Tenure Elongation: A Judicial Heist
By Sam Onimisi
It is no longer news that the governorship election did not hold in five states – courtesy of a judicial ruling extending the tenure of the governors’ of those states by one year – with effect from the date they were sworn in after the re-run elections. Not being a lawyer does not deprive citizens of common sense based on morality. The legal doctrine which says that you cannot put something on nothing was the pivot of the tenure elongation. However, if the issues canvassed by parties to the suit are scrutinized, it would not only show something, it would in fact throw up a lot of things upon which some things can be put. Whether the parties canvassed these things in the course of argument is not the issue here. Need we remind ourselves of the cases?
Gubernatorial elections were nullified in five states in which re-run elections were ordered by the various Electoral Petition Tribunals. The nullification was on the ground of declaration of false results by the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral commission, INEC. Judgment was entered against the beneficiaries of the electoral robbery, thus necessitating re-run elections. I think that a person convicted of crime ought to be treated as a criminal and punished as such, and I believe that election nullification is not enough penalties for electoral fraud. To allow the same contestants to stand for re-run election is an abetment of crime, in my lay opinion. Conviction ought to have led to their disqualification as candidates for the re-run race. If it is argued that the umpire and not the candidate were convicted by the Tribunals, then the INEC ought not to have been allowed to handle the re-run elections. Perhaps this is one lacuna in the Electoral Act which needs to be amended. An umpire convicted of fraud but permitted to play the same role again between the same set of contestants, will repeat the fraud if only to justify the first fraud – and that was what happened. This is especially so if the result of the first contest was procured by bribe. The Professor Maurice Iwu – led INEC was notorious for all manners of electoral malfeasance which includes election re-run robberies.
Of recent, there were allegations that the judgments which returned the ACN candidates in Osun and Ekiti States were procured by the party although no one has challenged it in a superior court. The Election Appeal Tribunals were variously accused of bribery and corruption; to the extent that the allegation has not been proved, the courts may go scot-free. However, when shall we know the extent of the infidelity or probity of our Judiciary? It is rumoured that the five governors got the courts to compromise justice for the tenure elongation. Is there any way of proving this allegation at any place other than in the court of law? If the Electoral Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal are guilty of trading away justice for pecuniary gains, then the Courts are a significant part of the rot that permeates the democratic process and, a major contributor to the violence in the polity of the country. How then do we reform or change the Courts for justice to prevail?
When the Courts or Tribunals nullified the elections, they ordered that re-run election be held within a period of three months or so. In the interim, the Speakers of the Governors’ Political Party stepped in as Acting Governors and handed over to the Governors after re-run election. It means that the Party was never out of power and did not suffer the consequences of the fraud it committed for or through its candidates. The persons of the Governor merely relocated from the State House while directing the acting Governors to spend state funds for re-run campaigns. It is a matter of conjecture if the governors were not paid their salaries and allowances for those three months – since no one will admit for now. When the elections were cancelled, the courts failed to make any pronouncement or orders on the action taken by the governors during their illegal tenure in power.
To assume that their actions were null and void while their appointees and enactments remain in force to their benefits is to make a foul mockery of the law, the courts and morality. Now, having lost nothing during the period of the acting governor, how were the governors punished for their electoral crime?
Why then must they be rewarded for the crime they committed by way of tenure elongation? What lessons has the Court taught culprits if those who deserve punishment were rewarded with one year extra mandate without election? How could the Courts extend an elective tenure beyond and above the three months during which the governors were out of power? If the tenure must be extended, should it have been more than the period of the interim regime? If one cannot put something on nothing, why should the Courts reward criminals with extension which they neither asked for nor deserved? Is it not reasonable or logical to posit that the tenure extension was actually procured or handsomely paid for? In whose interest and for what loss was their tenure extended? If there are saints, can any be found in the Nigerian Judiciary, given these macabre decisions? Or is the tenure extension judgment the product of amazing grace?
It is a pity that in the practice of partisan politics, leaders often ignore the mote in their own eyes while making noise about the plank in the opponents’ eyes. While the ACN enjoys the victory obtained allegedly by bribe from the courts, the PDP basks in the joy of tenure elongation of five of its governor, also allegedly procured by bribe. If the judiciary dispense justice for bribe, the electoral umpire awards poll results for bribe and nobody or agency could do anything to correct it, it is doubtful if such a system will lead anywhere but perdition. In the absence of a just and fair arbiter, no society can live in peace and so, the gravity of Judicial abracadabra has imports capable of destroying both the briber and the bribee, and worse still, the victims who have actually been defrauded by the procured judgments – the electorate. A politico-judicial conspiracy is a deadly poison in a socio-political environment already riddled with corruption, suspicion, tension and hopelessness.
