MONITORING THE ELECTORAL REFORM DEBATE FROM WASHINGTON

By: Ibrahim Danlami

Contrary to the misconception held by some of our home-based compatriots, it is not true that the Nigerian Diaspora is clueless on events unfolding back home in Nigeria. Some of us have had to argue to the contrary each time this popular (or is it notorious) misconception is offered as reason to shut the Nigerian Diaspora out of the Nigerian public discourse, especially of the political kind. Notwithstanding the quantum evidence to the contrary, however, the misconception persists and is wont to succeed sometimes in actually caging some Diasporans from daring to make any public contributions to many of Nigeria’s public debates. But if you go to the Blogs or other internet media, you will see a robust interplay of ideas spewing from many Diasporans of fine intellect and depth. Lately, one of the many issues that seemed to have attracted much talk amongst many in the United States where I live is the one dealing with electoral reforms in Nigeria.

Yes, electoral reforms and their garden varieties came to the fore recently in Atlanta USA in mid-July when Maurice Iwu was there to address a symposium of Diasporans of differing political hues. I was there to listen, observe and gauge the Diasporan pulse. I am aware that others present have written on it, including accurate and objective accounts by a Wale Odusote, Seyi Oduyela and a live presentation by Professor Okafor, all of whom have covered topical issues like the vexed matters of ‘Diaspora voting rights’ and ‘Diaspora set-asides’. But the two subject areas that continue to predominate have to do with ways and means of getting our politicians to play fair – for once; and making the current crop of electoral commissioners (or the INEC leadership) a valuable and practical part of the reform process. In plain terms, it means that anyone still hounding Maurice Iwu and INEC as if they are the problems Nigeria has with her electoral blues is missing the point. And what’s the point? The point is that Nigerian elections will surely become better when politicians decide that it is time to truly respect the rules of civilized political contest; and for Nigeria to reduce the overriding influence of money in our politics – as Maurice Iwu has been recommending.

For most of us who continue to observe how this whole drama is playing out, there is no escaping the plain truth that the singular corrupting influence on elections comes from politicians (especially the overambitious moneybags), not the hapless umpire, who unfortunately becomes the fall guy for all manners of trumped-up ills with the electoral process. Blaming the umpire is analogous to purveying the fallacy that River Niger now flows from the direction of the South to the North instead of the settled scientific truth of the otherwise. On the electoral pedestal, the place of the Nigerian politician is, metaphorically speaking, northerly while that of the umpire is southerly. Simple as that. Electoral umpires everywhere (not just Nigeria) are simply not empowered by any means, whether by any lapses in the current law or any vaunted capacity for mischief, to just decide who prevails or fails by sheer fiat. Though in plain view, Maurice Iwu took pains to make this point in Atlanta when he charged that prominent politicians made aggressive moves to buy the elections before the first ballots were cast but that they were rebuffed. One newspaper had untruthfully reported that Iwu had said that the elections were bought - lock, stock and barrel. I was present in Atlanta and I never heard any such thing coming out of Iwu’s mouth. He added though that he had warned the nation about it at the time. After the symposium, I took time to research back issues of Nigerian newspapers and I found that Iwu was rock solid credible on all fours. Now, when a nation’s top electoral umpire says such things, all well-meaning Nigerians (not just the fabled ‘stakeholders’) are supposed to take a pause and do a re-think. He wore the shoe and he sure knew where it pinched.

Therefore, I find it illogical to believe that our national umpires might have gone round the country plotting with some politicians to cook the results. To believe that they did, then you have to also believe that Maurice Iwu and INEC (as a whole) ‘conspired differently’ with PDP, ANPP, AC, PPA, etc and ‘delivered’ their candidates piecemeal in the different precincts where each party had prevailed, including some isolated anti-PDP ‘conspiracy’ to deliver Senator Osakwe against the all-powerful PDP Chairman Ahmadu Ali for whom Maurice Iwu and INEC were alleged to be working for. Incredible. If any such moves were made, it is plausible that it was the politicians themselves (who had so much at stake) that might have gone wild jockeying to corrupt the umpires. It must have been so because it comports with the natural order of (warped) human political behavior – the sort that compels men to try to win at all costs. Think of all the revelations of match fixing, whether in the sphere of Nigerian or any international sports. What we know as true wherever some fixing was alleged is that some team or its manager went around at night trying to corrupt the umpire or referee; or that some rapacious bookmaker peddled some undue influence in order to make a buck or two through some corrupt means of distorting the natural odds. I have not heard of the other kind where some soccer referee was the one looking for takers for his grand designs to sell a game. Again, think of the direction we all know River Niger to be flowing.

