Olatunji Dare Got it Wrong on Iwu
By
Yakubu Tsav
ytsav@yahoo.com
On July 28, 2009, Olatunji Dare (writing in The Nation
Newspaper) got it wrong on Iwu; and it smelt like a deliberate act of
misinformation. In a back page column, titled ‘Maurice Iwu’s World’,
Mr Dare invented an Atlanta lecture that never occurred, at least not
“the other day”, as Dare wanted the public to believe.
Besides this glaring and fundamental falsehood, there are many more
points that Dare got so wrong on Iwu that one is tempted to conclude
that the sole purpose of the piece was to dredge up some old-wife’s
tales as part of a gathering conspiracy to discredit the 2011
elections (a rather sad and clumsy replay of what happened in the
lead-up to 2007). Let us take those points in seriatim:
First, Mr. Dare based his comments entirely on a lecture in Atlanta,
USA that Iwu never delivered “the other day” as Mr. Dare
alleged. “The other day” was meant to convey the stark
falsehood that Prof Iwu was in Atlanta very recently to deliver the
said lecture that vexed Dare. The truth is that Prof Iwu was in
Atlanta alright to deliver a lecture but that was in July 2008, not
“the other day” (or even anywhere near this year) as Dare conjured. I
know this for sure because I was there. So, what’s the purpose of
Dare’s brazen conjuring? Or what manner of vile that might have driven
a columnist into such a time-warp on a subject he was at pains to
purvey as a major commentary fit to deliver his death blow to INEC?
Second, Dare, rather than the verdict itself, sought to overplay the
dissent of four Supreme Court Justices in the Presidential election
verdict in favor of Yar’Adua (or the result Prof Iwu declared). Pray,
where else in the world are people fixated on a mere dissent to the
point of trying to force it on society as some gospel. To be sure,
like it or not, the verdict is now the law of the land and that ought
to close the matter. It is so in the much-emulated United States – in
Gore versus Bush – in which there was also a large number of Supreme
Court Justices that dissented in favor of Gore or a manual recount -
against Bush. Yet the majority verdict for Bush was welcomed by one
and all, and Americans, who are remarkable for respecting their
courts, never overplayed the dissent but quickly came to closure on an
election that revealed irregularities far in excess of what Dare and
Co alleged in the Nigerian variety. Bush went to rule for two terms
thereafter. Americans refrained from insulting their Justices or
calling Kathleen Harris - the Florida umpire - delusional, as Dare
called Prof Iwu, without qualms.
Third, Dare blamed Prof Iwu for the odd five guber-elections that were
nullified by the courts, pointing particularly to the Anambra case
that held that Peter Obi’s tenure had not expired when the polls held.
This is a distortion of the law of the case. First, the Anambra case
began with Abel Guabadia when he was the Chair of INEC. It was
Guabadia who declared Ngige Governor of Anambra and thus triggered the
complex and scotched-earth legal challenges launched by Peter Obi that
Iwu only inherited when he became Chairman. Second, the Nigerian
Constitution – the black letter law of the case - implied ‘uniformity
of tenure’ by prescribing that guber-elections be held same day
throughout the federation (except for cancelled elections, as in Imo)
and there was no judicial precedent in Nigeria that had held otherwise
and by which Maurice Iwu would have been bound. As lawyers would say:
It was an issue of first impression and therefore beyond the limited
administrative purview of INEC to resolve in Obi’s favor. Thus, Iwu
was right to comply with the extant (and as yet un-interpreted)
constitutional provision on point by holding the guber-election in
Anambra same day guber-elections were also held in other states.
Third, Maurice Iwu is not the Supreme Court of Nigeria, neither is
INEC any one of the courts of the land mandated to interpret the
strictly constitutional question of when a governor’s tenure ends.
Fourth, as of the date of the election, the issue of tenure of Peter
Obi was the subject matter of a pending and raging litigation and it
would’ve been unconstitutional and in contempt of court for Prof Iwu
to pre-empt the court by pronouncing that Peter Obi’s tenure had not
ended. Fifth, there were other parties-in-interest – those that
fielded candidates and thus had a legal and political stake in seeing
to it that the guber-election held in Anambra State on April 14, 2007.
Looking at the above scenario, it is easy to see that INEC did the
right thing by holding the Anambra guber-election when it did. Yet, it
is puzzling that Dare remarked with glee that in this case, the “tribunal
rebuked INEC for holding an election to an office that was not vacant”.