Now, the most painful aspect of this judicial heist of tenure extension is the prolonged suffering of the electorate who had some faint hope that the nightmare represented by the governors would be terminated this year. Were the governors to be performers or true reformers, their services will be missed by all if they are made to go prematurely. In fact, if they had actually contributed to development, one will wish that the law be amended to grant them a third or fourth term as the case may be. However, most of them are non-performers and agents of destruction to other ethnic groups in their states over whom they otherwise have no right to rule, but for the useless structure and system of government imposed on us by the military.
The states as they are and ruled by the governors have been reduced to their personal estates or the inheritance of their ethnic groups and now that the judiciary has joined the harlotry, the states will be further weakened by political rapists who, at the end of their regime in 2012, would have despoiled the people beyond redemption. In the circumstance, I have a word of advice for the five governors: utilize the awarded or undeserved one year extension to undo the negative actions you have taken or correct the errors you have inadvertently or premeditatedly committed in the last eight years. Let the ninth year be a year of restoration, a year of rectitude and of repentance, otherwise the collective curse of the electorate will sentence them to unending misery which the ultimate Judge of all will confirm, affirm and enforce without appeal.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Candidate: An Incurable Optimist
The Candidate: An Incurable Optimist
By Sam Onimisi
It appears that candidates of elective offices are often so self-confident either of their suitability, competence or acceptability that they usually give no thought or room for failure. Of a truth, there is always an advantage in self-confidence or courage in life’s endeavors.
You don’t embark on ventures with an air of fear, inferiority or doubt and expect to prevail. Since everyone is poised to win and because only one could be declared a winner, there is always a tsunami when an incurable optimist loses a contest. Which suggests that there is the need for a balance in the quest for and the expectation of victory – bearing in mind those political competitors do not often go into contest with equal strength? There is always a difference, an advantage and some elements of luck which one candidate has over and above the other – but these are often hidden to those whose self-confidence is unreasonably high. And that is why when they lose, they hardly believe or accept their defeat.
The consequence is the violence, litigation and fractious reaction often associated with politics, thus making it look like a dirty game. The truth is that we always bring personal character and attributes into politics and we play it according to our values, in line with our self or group interests, with little or no regard for the interest of others. Where interests are opposed, conflict is bound to occur and where there is no prior agreement as to the rule of engagement, the result is more often than not, an open-ended tussle and a present continuous brouhaha. As it is with individuals, so it is with groups and just as personal characters reflect in politics, so group character exhibit itself in politics. Although government makes all the rules or laws to regulate inter-personal and inter-group relationship and competition, very often the individual or group character creeps in to distort and upset rules of engagement. There are groups who feel rightly or wrongly that they have absolute or divine right to rule over others. Some other groups think that they have more knowledge and so, have the right to rule more than others. Yet, there are groups who feel that it is their turn to rule and others must concede this and await their turns. Everyone and every side believe they have some rights that is superior to the rights of the others. And these claims are bound to clash except that only one competitor will emerge as winner at a time.
Where all sides to a claim is not ready to accept legitimate defeat, then there can be no peace or amity between and among the highly heterogeneous Nigerian society or any society for that matter. This is where the neutrality or impartiality of the electoral umpire, the judge and those with authority to do justice and ensure fairness and equity holds the key to peace. Once they appear to have compromised, and coupled with the unreasonably high optimism of the competitors to win by all means, what we see is cataclysm. That is why public institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be led by men and women of impeccable character and reputation.
It is also necessary that the criteria for recruitment into these institutions must be of a high standard. But do we adhere to any rule here?
An instance of the incurable optimist is a chieftain of a Party with a popular presidential candidate who, long before the election, said that if his principal wins the race by 79% per cent, then he would cry wolf as he would know that rigging had taken place. Here is one who believes that the race has been won ever before it took place. What if at the end of the game, his principal lost? He would be beside himself in blind rage and will spread the rage, giving unsuspecting members of the public, invented reasons why they must reject the result. With such a bunch of fanatical supporters, electoral violence is not unexpected.
Not everyone will agree with my own tag on the rabble-rouser as some would call him; infact, some people are wondering why he has not been arrested for stirring up violence in advance by his incendiary speech. No matters how you wish to be victorious and regardless of your optimism, self-control and regard for the feeling of others are needed for a stable polity. Again, our freedom of speech and the right to our opinion stops where that of others begin, and since no one possess the monopoly of violence, self censorship is a pre-requisite to political leadership.