It is time we Nigerians began to tell each other some home and unpleasant truths. One truth is that it is becoming harder to believe that Maurice Iwu alone sat down and ‘rigged’ all the winning politicians (of different parties) into power. If he did, surely one of his commissioners would have by now become rattled enough to turn whistleblower, all with the quaint prospects that such a person will certainly become an instant Nigerian (and international) celebrity. I believe Nigeria currently has twelve national electoral commissioners and thirty-six Resident Electoral Commissioners (at the executive level); and several hundreds of top civil service grade electoral staff (permanent and ad-hoc). It strains credulity, therefore, that all these fine folks will continue to remain silent and protect what is not supposed to be a secret anymore had such a plan been hatched for real. Come on, give me a break. How can anyone hatch an iron-clad secret amongst thousands of fidgety and harried electoral officials and expect that it will forever remain a secret even when a small group of soldiers (trained to keep secrets) cannot even maintain the secrecy of a coup plan. Unbelievable.

The Nigerian Diasporan that I know continues to have confidence in the Uwais-led effort to reform the electoral process. But I must hasten to state our disappointment with the bizarre contributions coming from some of the members of the committee who continue to miss the point of the whole exercise by abusing the hallowed halls of the Committee to be witch-hunting INEC and Maurice Iwu. As a nation, Nigeria is a continuum and so are her institutions and systems. To illustrate, you cannot reform the Nigerian judiciary by throwing out the entire judicial leadership. You can only do that in a revolution, though the military didn’t even try. The same is true for the many other national institutions of cohesion and continuity such as the armed forces. Why are we not calling for the firing of the service chiefs because of some perception that the militancy in the Niger Delta persists; or why are we not also accusing them of even procuring the militancy? We are not - simply because it is not reasonable to do so; yet in the realm of elections, we can count on disgruntled and duplicitous politicians to point us to the wrong direction – smoking mirrors and River Niger suddenly changing course to flow from the South to North. Don’t believe the hype.

So, for many of us in the Diaspora, it comes down to these. INEC is an institution of national cohesion, continuity, and stability. Thus, it should be one of the few institutions that deserve some stability in its leadership cadres and urgently so. Nigeria has experimented with this ad-hoc chairmanship arrangement for far too long and it is not working. That is one of the reforms we need. Experience counts for something and whether anyone of us likes Maurice Iwu or not, three more things you can never take away from the lanky professor are guts, patriotism and the most credit for keeping Nigeria on an even keel when it mattered most. Further, we need to be mindful of the ignoble place of Nigerian politicians in the whole scheme of things and tell them to get their act together; or better still, tell them off. Maybe, it is time for our politicians to start talking of fielding fewer parties that will be big (and serious) enough to take on a dominant party like the PDP. Or, Nigeria may have to change the laws to statutorily sunset any political party that fails to return a victory at the polls.

Bruce Fein, a former assistant Attorney General of United States, writing in the Washington Times of July 15, 2008, called the 2007 elections ‘landmark’; and he ably contradicted the crass celebration of tribunal nullifications as some indictment of Iwu/INEC by referring to the bizarre verdict in the Abia governorship case. I agree with Attorney Fein and also with the proposition that Nigeria gained lots of mileage in 2007. Therefore, those that made it happen must be made part of any process designed to make it better the next time around.

Ibrahim Danlami wrote in from the US ibrahimdanlami@yahoo.com

IN ATLANTA, IWU CARRIED THE DAY WITH HIS CONSTITUENCY DELIMITATION

By: WALE ODUSOTE

I have had cause to write about Maurice Iwu of INEC but I have never met him in person. Normally, I would not write about a subject or a person with whom I have never had a personal contact of some sort. But in Maurice Iwu’s case, I broke custom and wrote about him anyway because the issue at the time concerned me as much it concerned any other Nigerian out here in the Diaspora. The issue had to do with the legal challenge to Iwu’s tenure based on the notion that he lost his rights to hold high office in Nigeria because of his status as a naturalized US citizen. My main theme of my essay, which was (generously) published in the nigeriavillagesquare.com and other Blogs/Newspapers, was that the suit against Iwu held serious negative legal implications for the entire Nigerian Diaspora. If Iwu had lost, all Diasporans would have been collectively imperiled. But the man fought back and hard; and just about a few weeks ago, the verdict came down in favor and I breathed a sigh of relief – for myself, my fellow Diasporans and for our children.

