By Sam Onimisi
With all things being equal, Southern Sudan will become an independent nation in the next few weeks, seceding from Sudan after decades of brutal oppression, genocide and civil war. At last, the armed struggle of the black people of the South coupled with the global moral support of the international community has forced Arabic Sudan to let go, the Southern people they held down for ages. The causes of the civil war leading to secession are racial and religious discrimination against the black Christian South by the fair – skin Arabic Muslim North. Ethiopia, about 16 years ago was one country but split into two when Eritrea gained independence after a bloody armed struggle. The causes were ethnic and religious differences between the orthodox Christian Ethiopia and the Islamic ethnic Eritrea.
In Morocco, there has been a conflict between Rabat and El-Aaiun where the Saharawi (Western Sahara) people have been fighting to be independent of Morocco for similar reasons of ethnic discrimination and the quest for self determination. For well over 15 years now, Somalia has divided into clan smithereens and without a central government as a result of ethnic and clan differences even while sharing the same religion of Islam. Take note that already, there is the virtually independent Somaliland whose capital is Jibuti, as different from Somalia’s Mogadishu. Were both not the same country before they split? I did not begin my charity from home because Biafra could not secede from Nigeria even after 3 years of genocidal civil war against the Igbo people of Eastern Nigeria. However, if you think the ghost of secession was laid to rest by the result of the civil war, you need to answer this question: who is Chief Ralph Uwazurike of the Movement for the Survival of Sovereign People of Biafra (MASSOB)? If anyone is naïve enough to think that the examples cited so far are from underdeveloped Africa, there are even more poignant examples of how ethnic, religious, cultural and regional differences divided countries in Asia, India and Europe in contemporary history.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the World until five years ago when East Timor seceded and made Dili its capital, away from Jakarta on grounds of ethnic, regional and other differences. Cyprus was inhabited by the Greek and Turkish ethnic nationalities and divided by religious differences with Greek Orthodox Christians and the Sunni sect of Islam. Even the power-sharing arrangement in which the Christians produced the president and the Muslims the vice president (similar to what we practice in Nigeria) could not hold the country together. Korea was a very big country until their civil war in the 1950s which resulted in the division of the country into South and North Korea with Seoul and Pyongyang as their respective capitals. In Europe, Italy was one country with Rome as capital, but religious and secular politics separated them with the creation of the Vatican solely for the Pope and the Catholics.
Greece was one nation but now two countries as Macedonia is free with Skopje as its capital. Was the Netherland not one country? Call them Dutch or Holland, but to day Belguim had Brussels as its capital, away from Netherland’s Amsterdam. When Marshal Josip Broz Tito held Yugoslavia together with his iron grip, little did he know that after his demise, that country will split into Bosnia – Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo? A bitter civil war fought along ethnic, religious and regional divide saw to the disintegration of Tito’s Yugoslavia. Who can forget that there was Czechoslovakia with its capital at the Prague? Was it not out of it that the Czech Republic and Slovakia emerged with Bratislava as the latter’s capital?
If you think a religious monolithic country is safe from secession, you could not make a more fatal mistake. Remember Denmark? It was torn apart by denominational difference between the Catholic and the Presbyterians with some ethnic flavour and today, there are three countries from one, i.e. Denmark, Sweden and Norway making Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo their capitals.
Before 1947, India was a vast continent administered as one country by the British imperial powers. But India was a country of great contrasts and diverties. One cannot even vouch for which diversity posed the greatest challenge between ethnic, religious, regional, linguistic and cultural differences. While it remained India, the Muslims loathed the notion of being ruled by the Hindus after independence. They wanted a clean, pure and holy virgin land which they later christened Pakistan to which they fled at independence in 1947. On the night of August 15, 1947 when India was to be formally declared as independent, the Muslims embarked on Hijra to Islamabad and declared themselves as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It sounded and looked like an El-dorado, a sweet dream come true? Well, within 14 years, the ethnic differences between the Urdu and the Bengali came to a head and a point of no return was reached when the later declared the independent state of Bangladesh. Do not ask me what happened to their common Islamic heritage which took them to Pakistan in the first place. It only prove that ethnic nationalism will always smash religious bond as a stronger force in a polity devoid of justice, equity and fair play. Can you imagine that Pakistan – after being freed of Indian Hinduism and Bangladesh’s ethnic irritants is still torn in pieces by sectarian and ideological viruses? Where is the pure land, holy and wonderful paradise on earth, dreamt of by Indian Muslims in 1947? Both Indian and Pakistan held a piece of the divided Kashmir territory and the people are fighting for independence, finding no attraction in India or Pakistan. Strong ethnic nationalism in display and at work? May be or perhaps not, depending on your understanding or persuasion! From new Delhi to Islamabad and to Dhaka between 1947 and 1970!! Don’t you feel we need to think?
When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was at its zenith, it was militarily perceived to be more powerful than the United States of America. The USSR was a continent but administered as one country under a strict communist ideology and orientation as one unitary country. The ideological regimentation was so stuffy that no development could take place as the government puts every citizen under strict surveillance, suspecting infiltration by the democratic West, especially the United States of America, their greatest rival. Run under a highly centralized administration, and led by Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev etc, the sheer weight of ethnic diversities, religious differences and deficiencies in political administration suffocated the Soviet Union and brought her down some twenty years ago. Today, the USSR is no more, but fifteen autonomous countries with full sovereignty emerged from its ruins. The good news is that they parted ways peacefully without having to fire a shot. However, Abkhazia, Chechenia and South Ossetia are threatening to secede from Russia and Georgia and the defunct Soviet Union may become 18 independent countries, if not more before too long.
