of the Constitution.

Now, one must go back to the NDP's argument and the provision of the Electoral Act 2002. It must be asserted that the Act refers to the 'registration of voters' and the 'updating' of the register that should have been completed not later than 60 days to the election. Now, the first election by INEC is billed for April 12, i.e. the National Assembly elections. The meaning of s1(5) is that the registration and updating of the register must have been concluded by February 12, being 60 days to the April 12 election date. Did INEC's dates fail this mathematical calculation? The original registration of voters was held in September 2002 and the 'make up' exercise was held between January 21 and 23 this year.

It can thus be said that the 'registration' and 'updating' had been concluded by January 23, long before the cut off date of February 12. This would be so unless NDP intends to and can successfully canvass the view that the display of voters register is part of the registration and updating referred to by the Act. And such would also be a genuine claim as, ordinarily, the display of the register is followed by raising of objections, which when sustained, would add or remove some names from the register. So, technically speaking, the registration and updating of voters register ends after the display of the list and corrections thereto. It was only this last March 8 that the display ended. And this is clearly later than the February 12 cut off date! The issue therefore, is to await the court's interpretation of what amounts to 'registration' and 'updating'.

However, in the event the court decides that 'registration' and 'updating' ends after the display and possible amendments of the voters' list, it would be interesting to see what it would pronounce as the legal effect of the failure to complete the above within the statutorily appointed time. One wonders if the effect could extend to the ordering of the shift of election dates. This is because S.1(5) deals primarily with when INEC must conduct registration and updating of the voters' register, not on the date for the conduct of election. The provision of the law that states the dates on which elections can be held is that found in sections 132(2) and 178(2) of the Constitution as already stated above. Granted, but not admitting that section 1(5) of the Electoral Act 2002 is a direction as to the date elections can be held, it still cannot be interpreted in such a way as to override the Constitution.

It is submitted that, there may have been a failure on the part of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to follow the Electoral Act 2002, but such failure only amounts to an irregularity. It is an irregularity which can be and should be over-looked as it would not affect the final outcome of the election to such an extent that one could say the elections have not been free and fair or that the results do not reflect the w ill of the electorate. Let the elections go on.

Mr. Effanga JNR is with Centre for Law Enforcement Education(CLEEN), Ikeja, Lagos