Now I have cause to write about Maurice Iwu again and this time I am doing so after actually meeting him in person for the very first time. Meeting the man was not by happenstance but by design. This is how it happened. Just a few days ago, I got a mail from one Nigerian group out in Atlanta bearing the missive that Maurice Iwu is in town – in Atlanta, and would be a guest at a Symposium to discuss Diasporan input in the ongoing electoral reforms (including issues relating to constituency delimitation and Diasporan voting rights). To cut a long story short, I contacted some airlines and was able to get a re-eye booking that took me to Atlanta in time enough for me to attend the event at the Grand Hyatt in Buckhead, suburbs of Atlanta on July 15, 2008. The event started around noon and several Nigerians were present, including the Consul-General of Nigeria in Atlanta, members of NIDO-A, US-based Nigerian Journalists, etc. Presentations were made by several folks, including ones by Professor Okafor and Professor Maurice Iwu himself. There was talk that a certain Femi Ajayi was billed to be present to make a presentation but he never showed up.

Professor Okafor did talk of the pressing need for general reforms in Nigeria’s electoral regime but, by and large, he seemed to have a special passion for Diaspora voting rights. On this, he suggested many novel means and I had a feeling that he researched his subject well and the audience came out better informed on the finer points of the topic. After him, Professor Iwu proceeded with the keynote presentation of the day – mostly speaking without prepared notes which made him appear very credible and conversant with all the issues he touched on, ranging from the challenges INEC had to face, the misunderstood role of tribunals in the electoral process, constituency delimitation, affirmative action for women in politics, the need for journalistic balance in reporting Nigerian issues in international media (Blogs especially), Diaspora voting rights, etc. Professor Iwu was very clear on many things he said but one issue upon which he appeared to be most passionate was the one dealing with constituency delimitation or redistricting. His unambiguous postulate that the constituencies in the Federation of Nigeria must, as far as possible, reflect equal or proportional representation captured the imagination of all present. And it is not abstract because other democracies like the United States are known to do the same. Distinguish that from gerrymandering which carries the prospects of political disadvantage; and some people have even argued that constituency delimitation of the past was some sort of gerrymandering – in the sense that proportional representation was least considered, if at all.

After their presentations, questions and comments were allowed from us in the floor. But due to pressure of time and the sheer number of those who wanted to ask questions/make comments, not everyone was able to get a slot to make his own contribution. But those who did pretty much reflected the common and general views of those who didn’t get recognized to speak. I figured this from gauging the demeanor and expressions of many who either nodded their concurrence with points made or just vehemently shook their heads in disagreements. All in all, Nigerians were in their best elements as everyone made clear attempts to be constructive and avoid unnecessary forays into irrelevancies and personal attacks. Much to the credit of the organizers, the moderator – Udejiofor and Maurice Iwu’s engaging personality, the general atmosphere was very intellectual, serious-minded and patriotic.

The first floor speaker praised Iwu for his evident (and thankless) hard work in delivering on the 2007 transition; the second speaker marveled at the difficult conditions and inadequate institutional arrangements under which INEC had to operate and deliver on an election without which Nigeria could have lagged; the third (a young lady from Southwest Nigeria) thanked Iwu profusely but wanted to know more on what concrete steps are being taken to assure participation of women in the political process; the fourth (a US-based Nigerian journalist) who confessed that he had been critical of Iwu/INEC in the past ventured that having met Iwu for the first time and listening to him speak is now likely to get him to change his mind. He was bold and objective and he promised to expand on his thesis on electoral reforms and forward to Iwu/Reform Panel in due course. This journalist also advised Iwu to carry his message to the Nigerian people at the local levels in order to properly inform and counteract any negative stereotypes that may have been spun on Iwu/INEC.

