|
An Undemocratic INEC and the Challenge of Credible Fresh Elections In Nigeria By Ikechukwu A. Ogu, Esq
In INEC’s Report on the 2007 General Elections and in all his utterances, the INEC Chairman Prof. Maurice Iwu beats his chest and gloats over what he adjudges a good job of conducting the elections. He scored himself and INEC very high and sees no need to apologize to Nigerians. He adopts the lizard approach of having fallen from the iroko tree, nods in self-praise when no one finds it necessary to praise him. Even where he admitted the existence of lapses in the process, Prof. Iwu pointed accusing fingers at persons and bodies outside of himself and INEC or what one of his Resident Electoral Commissioners called “extraneous factors”. And incomprehensibly, INEC claims vindication by the judgements of the Election Petitions Tribunals.
Interestingly, four groups of people see nothing wrong with Iwu’s self-adulation. The first group is made up of INEC staffs who, invariably, are bound to lend supporting voices to whatever song their Chairman sings. Moreso, they cannot condemn what they partook of its execution, except when done under duress and after they must have left the employ of INEC. The second group consists of the persons who were in power when Iwu conducted the 2007 elections, that is those who saw the elections as “a do or die affair” and had it executed as such. The third group comprises politicians whom INEC declared winners following the elections. We cannot imagine these three groups of people, having both aided and abetted INEC in conducting Nigeria’s worst elections or benefited therefrom, disagreeing with Iwu’s verdict on the elections. The only exception here has been President Yar’adua who humbly admitted that the elections were flawed.
Finally, the fourth group is made up of persons who feel Iwu assisted Nigeria, through the 2007 general elections, to break the jinx of unsuccessful civilian-to-civilian handover. But I doubt the soundness of this view. The undemocratic manner the elections were conducted was enough to usher in the Kenya-type of post-election crisis or a replay of Nigeria’s ugly past. Rather, it was the firm resolve of Nigerians and the petitioners’ resort to the tribunals that broke the jinx.
Contrary to the views of INEC’s apologists, local and international election observers who monitored the elections turned in reports that they were the worst in Nigeria’s electoral history. The opinion of these observers is in tandem with that held by millions of right-thinking Nigerians. It cannot be supposed that these observers and the millions of Nigerians are wrong. And the dismissal of election petitions (mostly on technical grounds) by any Election Petitions Tribunal in Nigeria does not derogate from this position.
Admittedly, majority of the verdicts of the Election Petition Tribunals across the country has vindicated the views of the election observers and millions of Nigerians. So far, many hitherto adjudged electoral “victories” have been overturned. In some cases, the Tribunals have declared as winners candidates who were “defeated”, while in others fresh elections have been ordered. These have not been without severe scolding of INEC by the Tribunals. In the face of all these, Prof. Iwu arrogantly asserts that given another opportunity, he would still conduct the general elections the same discredited and ignominious way as in 2007. One had expected him to be humbled and ashamed that the pack of cards he and his patrons arranged is gradually falling apart. But that is not for the archetype Iwu who exhibits so much arrogance and scant regard for public opinion.
Immediately after the 2007 elections, many Nigerians had called on Iwu to resign or be sacked. Then, these calls had been dismissed by his apologists. But these calls have been intensified recently following the nullification by the tribunals of several electoral “victories” awarded by INEC. And most people have rightly cast serious doubts on the capacity and qualification of Prof. Iwu and his INEC, as presently constituted, to conduct any credible fresh or bye-elections in the country. This doubt is further heightened by Iwu’s refusal to admit of any wrong-doing on INEC’s part and resolve to re-enact the sham if given another opportunity.
Granted that INEC was not the sole cause of the electoral disaster of 2007, yet it connived with other undemocratic and unpatriotic Nigerians to achieve the infamy. Thus, I subscribe to the unimpeachable view that Prof. Iwu and his INEC cannot be trusted with conducting credible fresh or bye elections in Nigeria and associate myself with the calls for his resignation or removal and the reconstitution of INEC. The option of removal appears the most viable because Iwu, based on his utterances and conduct, lacks what it takes to resign honourably. His unrepentant bearing and resolve to conduct any fresh elections the same condemnable way are danger signals which should be nipped in the bud by removing him. But can the National Assembly and the President remove Iwu as required by section 157(1) of the 1999 Constitution? That is impossible now, until after the conclusion of the pending election petitions, for a politician whose electoral victory is being challenged in court cannot afford to have the electoral body testify for the petitioner.
I foresee a fresh manipulation of the electoral process by INEC in an attempt to justify the annulled results. And that would further threaten our resolve to consolidate democracy in Nigeria. But what is expected of a person bitten by a snake inside a hole he is digging? Of course, he would be stupid to dig the hole further when the snake is still there, for there is the risk of a repeat snake bite. This is the dilemma of politicians whose petitions caused the tribunals to nullify some elections and order fresh elections to be conducted by the same INEC. What options are open to these politicians? They may boycott the fresh elections, as has been suggested in some quarters. Another is for them to call for Iwu’s resignation or removal (as is currently the case). Furthermore, they can embark on mass action calling for his removal. Pitiably, all these may not achieve any positive result in a country like Nigeria.
Another option is for them to approach the courts for orders disqualifying Iwu from conducting any fresh elections on the ground that his handling of the 2007 elections constitutes a disqualifying factor under section 154(2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. This would have been an appropriate consequential prayer for a petitioner to make in his petition before the tribunal. Where this was not done and an election petition tribunal has delivered its judgement and thereby become functus officio, it is no longer within its jurisdiction to handle. Thus, a successful petitioner may file such a suit in any of the High Courts within jurisdiction, basing his prayers on the tribunal’s finding that the election was annulled because of irregularities traceable to or at the connivance of INEC. Perhaps, through judicial activism, INEC would be prevented from inflicting fresh electoral injuries on Nigerians. And in this era of adherence to the rule of law, it is hoped that such a decision would be obeyed.
Ikechukwu A. Ogu, Esq., LL.B(Hons), BL, ACIP Email: ikechukwuogu@yahoo.com
|