I have examined the history of the split of 14 nation-states across the world to prove that few countries are immuned from the scourge of ethnic nationalism and religious extremism. It is also to prove that heterogeneous societies are better run under true federalism rather than the unitary system obtained in Nigeria today. The two most intractable challenges facing our country are the same challenges that forced those countries to split. Some split peacefully, others did so after a devastating warfare, and some are rearing to go. With the Islamic Tala Kato, Boko Haram, Taliban and Al – Queda and the Christian MEND throwing their bombs anywhere they choose, can we honestly ascert that the bug of secession cannot, will not or shall not afflict Nigeria? Should we not revisit the work of the Pro-National Conference Organization (PRONACO) and take a look at the Peoples National Conference proposed Constitution which took care of our diversities? Can we continue to do the same thing in the same way and expect a different result?
The co-incidence of the upsurge in the rebellion of the Boko Haramites and the revolt of the supporters of Congress for Progressive Change could have resulted into a congregation for violent change, but for the grace of God. For if there had not been a wide margin between the votes of President Jonathan and General Muhammadu Buhari in the presidential election, the replay of the Ivorian experience could have been rationallu justified. Inspite of the fact that they have now produced the President of Nigeria, the people of Niger – Delta or more precisely, the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) is still threatening to bomb the daylight out of this country. Does this not suggest that the problem with Nigeria is not about power rotation, not revenue allocation and or a religious balancing act?
What appears to be so clear and does not need crystal gazing is the quest on the part of the various ethnic people for self determination – a universal desire which does not necessarily lead to disintegration. Nigerians need and wants an internal re-arrangement which recognize, grants and guarantees freedom of association, of religious faith as consistent with their own cultures and authority over their own local or regional affairs. This is different and beyond ‘power to the people’ but freedom to the people!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Hallmarks Of Character & Integrity
By Sam Onimisi
Adherence to promises made and known rules even if it hurts oneself are the hallmarks of integrity, or so I believe. There is no sphere of life where integrity or lack of it is easily manifested more than in public life and at the top echelon. The main difference between a man of honor and a villain is the balance between gross debasement of norms and the net application of rules. Perhaps we might go on excursion of contemporary history to buttress this point.
General Ibrahim Babangida had eight years to transit from military rule to democracy. He it was who promised to hand over in 1989 but failed. He shifted hand over date to 1990 and then to 1992 and eventually to 1993. He not only botched all his promises, it took the collective honor of the military top-brass to escort him out of power against the background of the how lings of pre-democracy activists who hounded his guts to the point of surrender. Although he had the privilege to claim that he “stepped aside” rather than being forced to go, his subsequent attempts to step-in to power met the roadblocks mounted by his perceived lack of integrity. On the other hand, General Abubakar Abdulsalam came to power after the mysterious demise of the despotic General Sani Abacha. He gave the nation an 11 months transition programme and handed over on the dot as promised. Abdulsalam has ever since become the toast of national and international conferences on peaceful transition of government and a highly respected statesman and a trusted arbiter. If the difference between the two former heads of state is not clear, then it would only be so to prejudiced minds.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was believed to have some integrity, especially when he served as military head of state at the end of which he returned the country to democracy. His eight year tenure as civilian president appears to have erased whatever was left of his integrity. His administration was characterized by unkept promises and much more, on promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Added to this are the various domestic and official scandals which dodged his person. His relevance today is mainly accounted for by the length of time of his rule, his age as well as the wealth he controls, not by the quality or strength of his integrity. Knowing that opinion is free and everyone has the right to his/her views; this evaluation is not an expression of judgment on these former heads of state. Rather, it is to serve as examples from which people in authority at whatever level should learn and make their choice.
The word of God in Psalms 51:1 asked a question thus: “Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” Mercifully, the answer contains nothing like anyone with deceitful toothy smile or a sarcastic sense of humour. The Lord is not amused by a man in Agbada strapped with a Sam Browne, (a leather belt for a dress supported by a light strap passing over the right shoulder, made popular by a British Army officer, Sir, Samuel James Browne). Even God is not impressed by he who is arrogantly humble or quiet. A wise saying in my language says that no one has his/her heart open for us to see what is contained therein; Enahinere! And so, the reliable yardstick with which the measure or evaluate integrity is, in the performance of what is promised. The answer, according to God’s word if found in verse 4 among other answers. It says that those who may abide in God’s holy hill or tabernacle is “he who swears to his own hurt and does not change”.
We have a new leader in President Goodluck Jonathan who, in the course of his campaign for the office, made various promises to individuals, group and the country as a whole. Since many of the promises were made public or to an audience, they may now be used to set an agenda for him and to evaluate the level and quality of his integrity at the end of his tenure. He has said, for example, that he would serve only one term in office. If it was not a joke then he is expected to leave office in 2015. However, the on-going speculation that the National Assembly is being pressured to amend the Constitution for a single tenure of six years for the president may tamper with his integrity – if the move sails through.
What should engage the mind of the President at this stage is to engage in dialogue with all shades of political opinion to cool the frayed nerves in the wake of the post election violence in parts of the country. For instance, he has done well to meet with opposition parties who won election at various levels. He should follow it swiftly with a parley with the rest 53 political parties and especially, with the 46 political parties that adopted or supported him for the election. Failure to do so will be a signal that he may not fulfill his promise and that those parties may have misplaced their trust. It is even dangerous to think of de-registering political parties just because the self-serving National Assembly amended the Electoral Act with a provision for de-registration. Political parties exist not only to contest and win elections, but also to contest and win the mind and support of the people, to champion their cause at critical moments; to criticize unpopular public policies and serve as opinion molders, among other responsibilities.