Just like the journalist, I too was meeting Iwu for the first time and I also experienced a sort of baptism of fire – in the sense that Iwu was able to (finally) convince me of his sincerity and the hard work INEC brought to bear in Nigeria in the past year. His thesis on constituency delimitation was unassailable. Iwu is right that the last constituency delimitation by the military did not reflect the true physical distribution of population densities across Nigeria. And it seemed that minority nationalities, metropolitan areas and women may have been robbed. Some political justice and fair play beckoned – thanks to Iwu’s pioneering work in these regards. He even ventured a set aside for women – to assure that their greatest numbers possible is captured into the process. He was also right that after twelve long years, Nigeria was ripe for constituency delimitation and the Constitution even mandated as such. In this season of constitutional amendment, there couldn’t have been a better time for Iwu to bring this fundamental issue into the fore.

Finally, Maurice Iwu’s openness to suggestions and criticisms was admirable and his patriotism was ram-rod and clear. He also exuded lots of creativity and real-world smarts that Nigeria needs if we are serious about taking our democracy to the next level.

Thus, I came out of the symposium hugely enriched, better informed, and less critical of a man who has worked so hard for Nigeria but seemed to have been misunderstood by many who never took the time to go beyond the barrage of negative press that was unleashed on Nigeria’s 2007 historic transition even before the first ballots were cast. Lessons: I will rather have a Maurice Iwu running our elections for now and in the future instead of certain other umpires who either don’t declare their results or recanted on the results they declared; and I will rather now be talking of electoral reforms that make sense – like constituency redistricting and Diaspora voting rights instead of over-flogging men and women of INEC who braved odds to accomplish an all-important national assignment at a critical time in our history. And now that Iwu has vicariously overcome the burden of dual citizenship for all Diasporans, I can see a brighter future in Nigeria’s political firmament for us all – Diasporans and home-based alike.

Wale wrote in from USA waleodusote@yahoo.com

YAR’ADUA HAS SEPARATED THE REALITY FROM THE SLOGAN ON RULE OF LAW

By: ALOY EJIMAKOR

Since the inception of organized constitutional democracy that brought government by dialogue and consent, nations and their leaders have tended to deploy plain old hypes, clichés or slogans as selling points aimed at igniting and sustaining the tempo of public consciousness. Repeated often enough, slogans or the like help to psyche lackadaisical citizens and prepare them to accept difficult public policy shifts necessary to making a clean break from business as usual and priming the nation to embrace new cultural paradigms that she must pass through to endure and prosper. Slogans worked, primarily because the message they bear is so hip and commonsensical that any coinage contrary to the message can only be laughable, if not downright bizarre.

Another reason is that the nation or locale must have come to such a sorry pass in that particular stage in its history that it can boast no other option than to embrace the radical message embodied in that slogan if it must thrive as a dynamic entity. The key does not lie in the slogan but in measures employed to making it a reality. In motherland Nigeria of today, President Yar’Adua is making sure that Nigerians will not as soon forget that ‘rule of law’ is not only the slogan of the moment but a real policy choice upon which Nigeria can no longer afford any further hesitation. History indicates that Yar’Adua is right and Nigeria stands to benefit to boot. And world history is on Yar’Adua’s side.

From pre-Emancipation America to Africa’s struggles against colonialism, sloganeering (of the positive kind) was the new art form that propelled societies to act and engage on a course that changed national attitudes for good. Slogans were legion, attractive, and they often worked wonders. Desegregationist newspaper proprietors in America known then as ‘pamphleteers’ screamed the libertarian catchphrase: ‘desegregation now or never’ to whip up and sustain America’s wavering interest in President Lincoln’s arduous anti-slavery or desegregationist agenda. It also carried a subliminal incitement to African-Americans in the Jim Crow South to rise against white slaveholders and resist racial supremacists.

Later, Lincoln’s war effort against the Confederates succeeded more on that slogan than on any other that may have stressed the simultaneous need to prevail against rebellion and unify the colonies. Imagine the derision that would have greeted any opposite attempt by the rebel south to coin the counter phrase: ‘segregation now and forever’. So, at the end, President Lincoln and his fellow Unionists carried the day with what most Americans had been psyched to see as the only sensible thing to do in that era.

I figure that out of the many slogans bandied around at that time in America’s history, what might have helped most to change America for good was the one that held the best prospects of a desegregated continental United States, free from slavery and crass inequality between blacks and whites. A close second was the other one emanating from the first Continental Congress that declared that all men are created equal – a sort of Yar’Adua’s ‘rule of law’ in so many words. Slogans or not, the important thing is that America did not rest on her oars on the vaunted temerity of slogans per se but actually went to war (or took other tangible measures) to prove that she meant business in taking them from mere public policy clichés or expressions of the popular will to making them a reality and a way of life for generations to come.