An obiter Dare hyped as gospel; but in the same breath, he still
fretted at a Supreme Court ruling that sustained Iwu’s conduct of the
Presidential election. This is the bane of the fringe professional
pursuers of Iwu and INEC. They celebrate any verdict (and dissent)
that favors their partisan interest but prove unable to muster the
basic intellectual honesty or common decency to even accept any
opposite verdict or postulate. Coming to the other four nullified
guber-elections that so much irked Dare, one that begs for
clarification (for Dare’s benefit) is that of Rivers that replaced
Omehia with Amaechi – a case that revealed neo-legal complexities that
went far beyond the contemplation of all Nigerians, including an INEC
that functions as a mere administrative agency (as opposed to a
judicial body). Again, this very case spewed several issues of first
impression, besides also bordering on the limited powers of INEC to
stop political parties from fielding candidates of their choice. For
that case and others like it, one learned commentator advanced what is
amongst the best argument in the following words:
“As Chair of INEC, Professor Iwu is charged with abiding by the law,
not over-reaching himself to become ‘tsar of political parties’ or a
one-man court of equity that must right every intra-party electoral
injustice..... That some people will ignore these legal complexities
and still point to Amaechi’s case as another nullification that counts
against Professor Iwu goes to illustrate the gathering demerits of
such postulations, besides revealing a bizarre fixation for making
Maurice Iwu the perpetual fall guy........”
Further, Mr. Dare went on to take issues with Iwu’s remarks as to why
anyone should expect INEC to conduct a ‘first-class’ election in a
third-world environment. Yet, in the same piece, Dare contradicted
himself by pointing to factors that best underscored Iwu’s argument.
Those factors include fraudulent registrations (Dare claimed someone
registered his name and picture in Ekiti); and that Tiger Woods and
other American celebrities were also registered in Ekiti. First of
all, Dare should find out why all the alleged fraudulent registrations
that included his name and that of Tiger Woods, Mohammed Ali and Colin
Powell happened only in Ekiti, of all states. Did it occur to Dare
that someone, somewhere in Ekiti worked very hard to procure these
fraudulent registrations in Ekiti in anticipation of using them later
to discredit an election that he already figured he has no chance of
winning? Fraudulent registrations like these are amongst what Prof Iwu
was lamenting as militating against any desire for ‘first class’
elections. In America where Dare lives, the Republicans, during the
election that brought Obama, alleged fraudulent registrations against
the Democrats and vice versa, including frauds as bizarre and as
un-Nigerian as registering cats and dogs and illegal aliens to boot –
abominations that Dare has not yet attributed to Iwu’s INEC. Pray, did
Dare really read the Iwu speech that he misplaced in time? Or did he
just glean a few remarks that he felt were easy enough for him to
analyse out of context?
Continuing - Dare referred to Prof Iwu as ‘delusional’ – a description
that is more in sync with Dare’s weird questioning of why INEC had to
use Nigerian Air Force planes to transport ballots to various
locations in the country. Haba! Dare! Are you now charging the
Nigerian Air Force as complicit in these many grand Iwu-procured
conspiracies wrought on the 2007 elections? Did Iwu (and now the
Nigerian Air Force) rig it in Abia and Imo for PPA, in the far
Northern states for the ANPP, in Lagos for the AC, and the rest of the
federation for the PDP? It is either Iwu is a genius of an umpire with
many tentacles, imbued with sophisticated abilities to ‘rig for and
against’ all at once, or those alluding to this complex web may have
been bitten by the bug of conspiracy theories. Better still, a keener
reading of Dare’s belly-ache at the involvement of the Air Force
reveals that he even inadvertently exonerated Iwu and instead held the
Nigerian Air Force responsible for (aerially?) rigging Yar’Adua to
power, simply because a ‘do and die’ OBJ was the commander-in-chief.
Finally, so many things can be said to rebut Dare’s desperate attempt
to muzzle Iwu for expressing an opinion on the controversial matter of
proliferation of political parties. But for lack of space, let’s just
say that Prof Iwu, like other Nigerians, has a right to his own
opinion, especially as it relates to real-life experiences he garnered
in the course of regulating and registering political parties in
Nigeria. Recall also that the issue of number of political parties
began with Babangida that decreed only two parties for Nigerians,
which a lot of folks applauded at the time. Then, there was Guabadia,
who insisted on very stringent rules for registering political parties
before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Now, vast numbers of
Nigerians are talking of collapsing all other political parties, sans
PDP, into one ‘mega party’ that will have any hope of running a
serious campaign in 2011, meaning that the chickens are coming home to
roost where, despite Dare, ‘2011 Nigeria’ may end up with only two
political parties (in reality, not inside the briefcase). In 1999, Olu
Falae’s AD had to enter into electoral alliance with the APP because
even then it was felt that AD was too small and regional to have any
credible chance against a more nationally spread PDP. This is the sort
of thing Prof Iwu was talking about; and that is: You can have as many
parties as you want to have, because that’s the law, but better make
sure that they are strong and serious enough to win elections. Clear
enough, you will agree, yet Olatunji Dare didn’t get it.
|