In Nigeria today, there exist over 2000 Christian and Islamic denominations of various sizes and spread across the country for the religious needs and desires of the people. What of the over 1000 civil society organizations, engaged in advocacy and championing civil or gender rights – and to which government and international agencies gives financial grants? For a country of 150 million people, even 100 political parties could be said to be too few, given the over 350 ethnic nationalities of the country. The Churches and Mosques, together with the CSOs exist in furtherance of the freedom of association and belief enshrined in our constitution. To short – circuit this fundamental human rights in the name of party de-registration, when new parties could still be registered without guarantee that they will win future election, to my mind, is a most myopic and futile venture. It is only a government intent on imposing a one party system that will embark on party deregistration, especially when they pay no grant to the parties.
Multi-party democracy is the only guarantee against the tyranny of the majority just as competition is against entrenched monopolies. No country makes progress with one party cultism, not even with an angel as President and a 5-party system may evolve, not by the fiat of an Act of the Legislature if democracy is the game. In effect, integrity is not just in fulfilling promises made voluntarily; it is also in doing things that are all inclusive and beneficial to the greater majority. Our concept and understanding of government must transcend partisan party loyalty because while a party is for a few, government is for all. Promises are known to be debts and persons of integrity go the extra mile to pay their debts.
Many of today’s lawmakers defected from one political party to the other in order to contest the election that put them in the National Assembly. Prof Dora Akunyili left the PDP just as Dr. Chris Ngige to join APGA and ACN to contest a senate seat. Chief Okorocha left PDP to form Action Alliance and yet, went to APGA to contest and won the governorship election in Imo State. There are numerous other examples where the multi-party system has helped to ease tension and reduce or minimize intra – party wrangling; as a result thuggery and violence did not feature so much in the general election just concluded. This is not because we no longer have thugs but because the candidates had options of party platforms from which to choose if and where dissatisfied with their original parties. It takes a small spark of fire to ignite a revolution and if that spark comes in form of party de-registration and deprivation of our freedom of association, then the reckless piece of legislation by our rudderless National Assembly will take the credit for it. Who doesn’t know that when the voice of a diverse heterogeneous people is muzzled, the first victim is always the muzzlers and the result is always in favour of freedom for the people? If the defunct Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Chekcoslovakia are not sufficient examples, the combustive revolution over turning the entire Arabian world is an eye-opener, even to the willfully blind!
President Goodluck Jonathan did not promise to compress the democratic space by party de-registration. There is no way nor have we been told how the multi-system has harmed the peace of the country to warrant the odious thought of deregistration of parties. Those who have ears let them hear.
Adherence to promises made and known rules even if it hurts oneself are the hallmarks of integrity, or so I believe. There is no sphere of life where integrity or lack of it is easily manifested more than in public life and at the top echelon. The main difference between a man of honor and a villain is the balance between gross debasement of norms and the net application of rules. Perhaps we might go on excursion of contemporary history to buttress this point.
General Ibrahim Babangida had eight years to transit from military rule to democracy. He it was who promised to hand over in 1989 but failed. He shifted hand over date to 1990 and then to 1992 and eventually to 1993. He not only botched all his promises, it took the collective honor of the military top-brass to escort him out of power against the background of the how lings of pre-democracy activists who hounded his guts to the point of surrender. Although he had the privilege to claim that he “stepped aside” rather than being forced to go, his subsequent attempts to step-in to power met the roadblocks mounted by his perceived lack of integrity. On the other hand, General Abubakar Abdulsalam came to power after the mysterious demise of the despotic General Sani Abacha. He gave the nation an 11 months transition programme and handed over on the dot as promised. Abdulsalam has ever since become the toast of national and international conferences on peaceful transition of government and a highly respected statesman and a trusted arbiter. If the difference between the two former heads of state is not clear, then it would only be so to prejudiced minds.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was believed to have some integrity, especially when he served as military head of state at the end of which he returned the country to democracy. His eight year tenure as civilian president appears to have erased whatever was left of his integrity. His administration was characterized by unkept promises and much more, on promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Added to this are the various domestic and official scandals which dodged his person. His relevance today is mainly accounted for by the length of time of his rule, his age as well as the wealth he controls, not by the quality or strength of his integrity. Knowing that opinion is free and everyone has the right to his/her views; this evaluation is not an expression of judgment on these former heads of state. Rather, it is to serve as examples from which people in authority at whatever level should learn and make their choice.
The word of God in Psalms 51:1 asked a question thus: “Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” Mercifully, the answer contains nothing like anyone with deceitful toothy smile or a sarcastic sense of humour. The Lord is not amused by a man in Agbada strapped with a Sam Browne, (a leather belt for a dress supported by a light strap passing over the right shoulder, made popular by a British Army officer, Sir, Samuel James Browne). Even God is not impressed by he who is arrogantly humble or quiet. A wise saying in my language says that no one has his/her heart open for us to see what is contained therein; Enahinere! And so, the reliable yardstick with which the measure or evaluate integrity is, in the performance of what is promised. The answer, according to God’s word if found in verse 4 among other answers. It says that those who may abide in God’s holy hill or tabernacle is “he who swears to his own hurt and does not change”.
We have a new leader in President Goodluck Jonathan who, in the course of his campaign for the office, made various promises to individuals, group and the country as a whole. Since many of the promises were made public or to an audience, they may now be used to set an agenda for him and to evaluate the level and quality of his integrity at the end of his tenure. He has said, for example, that he would serve only one term in office. If it was not a joke then he is expected to leave office in 2015. However, the on-going speculation that the National Assembly is being pressured to amend the Constitution for a single tenure of six years for the president may tamper with his integrity – if the move sails through.