Back home in colonial Nigeria, the rallying slogan of the time was ‘self-government’. It was so quaint that even songs were written with it and it ultimately prevailed against any colonialist slogan that purveyed the opposite connotation. Our nationalists made it real when Enahoro made a motion on the floor of the House for Nigeria’s independence, much to the admiration of Nigerians who have been successfully psyched by a robust anti-colonial media not to accept anything less or in opposite. Today, an ordinary run-of-the mill but highly effectual slogan has been brought to bear on the mainstream polity by President Yar’Adua. Besides his many policy rollouts, mostly couched in simple slogans, the one that Yar’Adua loves most and which has taken most root is ‘Rule of Law’.

There is hardly any important public forum the President addresses without him lacing his speech with some reference to his iron-clad commitment to getting Nigerians to love ‘rule of law’ again. And he does not do so with undue levity but with much gravity and poise. If it is the President’s intention (as a scientist) to psyche Nigerians to get used to this new order, he is succeeding because it is now hip for a vast majority of Nigerians to talk about rule of law as the most fundamental path to Nigeria’s redemption and match to modernity. From the talking heads on our morning television talk shows and Nigerian Diaspora internet discussion boards and Blogs to the sidewalk parliaments or legislative chambers, one can see this admirable tendency on the part of Nigerians to be well disposed to the President’s vigorous postulates on rule of law. It is a win-win situation that is fast rising to a national groundswell, with the Supreme Court and sections of the judicature also rising to the occasion.

This is not the first time Nigerian leaders have expressed some commitment to rule of law. But this is the first time Nigerians have seen a credible and noticeable presidential effort geared to converting the doctrine from a mere populist slogan to a cultural revolution of sorts. The difference lies in the fact that previous attempts failed to take hold because they remained mere slogans, sadly lacking in any bonafide and concrete measures on the party of the government of the time to make it a way of life for Nigerians and our institutions. Today, President Yar’Adua seems to have departed from that tradition as amply demonstrated by some of his actions to date.

Think Yar’Adua’s executive order that compelled immediate enforcement of the court rulings in the states where a few elections were upturned; the President’s ram-rod reluctance to intervene in, not to talk of manipulating the House ‘failed’ contracts hearings; and the many other hot-button issues of the day where the President left no one in doubt that he preferred to let matters play out within the procedural framework. In all of these situations, the President never pussy-footed and you don’t have to look far to notice the gathering diplomatic windfalls for Nigeria, coming from even the most cynical and hostile of nations. Here in America, Yar’Adua’s sincerity on rule of law has sunk in and is credited with an extraordinary degree of respect Nigeria is known to now enjoy at the highest levels of the Bush administration, and amongst congressional circles.

Those who are wont to belittle the President for his bold strides on making rule of law a reality may be doing so on a misreading of a history that demonstrates that there are precedents everywhere to support Yar’Adua’s proactive mien. Again, in America, during the civil rights struggle, President Kennedy ordered the National Guard to enforce the controversial judgment of the US Supreme Court declaring segregation inherently unequal and unconstitutional in the United States. Kennedy used the National Guard because under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution, Kennedy had no authority over the white-led police establishments in the states, most of which were at that time pathetically resistant to the new order. A non-serious or merely sloganeering Kennedy would have done nothing and still be able to take umbrage on some stretch of the constitutional restrictions found in the said 11th Amendment. And I reckon that Kennedy’s eagerness to enforce federal court orders energized conservative US judges to begin a systematic dismantling of an entire body of laws – mostly comprised of America’s half a millennium legalization of racism. Yar’Adua’s immediate order to the Inspector-General to enforce the judgments in the governorship elections nullifications is in pari materia to Kennedy’s rapid deployment of the National Guard to enforce his desegregationist agenda.

Better yet, my guess is that Yar’Adua’s focused leadership on adherence to rule of law may be the new tunic that will as yet embolden a Nigerian judiciary that sadly stagnated under over three decades of martial rule. There is nothing that ignites a court on an irreversible path of gutsy and well-reasoned rulings on difficult questions of law than an executive branch led by a President standing at the ready to enforce those rulings even when some may be clearly detrimental to his narrow partisan or strategic interest. In other words, Yar’Adua must be praised for his courage and patriotism in following a path that is known to be strewn with prospects of self-endangerment.