It is often said that every party or candidate rigs election in their area of relative strength. Whether this opinion makes sense or not is for rational minds to say. One would have thought that rigging takes place at the area of possible weak voters support and not where one is strong. How often do parties and candidates exaggerate their strength or support base? An optimist, especially the incurable type is prone to over exaggeration or hyperbole. It is like telling and repeating a lie and expecting it to turn out to be truth and when it doesn’t, you blame and quarrel with everyone except yourself. I know of an official of a party who, instead of concentrating on the strategies and tactics that could fetch his party victory, dwells on perceived rigging devices of his opponents. Taking advantage of his media reach, he reels out incredible details of what his “enemies” are planning to do and how they would do it. If by happenstance any of his imaginary allegations or what looks like it happens, then he would say “ I told you so” Many a times, the result of such wolf-cry is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not saying that one cannot guestimate the moves of his opponent or predicts what he/she can do, based on one’s knowledge of the opponent. To some extent, it is possible, but in politics, nothing is absolutely sure! Just as it is impossible to read the thoughts of a person on his/her face, so it is to predict accurately the next move of your opponent. An ardent supporter today may turn out to be a vicious opponent the next day.
In politics, personal choice and interest and then group interest determines who, what and when to support or oppose. Those who are egocentric have no qualms shifting base, moving from one party to the other as it suits his/her personal interest or ambition. Even the most public-spirited politician may defect to another party when he discovers that his ideals have been neglected or jettison by his party or candidate. It is not a crime to move or change platform except when it is done in bad faith, although most often and regrettably, the Nigerian political terrain is foul with bad faith due to series of false starts and critical but negative interventions. We have heard, seen and felt the heat generated by candidates’ exhibition of over-confidence or assumption in the just concluded Parliamentary and Presidential elections where the stakes are high but localized. The contest demystified parties and candidates who thought and behaved as if they were the ones we are dying to have as our rulers. Now that winners and losers have emerged in what looked like a fair contest, the parties and their candidates could now do a post-mortem to know how and why they lost or won.
Again by the time you would be reading this piece, the Governorship election would have been held, won by some and lost by others as decided by the electorate. This is one poll in which the stake is the highest and over which much altercation had been experienced as to who had the right to contest or not. Each contestant had expended much of their resources; show cased their personalities and advertised their programmes, just to convince us of their desirability or capability. While it lasted, the campaign threatened to tear us apart, and a few bombs were thrown here and there just to scare the opponent(s) out of the race or to scare voters from the polling booths, to enhance some rigging experiments and devices. In all, heavens is yet to fall and may never fall to appease the presumptions of the incurable optimism of candidates or the candor with which campaigners went about their binge with reckless abandon.
The post election violence in some states of the Federation is as unfortunate as it is regrettable and unnecessary. Those with the mindset that no election would ever be free or fair may have decided to react in a certain manner if they and their ward lost in the contest. It is also a possibility that zoning or lack of it may have influenced rioters to act the way they did. Until proved otherwise, the 2011 general election was apparently free, fair and credible. Only verified and proved malpractices may reverse the result announced. Violence cannot reverse the mandate that has been freely given. The best reaction of the losers could well be a determination to put winners on their toes – democratically and make them attend to the needs of the electorate. Violence makes electoral loss even more painful and no more!
By Sam Onimisi
It appears that candidates of elective offices are often so self-confident either of their suitability, competence or acceptability that they usually give no thought or room for failure. Of a truth, there is always an advantage in self-confidence or courage in life’s endeavors.
You don’t embark on ventures with an air of fear, inferiority or doubt and expect to prevail. Since everyone is poised to win and because only one could be declared a winner, there is always a tsunami when an incurable optimist loses a contest. Which suggests that there is the need for a balance in the quest for and the expectation of victory – bearing in mind those political competitors do not often go into contest with equal strength? There is always a difference, an advantage and some elements of luck which one candidate has over and above the other – but these are often hidden to those whose self-confidence is unreasonably high. And that is why when they lose, they hardly believe or accept their defeat.
The consequence is the violence, litigation and fractious reaction often associated with politics, thus making it look like a dirty game. The truth is that we always bring personal character and attributes into politics and we play it according to our values, in line with our self or group interests, with little or no regard for the interest of others. Where interests are opposed, conflict is bound to occur and where there is no prior agreement as to the rule of engagement, the result is more often than not, an open-ended tussle and a present continuous brouhaha. As it is with individuals, so it is with groups and just as personal characters reflect in politics, so group character exhibit itself in politics. Although government makes all the rules or laws to regulate inter-personal and inter-group relationship and competition, very often the individual or group character creeps in to distort and upset rules of engagement. There are groups who feel rightly or wrongly that they have absolute or divine right to rule over others. Some other groups think that they have more knowledge and so, have the right to rule more than others. Yet, there are groups who feel that it is their turn to rule and others must concede this and await their turns. Everyone and every side believe they have some rights that is superior to the rights of the others. And these claims are bound to clash except that only one competitor will emerge as winner at a time.