What should engage the mind of the President at this stage is to engage in dialogue with all shades of political opinion to cool the frayed nerves in the wake of the post election violence in parts of the country. For instance, he has done well to meet with opposition parties who won election at various levels. He should follow it swiftly with a parley with the rest 53 political parties and especially, with the 46 political parties that adopted or supported him for the election. Failure to do so will be a signal that he may not fulfill his promise and that those parties may have misplaced their trust. It is even dangerous to think of de-registering political parties just because the self-serving National Assembly amended the Electoral Act with a provision for de-registration. Political parties exist not only to contest and win elections, but also to contest and win the mind and support of the people, to champion their cause at critical moments; to criticize unpopular public policies and serve as opinion molders, among other responsibilities.
In Nigeria today, there exist over 2000 Christian and Islamic denominations of various sizes and spread across the country for the religious needs and desires of the people. What of the over 1000 civil society organizations, engaged in advocacy and championing civil or gender rights – and to which government and international agencies gives financial grants? For a country of 150 million people, even 100 political parties could be said to be too few, given the over 350 ethnic nationalities of the country. The Churches and Mosques, together with the CSOs exist in furtherance of the freedom of association and belief enshrined in our constitution. To short – circuit this fundamental human rights in the name of party de-registration, when new parties could still be registered without guarantee that they will win future election, to my mind, is a most myopic and futile venture. It is only a government intent on imposing a one party system that will embark on party deregistration, especially when they pay no grant to the parties.
Multi-party democracy is the only guarantee against the tyranny of the majority just as competition is against entrenched monopolies. No country makes progress with one party cultism, not even with an angel as President and a 5-party system may evolve, not by the fiat of an Act of the Legislature if democracy is the game. In effect, integrity is not just in fulfilling promises made voluntarily; it is also in doing things that are all inclusive and beneficial to the greater majority. Our concept and understanding of government must transcend partisan party loyalty because while a party is for a few, government is for all. Promises are known to be debts and persons of integrity go the extra mile to pay their debts.
Many of today’s lawmakers defected from one political party to the other in order to contest the election that put them in the National Assembly. Prof Dora Akunyili left the PDP just as Dr. Chris Ngige to join APGA and ACN to contest a senate seat. Chief Okorocha left PDP to form Action Alliance and yet, went to APGA to contest and won the governorship election in Imo State. There are numerous other examples where the multi-party system has helped to ease tension and reduce or minimize intra – party wrangling; as a result thuggery and violence did not feature so much in the general election just concluded. This is not because we no longer have thugs but because the candidates had options of party platforms from which to choose if and where dissatisfied with their original parties. It takes a small spark of fire to ignite a revolution and if that spark comes in form of party de-registration and deprivation of our freedom of association, then the reckless piece of legislation by our rudderless National Assembly will take the credit for it. Who doesn’t know that when the voice of a diverse heterogeneous people is muzzled, the first victim is always the muzzlers and the result is always in favour of freedom for the people? If the defunct Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Chekcoslovakia are not sufficient examples, the combustive revolution over turning the entire Arabian world is an eye-opener, even to the willfully blind!
President Goodluck Jonathan did not promise to compress the democratic space by party de-registration. There is no way nor have we been told how the multi-system has harmed the peace of the country to warrant the odious thought of deregistration of parties. Those who have ears let them hear.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Monumental Castles In The Air
Memories serve to remind us of past experiences and to warn or caution us on what to look out for or what to avoid in order not to repeat past unpleasant event or to take advantage of opportunities. Sometimes our memories fail us to the extent that we have to go through unnecessary hassle again. At order times, memories serves to the effect that we escape painful repercussion or consequences. Which ever has been the case; lessons are taught and learnt by all for the benefit of mankind. If don’t mind, let us share some of our childhood experiences for a start.
We all run errands for our parents, elders and guardians while young. I was sent on one such errand one day when fortune gave me one vast substantial smile. I was going and playing with a ball of orange when I caught a glimpse of a round shinning metal object on the ground. What could that be on a grass land in a bush path? On the impulse of the moment I dashed back to satisfy my curiosity and … what did I see? Holy Moses!! Dear readers, I found a sparking coin of one shilling, the equivalent of today’s 20 kobo in a world of my own without a soul around to contest it with me. I was beside myself in joy and tucked it right deep down in my knickers inner pocket. I immediately resolved never to disclose my find to anyone. I lost count of how many times I touched or felt my pocket to make sure the coin did not disappear or get missing. You must know the effect of this catch on my psyche, but so you can appreciate it, let us convert this one shilling to its correct purchasing value. One shilling contains twelve pence and one penny was enough to buy one loaf of bread, several balls of beans cake, two sticks of pencil or two pieces of eraser. It was such a large sum of money for a teenager!
At a stage, I was afraid that if I was found with the money, I could be accused of stealing, but I also feared that my guardian will take if from me if I told him. To be on the safe side, I informed a friend of mine with whom I spent the money for a long period of time. My friend was faithful as he too did not let it known to anyone. We had a wonderful time devouring one shilling! Did you call it twenty kobo? I doubt if that denomination is in circulation today and if it is, it cannot buy anything, not even a stick of matches.
Not long after that, my friend and I embarked on a hunting expedition looking for lost coins. We combed all the known bush paths, alleys and crannies without luck, not knowing that punishment awaited us at home. As we got home, we could not account for our absence for such a long time as we refused to disclose our mission surveying the entire village. We were not only beaten, we served all manner of punishment including compulsory fasting as we were denied of food for the whole day. Such is the reward of fortune hunting that proved entirely fruitless and frustrating; who did we have to blame except ourselves! If this experience is our and unpleasant, there was another one with a tinge of sadism to it which we brought on ourselves on one unfortunate day. While still young, I hate to remember that day although I now recall it not only with nostalgia but also for the lesson of life it teaches. On one fateful day, my friend and I were going to school and I said to him that if I should find one pound on our way, I would buy a bicycle and buy trousers and shirts. My friend demanded to know how much I would give him and I replied that since it was my money, I would give him one shilling. He demands for five shillings, as he reasoned, because we would not have to share it with anyone else since we were just two.