When Trent Lott, the powerful Republican Speaker of US House of Representatives strained the boundaries of free speech by using racial epithets, the nation was in uproar and demands for his resignation crossed party and racial lines. Resisting the tempting prospects of reaping a political capital, the President of the United States spurned every pressure to be drawn into the matter much like Yar’Adua risked alienating PDP apparatchiks by refusing to intercede on Etteh’s behalf. The more extreme example was when Kennedy courted danger to his personal safety by ordering his younger brother - Robert, the Attorney-General to crack down on the Mafia despite America’s duplicitous and bewildering romance of sorts with the Mafia. Kennedy took such bold step because he believed that, until then, America had merely paid lip service to riding itself of organized crime and he found that laxity to be inconsistent with the country’s avowed commitment to rule of law.

To be sure, President Yar’Adua courts danger of alienating the establishment ranks who remain unaccustomed to the President’s consistency on rule of law. In other words, taking the doctrine of rule of law from a mere policy slogan to an everyday reality requires mettle and can sometimes be unpopular and dicey, but as above examples indicate, it also takes focus and exceptional presidential temperament to stay the course. Yar’Adua seems to possess them all. Thus, by his actions so far, there is no doubt that the President understands that separating the reality from the slogan on rule of law is the only option when you are serious about building a new and well-ordered society. He deserves a pat on the back from any one or nation that wants to see Nigeria succeed.

Aloy Ejimakor is Law Group. Washington, DC alloylaw@yahoo.com

PERMANENCY OF STATE INSTITUTIONS AND FUNCTIONARIES: LET IWU BE

By: Attorney Franklin Otorofani

Mature societies are defined by the stability of governmental institutions, policies and functionaries. Conversely, immature societies are notorious for policy summersaults, institutional instability, and high personnel turnover rates at the highest levels of administration. Nigeria fits snugly into the above description. She is the epitome of impermanence and instability and therefore the concomitant absence of development. There is a direct link between political and therefore institutional instability and underdevelopment. The country Nigeria has acquired notoriety not only for abrupt policy summersaults, but also institutional and personnel changes, usually at the most destabilizing of times! High level political appointees are ousted while on official duties abroad representing Nigeria and the government that just humiliated them out of office without notice! Pray, who would die or stick out his neck for such a country? Is it any wonder that ‘patriotism’ is the last word on the lips of Nigerian political appointees, and indeed, Nigerians in general?
It’s for the foregoing reasons that the author fervently calls on all well meaning Nigerians to prevail on the Yar’Adua administration to break the pernicious cycle of policy summersaults and project abandonment in order to move the nation forward. The nation makes no progress whatsoever with what appears to have metamorphosed into a policy of ‘destroy and rebuild’ that has animated our development agenda over the decades, which more than anything else, has been responsible for the nation’s stunted growth and development. And one area to begin this cyclical break is no other than INEC and its Chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu.

In the aftermath of the results of the general elections the drumbeat of calls for Iwu’s resignation and/or removal reached its crescendo after the presidential election. Sore losers, notably Abubakar Atiku, who was the presidential candidate of his one-man party, AC, and Buhari, who contested under the platform of the ANPP, strenuously sought to make Iwu and INEC their scapegoats. Maurice Iwu, a patriotic Nigerian with an uncommon commitment to advancing our electoral processes, became the bogeyman who must be sacrificed to appease electoral failures. With raw emotions fueled by the misguided reports by foreign election monitors, reaching boiling points, Iwu was strenuously portrayed more as the PDP Chairman than that of an independent electoral commission. While the Iwu bashing lasted gullible Nigerians were easily mislead and got carried away with Atiku and AC inspired anti-Iwu rhetoric. The overturn of a couple gubernatorial elections, even though more on technicality than on substantive issues, only served to pour fuel on the raging anti-Iwu inferno. It took the decisive decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to de-oxygenate the inferno that could have engulfed the nation and reduce it to ashes.

Yet, the call for Iwu’s ouster, though somewhat now muted, has not completely ceased. Failed politicians are not banking on Yar’Adua to assuage their bruised egos with Iwu ouster in his much talked about cabinet reshuffle exercise as if Iwu is Yar’Adua’s minister. For the avoidance of doubt Iwu was appointed for a term certain with all the security of tenure that goes with it. That said, it’s fair to say that the tide of public opinion has changed somewhat, thanks to the Court of Appeal decision. If the second highest judicial authority in the land that had ruled against INEC in the past could find that the presidential election was conducted in ‘substantial compliance’ with the electoral law and the constitution, there was no basis to discredit Iwu. On the contrary the man who achieved the impossible for the nation (where all his predecessors failed) deserves nothing short of a medal.

