|
The Undue Censure of Prof Iwu By
Prof. Maurice Iwu, the present chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), once lived in the Washington, DC area. In my earlier, periodic meetings with him, I observed that he is a very brilliant man. Subsequently, as I became the General Secretary of Nwannedinamba Association in the Americas, I met him more frequently at the association’s meetings and other events. Then, I realized that he is also a confident and eloquent speaker and an equable man who can remain cool under heat.
The name of the association, Nwannedinamba which loosely translates to brotherhood in the Diaspora, denotes the mission of the organization. Its mission was to rally the Igbo in the Washington Metropolitan area together in brotherhood. Due to ideological differences, I had a few run-ins with the older members (including Prof. Iwu) of the organization that essentially controlled the association. I was not enamored of this group. Understandably, therefore, I am not a fan of the professor, and I am not holding briefs for him. Nevertheless, I believe that to a considerable extent, he has been unduly censured.
The reports of both the international and local election observers are eloquent testimonies that the April 2007 general election did not meet international standards. To deepen democracy in Nigeria, we need to learn from the problems that beset the election by objectively reviewing what went wrong with it. Instead, it seems that Nigerians scoured the horizon for a scapegoat, and found one, Prof Maurice Iwu. To fault one man for what was essentially a failure of an entire political system is unconscionable. To believe or insinuate that all that went wrong with the 2007 general election can be blamed on one man is monumental nonsense. The elections were flawed for reasons that go beyond the capabilities and culpability of any one individual.
A detailed and rigorous analysis of all the issues that undermined the fairness and freeness of that election is beyond the scope of this writing. However, it is important to note that there were a number of factors beyond the control of the INEC and its chairman that militated against the transparency of the elections. For one, there were entrenched interests that were opposed to the conduct of an up to standard election at the time. These interests coupled with the institutional, structural and attitudinal problems of the Nigerian society contributed immensely to the troubles that attended the elections.
As president, Olusegun Obasanjo had dictatorial aspirations. He was contemptuous of both the constitution and the laws. He despised court rulings and sought to usurp the powers of the legislature. He bullied and intimidated powerful politicians, including state governors and legislative leaders. For his party’s (Peoples Democratic Party) “primaries”, he, in his characteristic military fashion, barked his orders at the PDP governors, and they all obeyed unquestioningly. With his “do or die” mode of politics, he muscled through his plan to remain a power behind the throne by forcing the election of his loyalists in key national and state offices; inexorably hamstringing the impartiality of the whole election process. What was expected of Prof. Iwu, an Obasanjo appointee? To defy the president, stand in his way or trespass on his usurped prerogatives?
It was not in the interest of the power establishment for the INEC to hold a free and fair election. The INEC has no financial independence. It depends on the government for its budget. Its preparedness for the April 2007 elections was contingent on the government and its objectives and mission subject to the manipulation of the presidency and PDP powerbrokers. An unpopular autocratic president plotting to extend his stay in power in violation of the constitutional could not have encouraged the conduct of a credible election, as that would result to his rejection at the polls. Once his Third Term bid failed, his need to rule by proxy, by imposing his political protégés on the country, became paramount. Nigerians were not in agreement with his preferred candidates, and would have rebuffed most of them with their votes. So, to successfully foist his candidates on the people, INEC could not have been tasked to hold elections that will accurately reflect the will of the people.
It is unfortunately true that Nigeria is a lawless country. Nigerian politicians are unabashedly disdainful of the law and their conducts are utterly devoid of moral and ethical sensibilities. They lack discipline and political maturity. They squabbled and bickered endlessly. Intra-party wrangling and intrigues resulted in the elimination and substitution of nominees, even just a few days before elections. INEC had no choice, but to accept the parties’ choices of candidates. Recently, the Election Tribunals nullified elections due to these last minute and unlawful removals and replacements of candidates who had earlier won the party primaries. To now condemn INEC for what was totally an intra-party affair is grossly unfair.
Secondly, the law enforcement agencies failed to contain the political parties’ resort to thuggery and violence. Brutal and violent, political party thugs tried to aggressively impose their party’s will on the electorate and to intimidate and victimize the supporters of rival political parties. Such party sponsored hooliganism and hostility undercut the performance of election officials. It frightened and in some case dissuaded prospective voters from voting, disrupted the voting process and give latitude for all forms of election malpractices.
The Nigerian police, ill-equipped, ill-trained and under-paid are a rag-tag band of shiftless and unenthusiastic men and women. They have not been particularly successful with any law enforcement assignment. Naturally, they also failed in their assigned roles in the general election. The inefficiency and corruption of the police force, and their consequent ineptitude, slothfulness and acquiescence to election irregularities by political parties were factors that marred the elections that were beyond the control of either INEC or its chairman. In addition, the general corruption of the Nigerian society resulted in polling station workers, including some INEC staffs being compromised by political parties, thus permitting rigging and other election wrongdoing at some polling stations.
Nigeria is a fledging democracy. She has not outlived her undemocratic past. The institutional anchors of democracy are yet to be fully established and developed. Vestiges of past military despotism continue to hold sway on the country. There remains an inordinate concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an Oligarchy who resist changes that will enfranchise and empower the people, and thus, weaken their own grip on the levers of power. Still not weaned from the mindset engendered by long periods of military dictatorship, the Nigerian masses are politically apathetic. They lack confidence in the democratic process and fail to appreciate their civic rights and responsibilities. Secondly, the politicians, with their rustic political skills, vicious instincts and crudity, lack civility and refinement. In addition, the police force is an institution populated by incompetents, dispirited by under-payment and enervated by graft.
Collectively, all these factors contributed to the lapses in the April 2007 general election. To ignore this incontrovertible truth and choose to blame everything that went wrong with the election on Prof. Maurice Iwu is an appalling perversion of facts.
Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria.
|