I told him the last time I found one shilling, we spent it together and when we both went on hunting binge looking for lost money, we found nothing probably due to his bad luck; therefore, I reserved the right to give him just any amount out of my one pound. He felt insulted that I accused him of bad luck and swore that if I did not give the five shillings he demanded, he would not allow me to spend the money. I felt challenged and wondered how someone would stop me from spending my own money. I replied him that ten of him could not stop me from spending my money. I cannot remember what next he said but we engaged ourselves in a wrestling match in which we floored each other in the mud, rolling in the marsh as if have a rollicking dream on one’s bed.
By the time we were separated, we looked like swine emerging from a marshy swim and it dawned on us that we were supposed to be going to or be at school. Now as dirty as we were, we dared not show up at school, not even when we were too late. To return home was also a big problem as we would have to explain to our parents how and why we got so enmeshed in mud. This mutual dilemma forced us to reason together again to device an alibi or some reasons to account for the humiliating dirty appearance. We were to lie that one of us fell into a pit on our way to school and the other was drawn into the pit by the weight of the one in a rescue attempt. However, the story sounded incredible even to our own ears, not only for the many questions that would throw up, but also for the fact that there is no pit enroute to our school into which anyone could fall. Not being very inventful liars, we ran short of lies and we concluded we had no option than to go home and tell the truth to our parents. Now, several punishments awaited us immediately: one for the fight we fought, two, for our school uniforms which we dirtied, and for our failure to go to school. Again, we would still face the penalty for our absence at school for that day and this by the school authorities, and we did.
To think that we brought this entire ordeal upon ourselves over the sum of one pound (today’s two naira) which was never lost or found is a study in juvenile delinquency and wishful pastime. When my father asked me what I thought would be the feeling of the person who lost the one shilling I found and spent so lavishly, I had no answer. He also asked how I would feel if I lost the one pound over which I was fighting my friend, on the sharing formula, I could not imagine my sense of loss. My dream of buying a bicycle ended in a punch up and a wrestling match that put to shame the Sumo brand of the martial art.
In retrospect, I am happy I was punished both at home by my father and at school by my teacher over a crime which may be described as covetous rascality. Imagine that I spared no thought for the person who lost the one shilling I found or the loss to the person whose one pound would be lost and found, but was already seeing the bicycle I was going to buy with it. If you think all these happened because we were children, then I will tell you that adults also build monumental castles in the air, with more devastating consequences.
In the build up to the just concluded general election, many candidates were upbeat in their hope to win and become senators, governors and president. As aspirants, they were already enjoying the honourary titles of Honourables, Distinguished, His Excellency etc and their top aides were carrying themselves as senior special assistants or ministers. Making promises during campaign runs came easy to them since none of the promises is well thought out and so, need not be fulfilled. Some of them became so arrogant and presumptuous you would think they have been in those offices already. They no longer see themselves as one of us and have translated themselves to a higher world, just by imagination of having won an election that has not been held!
In the aftermath of their dismal failure and electoral misfortunes, they literally get insane with rage and begin to issue libelous press statements full of insinuations, innuendoes and incitement, all of which serves to encourage the ordinary citizens to go on rampage over an election that was never won by their masters. What do we do to a former Head of State, member of the Council of State and a three – time presidential candidate if he is found guilty of inciting his followers to riot? How do we make him pay for the death of hundreds of citizens, billions of property and the general tension and disunity his inordinate ambition has generated? Stripping him of his membership of the Council may not be a sufficient punishment for this heinous crime, especially since he has proved so unrepentant, unremorseful as to be daring the president to arrest him. If he is allowed to go scot free, he will remain with the feeling of being untouchable and may even embark on a more sinister venture in future. Meanwhile, someone should tell him to withdraw those home made bombs with his operatives from our streets as an interim minimum and mandatory requirement, until justice is done!
We all run errands for our parents, elders and guardians while young. I was sent on one such errand one day when fortune gave me one vast substantial smile. I was going and playing with a ball of orange when I caught a glimpse of a round shinning metal object on the ground. What could that be on a grass land in a bush path? On the impulse of the moment I dashed back to satisfy my curiosity and … what did I see? Holy Moses!! Dear readers, I found a sparking coin of one shilling, the equivalent of today’s 20 kobo in a world of my own without a soul around to contest it with me. I was beside myself in joy and tucked it right deep down in my knickers inner pocket. I immediately resolved never to disclose my find to anyone. I lost count of how many times I touched or felt my pocket to make sure the coin did not disappear or get missing. You must know the effect of this catch on my psyche, but so you can appreciate it, let us convert this one shilling to its correct purchasing value. One shilling contains twelve pence and one penny was enough to buy one loaf of bread, several balls of beans cake, two sticks of pencil or two pieces of eraser. It was such a large sum of money for a teenager!
At a stage, I was afraid that if I was found with the money, I could be accused of stealing, but I also feared that my guardian will take if from me if I told him. To be on the safe side, I informed a friend of mine with whom I spent the money for a long period of time. My friend was faithful as he too did not let it known to anyone. We had a wonderful time devouring one shilling! Did you call it twenty kobo? I doubt if that denomination is in circulation today and if it is, it cannot buy anything, not even a stick of matches.
