Yar

Yar’adua Prevails: Thanks To Iwu And One Nigerian Lawyer In Diaspora

Dr. Bashir D. Musa

The ‘Super Tuesday’ victory for President Yar’Adua at the tribunal may have surprised many Nigerians but not INEC’s Professor Iwu and a certain Barrister Aloy Ejimakor of Nigerian Lawyers in Diaspora, both of whom have led a solitary but effective public defense of the elections. There was also a Barrister Otorofani and a Danlami, who both chipped in occasionally with fine presentations of their own but all in all, Iwu and Ejimakor were the forward-troopers who inspired a few others to conquer their complacency and rise in opposition to the calls for nullification of the elections. Much of Iwu’s single-minded defense of the result he declared was articulated in the foreword of the official report on the elections which he released late last year.

As for the lawyers in Diaspora and sections of the Nigerian Diaspora generally, defending the election began in April 2007 with a position paper they presented to the US Congress. Justifying that mission he led, Barrister Ejimakor had said, and I quote: “My mission became ever so pressing at the time because of the stark absence of aggressive diplomatic rebuttal to what was then a serial bashing of Nigeria and the institutions that make us a nation; and my fear was that if a hostile US policy was allowed to take root, Nigeria’s hopes of stabilizing the polity, attracting critical foreign investment and achieving Vision 2020 would be imperiled simply because of an election that much of the West misunderstood”. And after then, you are likely to see press releases on Nigerian weblogs, print media, and other news sources under the hand of the same Barrister Ejimakor, calling for ‘judicial caution and a conservative view’ of the requests for nullification.

I have since followed similar comments as part of a research I am doing on the subject matter of elections in modern African democracies. Part of the conclusion I have reached is that it was views like this that helped propel Nigerians and the global audience to have a more favorable view of Iwu and the result he declared in favor of Yar’Adua. Thus, despite how seemingly unpopular such views were then, the Nigerian Diaspora had made bold to say, and I quote: “We praise Maurice Iwu and INEC for their courage; and we agree that the result of the election is a true reflection of the popular will of Nigerians. Parties prevailed where they were predicted by the strength of their numbers and structures to hold better chances than their opponents. Parties condemned the election wherever they lost and praised it wherever they won – thus corroborating the notion that the election was acceptably free and fair for the most part, even if it failed to meet the highest standards seen only in countries that have operated uninterrupted democracies for more than two centuries. While Nigeria should strive to attain the same standard, we should not be enslaved or destabilized by the pursuit of it”. Very unpopular view then but which has now gained potency.

Arrayed against Iwu and the Ejimakors of this world were the critics who remained consistent and steadfast in their strident calls for nullification of Yar’Adua. And making matters worse was the troubling aloofness of a PDP that was supposed to be protecting its rearguard. This attitude gave the appearance of some collective guilt or arrogance on the part of the PDP as contrasted with the self-righteousness from elements of AC and ANPP. PDP apparatchiks ducked under while their opposites in the AC and ANPP took center stage to framing public and judicial opinion against the elections, Maurice Iwu and Yar’Adua. On his part, President Yar’Adua unwittingly played into the hands of his tormentors by his impolitic near-admission (exaggerated by his opponents) that the election that made him president was flawed. He might have meant well but everyone knows that it is unwise to make a statement against your self-interest when your opponents were trying so hard to overturn your mandate. Though in all fairness to the President, something fundamental intervened later in time to jolt him into showing more verve in defending his mandate and that, along with the public opinion framed by Iwu and Ejimakor, might have been the single factor that turned the tables for the President, if not also helping to prepare the Nigerian public to accepting the verdict that was to be rendered in his favor on February 26, 2008.

But the fact remains that the whole battle for the soul of the Nigerian public opinion was absent any coordinated and formal presentations from the ranks of the many political tigers with which the PDP is blessed; and even non-politicians who could have counseled caution and restraint in the midst of the gleeful calls for nullification did not speak out, thus stoking the notion that Yar’Adua’s presidency was doomed. Some professional and trade associations in Nigeria even joined in the circling of Yar’Adua’s wagon. Talking heads on TV morning shows were having a field day urging the tribunal to nullify Yar’Adua. In the midst of all these, Maurice Iwu remained as resolute and ramrod as ever. Yet, much help came by way of the consistency of the Nigerian Diaspora lawyers.

In a recent interview he granted to the press days to the dismissal of the Atiku/Buhari petitions, Attorney Ejimakor had pressed his point home when he said, and I quote: “We monitored the 2007 elections, and with regard to the many difficulties encountered with the elections, my attitude and that of most prominent Nigerian Diaspora is that Professor Maurice Iwu and his team at INEC did a marvelous job. And this view is shared by many American policymakers with whom I am familiar and who are well disposed to the case for constructive engagement of Nigeria’s electoral issues instead of the contrary view purveyed by the opposition, which surely would have isolated and hurt Nigeria. I believed then and now that the shortcomings noticed during the elections are insufficient to warrant isolation of Nigeria or nullification of the election. And as regards the ongoing petitions, the tribunals should remain averse to some notion of strict liability for every violation of the statute, unless there is robust evidence of substantial impact on the outcome of the election. With particular regard to the presidential election, it is my considered view that the tribunal should let it stand. And if this should happen, it will represent the single and complete vindication of Iwu because the presidential election is the only one over which he had complete legal control as the chief returning officer, as opposed to the others which were statutorily under the exclusive control of Resident Electoral Commissioners Iwu could not control or overrule”.

Therefore, as the President savors his victory at the tribunal, and after thanking his lawyers and those of INEC (especially Dr. Bello Fadile), he needs to also find time to thank the duo of Iwu and Ejimakor, who together made the most effective public defense of the elections. Here is Barrister Ejimakor again, and I quote: “There is merit in the proposition that the framers of the Electoral Act never intended otherwise good elections to fall for every infraction. Some isolated cases of irregularity, such as non-serialized ballots constitute mere omissions in ordinary course that can hardly justify the extraordinary remedy represented by nullification. In the United States, the learned justices there call such things: ‘excusable neglect’, and as the phrase implies, they are excusable and borderline, and if standing alone, can never be seen to strictly require quashing the outcome of a major election”. I couldn’t agree less, and on February 26, 2008, the Presidential Election Tribunal did exactly as Barrister Ejimakor had counseled.

Dr. Musa wrote in from Abuja. doctormusa@yahoo.com