|
Safety of Presidential Candidates: Between Politics and Genuine Concern By Ifeanyi Izeze
“Umaru, there is this wild rumour that you have died as they said I too died in Accra, Ghana. So what do you want to say to people here”? Yar’ Adua replied: “I am very fine. Accept my apologies for not being with you in Abeokuta. I am very much alive and well”. Seriously speaking, nothing has generated such anxiety and genuine concern in the recent political history of the country like the speculated death of the Peoples Democratic Party presidential candidate Umaru Yar’ Adua.
Yar’Adua’s spokesperson Mr Ndu Ughamadu in a statement on the rumoured death of the PDP presidential candidate explained that as part of a routine medical check-up, Yar’Adua reported to his doctor at a private clinic where regular tests were conducted.
“Some of the results indicated that he was under stress and would need to rest. He was accordingly recalled yesterday (Tuesday 6th March) by the clinic and advised to rest. Following this medical report, his personal physicians – who had complained that the grueling presidential aspirant had obstructed his medical schedule-, saw an opportunity for him to rest.
“They seized it, insisting that Yar’ Adua should not only suspend the campaign for a few days, but must travel abroad for a long overdue specialist medical check-up.
“He left for Germany last night (Tuesday 6th March). It is therefore categorically untrue that he collapsed and had to be rushed to a private hospital for medical attention”.
The confusion and uninformed rumour about Yar’Adua’s health which was fuelled by his conspicuous absence at his own campaign rally in Lagos was worsened by the PDP’s dumbness on the matter until serious harm had been done by spread of the falsehood. There were all kinds of stories on the matter: Some said he died of kidney failure. Another version of the rumour attributed the cause of Yar’Adua’s death to the stress of electioneering. They reasoned that with the poor condition of his health, he should not have overstretched himself, which he did, he was said to have passed on while still in a coma. Yet another version and the latest (ascribed to the wife of the Katsina state governor) alleged that the family suspected he was poisoned through a meal he took during a campaign outing.
Thank God Almighty that all these speculations divinely turned out to be a fluke.
However, there are serious matters arising from this singular incident concerning the state of health and/or suitability of the PDP presidential flag-bearer for next month’s general elections. Relieving as the good news of Yar’ Adua’s restored health has been, one thing was clearly unraveled or rather explained in the entire drama that the PDP presidential candidate cannot be said to be in sound health. This follows explanations from his wife and other family members that the 56 year old man had been on routine medical check- ups, a break of which heralded the crisis that triggered-off the rumour of his death.
At 56, the man is not that old in the Nigerian context and wouldn’t have been under constant intensive medical supervision except for the singular reason that he needed one to keep him going. This is fully established in the entire saga. The PDP was fully aware that he has been managing a serious ‘medical situation’ that obviously cannot accept intense work pressure and the party still went ahead to force him to contest for the challenging office even against his will as we were told. This singular act by the party could be attributed as reason for the rumour that “the selection of Yar’Adua among all other qualified and clean contestants was deliberate as his health crisis or God forbid death would either scuttle the elections or help the incumbent president maintain a firm grip on him by surrounding him with stronger and healthier lieutenants”. Anyway, all na rumour.
As has been established from the ongoing drama, Governor Yar’ Adua, supposing he wins the presidential election, would govern the country from the intensive care annex of the Presidential Villa or from an atmosphere of miracles, that is if he believes in divine healing as canvassed by his President Obasanjo. It may not be very wrong to assume from facts available that the PDP deliberately has not presented its best candidate for the April poll. However, we pray that the almighty God would divinely touch our brother and restore him to a vigorous life, Amen.
Secondly, who wants Musa Yar’Adua dead or incapacitated? This has become a very pertinent question considering utterances credited to his family members by a crew of journalists from a highly respected television network who interviewed them at the peak of the rumoured death. In the heat of the crisis, the family alleged that the PDP flag bearer was poisoned by the food he ate in a political campaign outing. Why would anybody want to poison the PDP frontrunner and if somebody actually did or attempted to do, where would such person have come from- inside PDP or outside PDP? Why the conflicting versions of the story of his illness/death? Some said he collapsed and went into a coma due to election fatigue and was flown out in that state. Another version which obviously came from the immediate family claimed that the man never collapsed but entered the plane by himself though still carrying a liquid infusion bag which he held in his hand. Where did the story of Yar’Adua’s comatose came from- PDP or opposition parties? Questions, questions, questions!
Thirdly, the safety and security of the 26 presidential candidates of the different political parties including the PDP is an issue that has been callously taken for granted not only by the authourities but the electorate also. Anybody who wants to derail the ongoing electoral process would just simply harm one or few of the presidential candidates no matter how insignificant his party may be by public perception. And if that happens, the 2006 Electoral Act was very emphatic on what should be done by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The Electoral Act makes specific pronouncements on the death of a candidate after the close of nomination. According to Section 37 (1) of the Act, the death of any of the candidates vying for the nation’s topmost post (and any other post) will automatically cause a delay in the election. The date for the election shall be postponed once the Chief National Electoral Commissioner is “satisfied with the fact of death…”
Section 37(1) states as follows: “If after the time for the delivery of nomination paper and before the commencement of the poll, a nominated candidate dies, the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or the Resident Electoral Commissioner shall, being satisfied of the fact of death, countermand the poll in which the deceased candidate was to participate and the Commission shall appoint some other convenient date for the election.”
The 1999 constitution was very ambiguous on cases such as death of one or more of the contestants. Section 132 (3) of the 1999 Constitution specifically stated that an election shall be postponed if there is only one presidential candidate remaining in the election if the other candidates have either withdrawn or died.
According to the constitution: “Where in an election to the office of the president one of the two or more candidates nominated for the election is the only candidate after the close of nomination, by reason of the disqualification, withdrawal, incapacitation, disappearance or death of the other candidates, the Independent National Electoral Commission shall extend the time of nomination.”
From the constitutional stipulations however, if only one candidate suffers one of the provisions listed in the constitution, since there are still candidates of the other political parties left to continue the race, only the party which has suffered the loss will be affected.
The INEC, therefore, may not see any need to postpone the election as a result of death of one candidate out of many. What it means is that the affected party may not be able to field any candidate for the election. At least this is what the constitution says.
However, in matters like this especially in a country like Nigeria, both INEC and the anti-democratic forces at work in the nation’s polity may gladly opt for the stipulation in the 2006 Electoral Act and by so doing covertly achieve the long rejected tenure elongation drive by the Obasanjo-led government. IFEANYI IZEZE (iizeze@yahoo.com)
|