Not long after that, my friend and I embarked on a hunting expedition looking for lost coins. We combed all the known bush paths, alleys and crannies without luck, not knowing that punishment awaited us at home. As we got home, we could not account for our absence for such a long time as we refused to disclose our mission surveying the entire village. We were not only beaten, we served all manner of punishment including compulsory fasting as we were denied of food for the whole day. Such is the reward of fortune hunting that proved entirely fruitless and frustrating; who did we have to blame except ourselves! If this experience is our and unpleasant, there was another one with a tinge of sadism to it which we brought on ourselves on one unfortunate day. While still young, I hate to remember that day although I now recall it not only with nostalgia but also for the lesson of life it teaches. On one fateful day, my friend and I were going to school and I said to him that if I should find one pound on our way, I would buy a bicycle and buy trousers and shirts. My friend demanded to know how much I would give him and I replied that since it was my money, I would give him one shilling. He demands for five shillings, as he reasoned, because we would not have to share it with anyone else since we were just two.
I told him the last time I found one shilling, we spent it together and when we both went on hunting binge looking for lost money, we found nothing probably due to his bad luck; therefore, I reserved the right to give him just any amount out of my one pound. He felt insulted that I accused him of bad luck and swore that if I did not give the five shillings he demanded, he would not allow me to spend the money. I felt challenged and wondered how someone would stop me from spending my own money. I replied him that ten of him could not stop me from spending my money. I cannot remember what next he said but we engaged ourselves in a wrestling match in which we floored each other in the mud, rolling in the marsh as if have a rollicking dream on one’s bed.
By the time we were separated, we looked like swine emerging from a marshy swim and it dawned on us that we were supposed to be going to or be at school. Now as dirty as we were, we dared not show up at school, not even when we were too late. To return home was also a big problem as we would have to explain to our parents how and why we got so enmeshed in mud. This mutual dilemma forced us to reason together again to device an alibi or some reasons to account for the humiliating dirty appearance. We were to lie that one of us fell into a pit on our way to school and the other was drawn into the pit by the weight of the one in a rescue attempt. However, the story sounded incredible even to our own ears, not only for the many questions that would throw up, but also for the fact that there is no pit enroute to our school into which anyone could fall. Not being very inventful liars, we ran short of lies and we concluded we had no option than to go home and tell the truth to our parents. Now, several punishments awaited us immediately: one for the fight we fought, two, for our school uniforms which we dirtied, and for our failure to go to school. Again, we would still face the penalty for our absence at school for that day and this by the school authorities, and we did.
To think that we brought this entire ordeal upon ourselves over the sum of one pound (today’s two naira) which was never lost or found is a study in juvenile delinquency and wishful pastime. When my father asked me what I thought would be the feeling of the person who lost the one shilling I found and spent so lavishly, I had no answer. He also asked how I would feel if I lost the one pound over which I was fighting my friend, on the sharing formula, I could not imagine my sense of loss. My dream of buying a bicycle ended in a punch up and a wrestling match that put to shame the Sumo brand of the martial art.
In retrospect, I am happy I was punished both at home by my father and at school by my teacher over a crime which may be described as covetous rascality. Imagine that I spared no thought for the person who lost the one shilling I found or the loss to the person whose one pound would be lost and found, but was already seeing the bicycle I was going to buy with it. If you think all these happened because we were children, then I will tell you that adults also build monumental castles in the air, with more devastating consequences.
In the build up to the just concluded general election, many candidates were upbeat in their hope to win and become senators, governors and president. As aspirants, they were already enjoying the honourary titles of Honourables, Distinguished, His Excellency etc and their top aides were carrying themselves as senior special assistants or ministers. Making promises during campaign runs came easy to them since none of the promises is well thought out and so, need not be fulfilled. Some of them became so arrogant and presumptuous you would think they have been in those offices already. They no longer see themselves as one of us and have translated themselves to a higher world, just by imagination of having won an election that has not been held!
In the aftermath of their dismal failure and electoral misfortunes, they literally get insane with rage and begin to issue libelous press statements full of insinuations, innuendoes and incitement, all of which serves to encourage the ordinary citizens to go on rampage over an election that was never won by their masters. What do we do to a former Head of State, member of the Council of State and a three – time presidential candidate if he is found guilty of inciting his followers to riot? How do we make him pay for the death of hundreds of citizens, billions of property and the general tension and disunity his inordinate ambition has generated? Stripping him of his membership of the Council may not be a sufficient punishment for this heinous crime, especially since he has proved so unrepentant, unremorseful as to be daring the president to arrest him. If he is allowed to go scot free, he will remain with the feeling of being untouchable and may even embark on a more sinister venture in future. Meanwhile, someone should tell him to withdraw those home made bombs with his operatives from our streets as an interim minimum and mandatory requirement, until justice is done!
Thursday, May 12, 2011
The President We Deserve
The President We Deserve
By Sam Onimisi
No Vice President or Acting President can claim to have the power needed to act decisively on crucial issues with national ramifications, given the fact or reality that he is on the hot seat on a temporary basis. President Goodluck Jonathan found himself in such a precarious situation when he had to walk on tight rope so as not to hurt some feelings or step on powerful toes. He had to endure the humiliation meted to him by the powerful cabal left behind by the sickly President Umaru Yar’Adua, shortly before being evacuated to a Saudi Arabian hospital. Even when he was made President, he was all too conscious of the fact that he became so on the doctrine of necessity, a legal framework that is as fragile as a frail. What more, his natural humility never allowed him to act presumptuously and so, he managed to wage through the last one year as President – a time when more bombs exploded in unlikely places, only next to the number of bombs used during the Civil War.