Where all sides to a claim is not ready to accept legitimate defeat, then there can be no peace or amity between and among the highly heterogeneous Nigerian society or any society for that matter. This is where the neutrality or impartiality of the electoral umpire, the judge and those with authority to do justice and ensure fairness and equity holds the key to peace. Once they appear to have compromised, and coupled with the unreasonably high optimism of the competitors to win by all means, what we see is cataclysm. That is why public institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be led by men and women of impeccable character and reputation.
It is also necessary that the criteria for recruitment into these institutions must be of a high standard. But do we adhere to any rule here?
An instance of the incurable optimist is a chieftain of a Party with a popular presidential candidate who, long before the election, said that if his principal wins the race by 79% per cent, then he would cry wolf as he would know that rigging had taken place. Here is one who believes that the race has been won ever before it took place. What if at the end of the game, his principal lost? He would be beside himself in blind rage and will spread the rage, giving unsuspecting members of the public, invented reasons why they must reject the result. With such a bunch of fanatical supporters, electoral violence is not unexpected.
Not everyone will agree with my own tag on the rabble-rouser as some would call him; infact, some people are wondering why he has not been arrested for stirring up violence in advance by his incendiary speech. No matters how you wish to be victorious and regardless of your optimism, self-control and regard for the feeling of others are needed for a stable polity. Again, our freedom of speech and the right to our opinion stops where that of others begin, and since no one possess the monopoly of violence, self censorship is a pre-requisite to political leadership.
It is often said that every party or candidate rigs election in their area of relative strength. Whether this opinion makes sense or not is for rational minds to say. One would have thought that rigging takes place at the area of possible weak voters support and not where one is strong. How often do parties and candidates exaggerate their strength or support base? An optimist, especially the incurable type is prone to over exaggeration or hyperbole. It is like telling and repeating a lie and expecting it to turn out to be truth and when it doesn’t, you blame and quarrel with everyone except yourself. I know of an official of a party who, instead of concentrating on the strategies and tactics that could fetch his party victory, dwells on perceived rigging devices of his opponents. Taking advantage of his media reach, he reels out incredible details of what his “enemies” are planning to do and how they would do it. If by happenstance any of his imaginary allegations or what looks like it happens, then he would say “ I told you so” Many a times, the result of such wolf-cry is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not saying that one cannot guestimate the moves of his opponent or predicts what he/she can do, based on one’s knowledge of the opponent. To some extent, it is possible, but in politics, nothing is absolutely sure! Just as it is impossible to read the thoughts of a person on his/her face, so it is to predict accurately the next move of your opponent. An ardent supporter today may turn out to be a vicious opponent the next day.
In politics, personal choice and interest and then group interest determines who, what and when to support or oppose. Those who are egocentric have no qualms shifting base, moving from one party to the other as it suits his/her personal interest or ambition. Even the most public-spirited politician may defect to another party when he discovers that his ideals have been neglected or jettison by his party or candidate. It is not a crime to move or change platform except when it is done in bad faith, although most often and regrettably, the Nigerian political terrain is foul with bad faith due to series of false starts and critical but negative interventions. We have heard, seen and felt the heat generated by candidates’ exhibition of over-confidence or assumption in the just concluded Parliamentary and Presidential elections where the stakes are high but localized. The contest demystified parties and candidates who thought and behaved as if they were the ones we are dying to have as our rulers. Now that winners and losers have emerged in what looked like a fair contest, the parties and their candidates could now do a post-mortem to know how and why they lost or won.
Again by the time you would be reading this piece, the Governorship election would have been held, won by some and lost by others as decided by the electorate. This is one poll in which the stake is the highest and over which much altercation had been experienced as to who had the right to contest or not. Each contestant had expended much of their resources; show cased their personalities and advertised their programmes, just to convince us of their desirability or capability. While it lasted, the campaign threatened to tear us apart, and a few bombs were thrown here and there just to scare the opponent(s) out of the race or to scare voters from the polling booths, to enhance some rigging experiments and devices. In all, heavens is yet to fall and may never fall to appease the presumptions of the incurable optimism of candidates or the candor with which campaigners went about their binge with reckless abandon.
The post election violence in some states of the Federation is as unfortunate as it is regrettable and unnecessary. Those with the mindset that no election would ever be free or fair may have decided to react in a certain manner if they and their ward lost in the contest. It is also a possibility that zoning or lack of it may have influenced rioters to act the way they did. Until proved otherwise, the 2011 general election was apparently free, fair and credible. Only verified and proved malpractices may reverse the result announced. Violence cannot reverse the mandate that has been freely given. The best reaction of the losers could well be a determination to put winners on their toes – democratically and make them attend to the needs of the electorate. Violence makes electoral loss even more painful and no more!
Friday, April 8, 2011
One Flaw Too Many
One Flaw Too Many
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
One Flaw Too Many
One Flaw Too Many
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