Iwu has so far weathered the storm and I would give credit to President Yar’Adua and other patriotic Nigerians who stood by him through thick and thin, for not listening to the voices of retrogression advancing their parochial agenda in disguise. The case has been fought and won in court on the basis of facts presented and the applicable law before a panel of independent Justices, not Ahmadu Ali or OBJ-appointed panel. And there was more good news for Iwu and INEC still: Gubernatorial election re-runs ordered by tribunals generally acclaimed even by Atiku himself as free and fair and therefore credible, returned the same PDP governors whose prior elections were condemned by the opposition as PDP’s fraudulent impositions allegedly with Iwu’s connivance. These credible gubernatorial re-runs conducted by Iwu, which returned the same governors previously declared as winners proved one and only one point that was already judicially reaffirmed: that is, the general, in particular, presidential and gubernatorial elections, were conducted in ‘substantial compliance’ with the electoral laws of the land and therefore credible before the laws of the land. Nigerians must respect judicial decisions even if they disagree with them. As such those still publicly claiming that Yar’Adua was imposed on the nation or that the presidential election was stolen even in the face of the judicial pronouncement are doing great disservice to the nation in general and the judiciary in particular. They cannot therefore claim to be democrats when they so treat judicial decisions with contempt.

The same results would be returned were the elections to be conducted by God Himself or his angels from heaven and Atiku and Buhari would still complain of rigging! However, to hold that the elections were conducted in substantial compliance with the electoral law is not to say that the elections were flawless, but that whatever flaws there were did not rise to the level of gross or wholesale non-compliance with the electoral law as to render the results a nullity. The problem is not with Iwu but our politicians. We can change INEC Chairs a thousand times but if our politicians do not change, nothing will change.

The trashing of Abubakar Atiku in his own state and even local government area in the Adamawa State gubernatorial re-run has exposed Atiku’s electoral hollowness even in his own backyard. No wonder AC only did well in Lagos where ex-Governor Bola Tinubu held sway. In terms of electoral calculus Tinubu is a whole lot worth more than Atiku and therefore better suited to fly AC’s presidential flag. Atiku is now a liability to AC; not that he was ever an asset in the first place. And as he flees from the US to Dubai in the United Arab Republic (UAR) over the Jefferson case in which he has been cited, it will be well for the AC to strip Atiku of its leadership if it doesn’t want the party to be run from Dubai, which Atiku has made his first country against Nigeria.

With the tide of public opinion turning against Atiku and the AC, now is the time to give Iwu all the support and encouragement to proceed with God’s speed with his reform agenda for the agency. Now is not the time to change a winning team, and I would therefore expect Mr. President to stoutly resist any attempt by pressure groups to undermine the good works Iwu has done with INEC. The Ribadu treatment has no place for Iwu because he has a term certain and his removal can only be carried out with the concurrence of the senate on legally stipulated grounds, not on a presidential whim as happened to Ribadu and Lamorde.

The onerous task of building enduring democratic institutions entails not only democratic continuity but institutional and leadership continuity as well. Iwu has proved his mettle and has been validated and vetted by an independent Judiciary that bluntly refused to visit the sins of our ethically challenged, fraud-prone politicians, on the electoral Czar. And, as the nation awaits the Supreme Court verdict in the appeal before it, all that I’m permitted to say for now is, Mr. President: Let Iwu Be! “…for the sake of institutional growth, solidity, and cohesion.”

INEC Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, must not be sacrificed to appease the gods of electoral failures before and after the Supreme Court verdict, which I humbly predict, will uphold the Appeal Court decision on grounds of law and facts alone as presented at the hearings, not necessarily on the basis of overriding national interests, as some mischief makers would want the world to believe.

And I dare say that if Mr. President will keep his job with a favorable Appeal and Supreme Court decision which in effect, is the ultimate vindication of INEC, then Iwu deserves to keep his too! How about that for equity and fair-play, Mr. President?

Let Iwu Be!!

Franklin Otorofani, Esq. is a Nigerian-Attorney based in the United States

mudiagaone@yahoo.com