For his undisguised humility and non-vindictive outlook, various shades of political opinion became unanimous in their admiration for and their adoption of President Jonathan as a Pan- Nigerian candidate. A record of 46 political parties either aligned with or adopted him as their candidate and their widow’s mite contributed in no small way in his electoral victory. Thus, his success at the polls cut across the six geo-political zones and endorsed by most ethnic groups and religious faiths in good but varying degrees or proportion. Perhaps this is why the post –election protest was restricted to mainly one geo-political zone (the North West) and about three states in another zone (the North East). Even in those seemingly unfriendly zones or states, President Jonathan won the mandatory 25% votes to make his mandate truly national and unmistakable.
Now, the April 16 presidential election has invested President Goodluck Jonathan with the people’s mandate for the next four years, beginning from 29th May 2011. Aside from the normal precaution necessary in decision – making process, the fear of stepping on toes must now disappear for good. The election has exposed some individuals who hitherto, constituted themselves to a cult of untouchables with some air of power and authority as if they could sway the electorate one way or the other. Those individuals lost their wards in the election and so, were demystified as godfathers. They are no more in position to hold the President hostage to their personal or group interest; it means that the President need not defer to them except when it is absolutely right or necessary. The encumbrance they constituted has now been removed by the national mandate given to the president by the people.
The President should not now hamstring himself by being besotted to any cabal or power-bloc or power-brokers that are known to act only on selfish interest. Having worked with many aides when he was Vice President or acting President, he should have known what it means to work with people without vision, aides whose purpose in office is the prestige the office confers on them, rather than what they can do for the President to make his burden lighter. Every dead weight among his aides should not be retained on sentimental ground. The rule of law must now be given a freer reign, and this is an area where President Jonathan has a sparkling record. What needed to be added is that no time must now be wasted in bringing culprits to justice if the rule of law is to become part of our political culture.
The President Nigeria deserve is one who is disposed to exploring all options to political stability and economic development rather than maintaining the status quo even when it retards and has proven unhelpful. Our President must be one who is at home with the facts of our plurality and ever ready to honour, harness and husband it for a true federation of equity, justice and fair play – not in sanctimonious words, but in strenuous deeds. In the dynamism of an ethnic polyglot such as Nigeria, especially given the challenges of the 21st century, it will be puerile to assume that certain issues are given or no – go areas and therefore, unworthy of consideration. For example, no one must pretend that we have had an electoral reform, whether on the basis of the 2010 / 2011 amendments to the Electoral Act or even the relatively above average performance of the INEC. It is not all the time we will have a Professor Jega whose word is his bond. Institutional changes and structural reforms are needed if we must have a peaceful transition from one regime to another by democratic mechanism. The Legislature has not been helpful or useful in the quest to have a workable electoral system, given the many undemocratic and self – serving amendments and clauses added or injected to the 1999 constitution and the 2011 Electoral Act. In view of this fact, the President must be prepared to engage the National Assembly by proposing necessary reversal of such retrogressive amendments or by proposing laws that will replace them – without fear of vindictive impeachment.
As a matter of utmost urgency, and in other to avert a slide into disintegration, the Nigerian President we deserve is one who will initiate a national dialogue untainted and unhindered by existing institutions of state, with a view of making a Constitution that is best suited to our heterogeneity. To assume that the 1999 constitution as amended is a good law is, to carry pretence beyond reason; this is because we have had twelve years of uninterrupted operation of this constitution and our collective experience has proved that it is altogether unprofitable. Any constitution which fails to address the causes and effects of ethno – religious wars, and which has no anti-dote to Boko Haram, Maitatsine, the Tala Kato, the MENDS, the Taliban or Al-Quieda and their subsidiary gangsters. Any constitution that allows stolen income to be invested in public enterprise or permit private citizen to acquire public property at ridiculously low price; or which fails to verify the ownership of property for effective and adequate taxation for development. What is the value of a constitution which purports to regulate inter – group relations but grants no right to self given constitution? A true federal system such as the United States of America is a multi – constitutional polity and yet, we lie and pretend to be operating the American Presidential system but without its component of federalism. Even an angel from above will fail woefully in any attempt to run our unitary system as it is. Our President is not an angel and never pretends to be and so, should be interested in the desired constitutional reform. We had a haughty know – it – all President whose so – called National Political Reform Conference was a monumental disaster as it ended in a fiasco. He also instituted a Local Government Reform Committee which destroyed the local council system instead. Even the amiable President Umar Musa Yar’Auda failed to deliver on his electoral reform promise, even though death snatched him away before he could be accused of failure. I am sure our dear President is not unaware of all these and the need to avoid a repeat of such failures, or to move the country away from rot and stagnation.
The mandate given to President Goodluck Jonathan is not for a four – years turn of the Niger Delta or the Ijaw Nationality even if his origin embodies both. It is not given in order to appease ultra – conservatives who have entrenched but undeserved advantages to preserve. The mandate is not just to keep the peace, maintain tranquility, or law and order as any imposter can do. It is not a mandate of the PDP, by the PDP and of the PDP alone. The President with our mandate must dare, question and challenge those factors, issues and people who wants to keep Nigeria down in the Dark Age. We have hopefully voted for and mandated President Goodluck Jonathan to lead Nigeria to the comity of great and respected countries known for justice, productivity and progressive policies. We deserve no less!
By Sam Onimisi
No Vice President or Acting President can claim to have the power needed to act decisively on crucial issues with national ramifications, given the fact or reality that he is on the hot seat on a temporary basis. President Goodluck Jonathan found himself in such a precarious situation when he had to walk on tight rope so as not to hurt some feelings or step on powerful toes. He had to endure the humiliation meted to him by the powerful cabal left behind by the sickly President Umaru Yar’Adua, shortly before being evacuated to a Saudi Arabian hospital. Even when he was made President, he was all too conscious of the fact that he became so on the doctrine of necessity, a legal framework that is as fragile as a frail. What more, his natural humility never allowed him to act presumptuously and so, he managed to wage through the last one year as President – a time when more bombs exploded in unlikely places, only next to the number of bombs used during the Civil War.
