The local and international election observers in their reports stated unequivocally that the April 2007 presidential election was not free and fair; it was essentially a travesty. The reports recorded obvious and palpable cases of rigging, technical breeches and other malpractices. The former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, in his “do or die” bravado and rodomontade did not disguise his ruthless resolve to force through a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) victory. And, as there is no legitimate way of forcing a political party and its candidates on a country, it was done in such a shameless, reckless, lawless way that the whole electoral process was reduced to a charade.

 

The petitioners’ lawyers may have failed in making a convincing case and/or that the defense lawyers were able to poke holes in their presentation, thus making it impossible for them to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. It could also be that the judges took cognizance of the possible political ramifications of annulling Yar’Adua’s election, and thought them too fraught with uncertainty and hazard. Irrespective of the reason, the court ruling is terrible for Nigeria. It was a regression in Nigeria’s democratic evolution, in that it endorsed the trampling of the reign of law and the associated stealing of a mandate with sheer force. It was kudos for the corruption and lawlessness of the Nigerian power elite that were so brazenly displayed in that egregious repudiation of the people’s will.   

 

The president remains in office because he successfully defended the indefensible. He remains in office because the twisting of facts, exploitation of legal technicalities, quibbling and sophistry by lawyers swayed the case in his favor. Stolen power, legitimized by the successful misrepresentation of facts by a bunch of savvy lawyers or the fear of the political unknown by a number of conservative judges, is not the essence of a moral crusader, reformer, that quintessential leader (that Yar’Adua is professing to be) that will move the country forward by fostering a new national ethos established on the adherence to the law and complete intolerance for corruption.

 

The nullification of Yar’Adua’s electoral victory and the holding of a free and fair presidential election would have been wonderful for Nigeria. A free and fair election will be magnificent for Nigerian

democracy. A victory in the new election will bestow the president an unalloyed mandate. This will extricate him from the grip of his PDP political godfathers and the corrupt ex-governors that sponsored the fraud that propelled him to power. It will give him the moral authority and political legitimacy to address the ethical and moral questions of the ruling class, and then by extension, the Nigerian society. It will empower him, morally and politically, to uphold his declaration that his is a new kind of leadership, marked by respect for the rule of law and zero tolerance for corruption.

 

Even with his court victory, his adulterated mandate remains a putrefying albatross around his neck. Power, because it was determined by prior collusion in political crimes and resting on earlier infamous agreements, will remain very personalized among the elite. Consequently, national policy will continue to be driven by elite relationships rather than by public needs. And his stated desire to transform the society will invariably be subordinated to the unending need to service the elite relationship that brought him to power and that will be needed to keep him there. With these limitations, he cannot institute any far-reaching, ground-breaking or trail-blazing reforms. It will be business as usual with a few half-hearted attempts at reforms. In the celebration prompted by his legal triumph, the TV footage showed an assembly of the same old group of PDP political bosses - rapacious, voracious and morally bankrupt – kleptomaniacs, political wolves masquerading as public servants. And as he remains beholden to the status-quo, we already know what the status quo represents.  

 

However, there is some consolation in that despite the greed, swagger, arrogance and bombast of his political mentors, Yar’Adua seems an interesting mix of aristocracy and modesty, education and discipline, reticence and resoluteness, probity and decency. Although he is a beneficiary of a deeply flawed election, he seems genuinely committed to carrying out election reforms that will forestall future abuses of the electoral process. As the first peaceful transfer of power from one civilian government to another, his presidency represents continuity and stability previously unknown in Nigerian politics.  

 

The rule of law is enhanced by his professed, and to some extent, demonstrated respect of the law. He endeavors to enforced court decisions even when they are not favorable to his political party or administration. Although he vacillates in the prosecution of ex-governors and other corrupt government officials because of his attempt to simultaneously placate two ideologically polar interests, his corrupt benefactors and the generality of Nigerians, he has for the most part, remained on course in his war against corruption.  

 

So, even, with this disheartening miscarriage of justice, we can still find solace in the man, Yar’Adua and his presidency. He appears equipped by orientation and temperament for leadership. His presidency, though hamstrung by the method of his election, provides political stability and attempts to give a sense of direction to this rudderless, floundering country.