For his undisguised humility and non-vindictive outlook, various shades of political opinion became unanimous in their admiration for and their adoption of President Jonathan as a Pan- Nigerian candidate. A record of 46 political parties either aligned with or adopted him as their candidate and their widow’s mite contributed in no small way in his electoral victory. Thus, his success at the polls cut across the six geo-political zones and endorsed by most ethnic groups and religious faiths in good but varying degrees or proportion. Perhaps this is why the post –election protest was restricted to mainly one geo-political zone (the North West) and about three states in another zone (the North East). Even in those seemingly unfriendly zones or states, President Jonathan won the mandatory 25% votes to make his mandate truly national and unmistakable.
Now, the April 16 presidential election has invested President Goodluck Jonathan with the people’s mandate for the next four years, beginning from 29th May 2011. Aside from the normal precaution necessary in decision – making process, the fear of stepping on toes must now disappear for good. The election has exposed some individuals who hitherto, constituted themselves to a cult of untouchables with some air of power and authority as if they could sway the electorate one way or the other. Those individuals lost their wards in the election and so, were demystified as godfathers. They are no more in position to hold the President hostage to their personal or group interest; it means that the President need not defer to them except when it is absolutely right or necessary. The encumbrance they constituted has now been removed by the national mandate given to the president by the people.
The President should not now hamstring himself by being besotted to any cabal or power-bloc or power-brokers that are known to act only on selfish interest. Having worked with many aides when he was Vice President or acting President, he should have known what it means to work with people without vision, aides whose purpose in office is the prestige the office confers on them, rather than what they can do for the President to make his burden lighter. Every dead weight among his aides should not be retained on sentimental ground. The rule of law must now be given a freer reign, and this is an area where President Jonathan has a sparkling record. What needed to be added is that no time must now be wasted in bringing culprits to justice if the rule of law is to become part of our political culture.
The President Nigeria deserve is one who is disposed to exploring all options to political stability and economic development rather than maintaining the status quo even when it retards and has proven unhelpful. Our President must be one who is at home with the facts of our plurality and ever ready to honour, harness and husband it for a true federation of equity, justice and fair play – not in sanctimonious words, but in strenuous deeds. In the dynamism of an ethnic polyglot such as Nigeria, especially given the challenges of the 21st century, it will be puerile to assume that certain issues are given or no – go areas and therefore, unworthy of consideration. For example, no one must pretend that we have had an electoral reform, whether on the basis of the 2010 / 2011 amendments to the Electoral Act or even the relatively above average performance of the INEC. It is not all the time we will have a Professor Jega whose word is his bond. Institutional changes and structural reforms are needed if we must have a peaceful transition from one regime to another by democratic mechanism. The Legislature has not been helpful or useful in the quest to have a workable electoral system, given the many undemocratic and self – serving amendments and clauses added or injected to the 1999 constitution and the 2011 Electoral Act. In view of this fact, the President must be prepared to engage the National Assembly by proposing necessary reversal of such retrogressive amendments or by proposing laws that will replace them – without fear of vindictive impeachment.
As a matter of utmost urgency, and in other to avert a slide into disintegration, the Nigerian President we deserve is one who will initiate a national dialogue untainted and unhindered by existing institutions of state, with a view of making a Constitution that is best suited to our heterogeneity. To assume that the 1999 constitution as amended is a good law is, to carry pretence beyond reason; this is because we have had twelve years of uninterrupted operation of this constitution and our collective experience has proved that it is altogether unprofitable. Any constitution which fails to address the causes and effects of ethno – religious wars, and which has no anti-dote to Boko Haram, Maitatsine, the Tala Kato, the MENDS, the Taliban or Al-Quieda and their subsidiary gangsters. Any constitution that allows stolen income to be invested in public enterprise or permit private citizen to acquire public property at ridiculously low price; or which fails to verify the ownership of property for effective and adequate taxation for development. What is the value of a constitution which purports to regulate inter – group relations but grants no right to self given constitution? A true federal system such as the United States of America is a multi – constitutional polity and yet, we lie and pretend to be operating the American Presidential system but without its component of federalism. Even an angel from above will fail woefully in any attempt to run our unitary system as it is. Our President is not an angel and never pretends to be and so, should be interested in the desired constitutional reform. We had a haughty know – it – all President whose so – called National Political Reform Conference was a monumental disaster as it ended in a fiasco. He also instituted a Local Government Reform Committee which destroyed the local council system instead. Even the amiable President Umar Musa Yar’Auda failed to deliver on his electoral reform promise, even though death snatched him away before he could be accused of failure. I am sure our dear President is not unaware of all these and the need to avoid a repeat of such failures, or to move the country away from rot and stagnation.
The mandate given to President Goodluck Jonathan is not for a four – years turn of the Niger Delta or the Ijaw Nationality even if his origin embodies both. It is not given in order to appease ultra – conservatives who have entrenched but undeserved advantages to preserve. The mandate is not just to keep the peace, maintain tranquility, or law and order as any imposter can do. It is not a mandate of the PDP, by the PDP and of the PDP alone. The President with our mandate must dare, question and challenge those factors, issues and people who wants to keep Nigeria down in the Dark Age. We have hopefully voted for and mandated President Goodluck Jonathan to lead Nigeria to the comity of great and respected countries known for justice, productivity and progressive policies. We deserve no less!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tenure Elongation: A Judicial Heist
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.
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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
