ELECTION PEER REFORM INITIATIVES
Plot 1702, Ginginya Close, Maitama, Abuja - Nigeria
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
EKITI RE-RUN: INEC’s REAL TEST
If there was going to be a time when the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, would be edgy in doing its business, it was the just concluded rerun of governorship election in Ekiti State.
It is one rerun exercise that had been preceded by some wholesale typecasting of the electoral body as inept, collaborative and perfidious. Of course, these claims may not have been steeped in sound logic, but in most cases done oblivious of the legal provisions on which the electoral body operated.
However, the facts of the tensions, albeit with threats and counter threats, as freely issued by the contending factors and gladiators, had, expectedly, turned the entirety of the nation’s attentions on how INEC would respond to the so many allegations of quisling with the ruling PDP.
Against that background, INEC had its challenge well stated ahead. These include the reality that it must prove to Nigerians:
that electoral officials on duty can apply (only) objective conditions, as against subjective/sentimental factors in carrying out the sacred duty as appointed unto them by the statute books;
that electoral officials on duty are well groomed to further the values of President Umaru Yar’Adua’s much chanted rule of law and would play (only) by the rules of the game;
that electoral officials on duty are attuned to the yearnings of Nigerians who hope and have worked for the emergence of leaders (if in a democracy) by their choice and not by any other means;
that in carrying out its duties as stated in the books and in the full view of all, electoral officials, by their inclination to rule of law, shall leave the other intriguing issues (as also stated in the books) to be taken up in the now virile and proactive judiciary; and,
that rather than recourse to arm-chair pontifications and name calling, Nigerians, especially the elite, shall see the need to extend the pursuit of their specific interests, albeit their preferences, in the reasoned and sober courtrooms, where judges are believed to have the grooming and depth of mind to weave through the intricacies of claims and come out with considered opinions.
Now, the Ekiti re-run election, though with so much thunder and vibration, has come and gone. As usual, it is going to be some deluge of pontifications, allegations and persistent calls for some heads to roll. This is even made more remarkable by the conduct of the Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, Mrs. Ayoka Adebayo, who, was it in unsure-footedness or prevarications, raised so much matters about the forces at play.
Of course, yes, that conduct of the REC has become an eye-opener in some ways.
Before her claims of intimidation, purported resignation and eventual turn around, many Nigerians had thought that the Chairman of INEC was the all-being and all-doing of the electoral body;
Before that show as exhibited by the REC, Nigerians barely knew that even the INEC Chairman, (Iwu or any other person in that capacity) was a REC, though first among equals;
Before her show, Nigerians had thought that it was customary in INEC for the INEC Chairman to dictate the conduct of elections in any part of the country;
Before her show, Nigerians never knew that Iwu, in all his broad-chest display, would wait, as other Nigerians, and in suspended breathe, for the result of an election under another REC; and,
Before her show, many Nigerians, other than lawyers and the law-minded, never knew that a REC can be so independent, directly appointed by the President of the Federation and is to be expected to conduct the business thus.
Indeed, this evolving scenario as the combat issues in Ekiti, the conduct of the election and the exhibits of the REC, has really raised the stake in:
understanding the conduct of elections,
evaluating the elections,
results of the elections,
practice rules for the electoral body,
process of the elections, and,
the persona of factors assigned with specific functions in elections.
As we did observe sometime in the past, it is a practice recorded in the history of Nigeria political culture to rail and claw at electoral bosses in the past. So, rather than engage in review of elections, as expected in every prevailing democracy - by tackling matters of the process instead of the persons - our pundits always resorted to personal attacks just as in tackling the foot rather than the football. In other words, where swift and intransigent factors tended to vitiate the process, the surface idea and easy attractions to Nigerian elites had been the persons of officials.
To some extent, you may not blame this elite stance. As we held in an earlier statement, it is no longer contested that:
Bosses of previous electoral bodies were seen and feared as stooges of the various heads of government who appointed them;
Bosses of electoral bodies, in the past, were seen to be hell bent in installing unpopular Nigerians as winners of elections;
Bosses of electoral bodies were understood to be in connivance with desperate politicians who were not leaving any stone unturned in their quest for power;
Some bosses of electoral bodies were, themselves, tactless, loquacious and controversial, and always dragged themselves into what would consume them eventually;
Some bosses of electoral bodies were either arrogant and acted as if it was not any business of theirs to explain to Nigerians what they were doing;
Bosses of electoral bodies showed themselves as clearly ignorant of the values of two-way communications that they assumed that their intensions, good or bad, were glaring (one good example is the fallout of the exhibits of the Ekiti REC);
For the considerate elite, bosses of electoral bodies were always helpless in the hands of members of the ruling group and had always failed in the expectations of citizens; and,
Generally, electoral bodies in Nigeria appeared to have operated two rules; one for the government or party in power but against which Nigerians build their high reservoir of incredulity; the other for those outside power but who wished to try their luck in gaining political power.
But, today, quite far from theories, the happening of Ekiti rerun has presented a good case for Nigerians to engage in meaningful exercises in election reviews. This is one rerun characterized by, among others:
good wishes of the long suffering Ekiti people for proper election;
voluble and heart-rending threats of violence from both sides of the major divide;
real indices of violence and disruption of good order right on the ground;
rough tackles of some gladiators probably far removed from Ekiti land proper;
probably a test of relevance or might among political players, most of whom are in the genre of never-say-die; and
(though not the least) the challenges for INEC to prove the desired point of umpire status.
THE DAY AFTER EKITI
If, as after the final results of the Ekiti rerun have been released and winner and losers known, Nigerians aspire to inquire into the exercise, the fashionable action, after recent practices, is to blame officials, if not Maurice Iwu, boss of INEC, in person. And against the background of the shows displayed by State REC, Mrs. Adebayo, she is the well defined culprit who had raised alarm, changed her mind and finally declared the results.
But if the desire is, as should be the case, to expend the indices of democratic development, some questions are pertinent:
If the election was wrongly conducted, what should aggrieved members of the public do?
If the election is seen to be a travesty, what should affected players do?
If the affected players are to pursue their grievances in the courts of law (may be tribunal) can they be hopeful of justice?
If wrong doing is discovered, exposed and fully articulated, are there likely to be punishment or reversals for good order? and,
whose responsibility is it to input the values for recourse to law as furtherance to national claims to rule of law, so that aggrieved persons can hope for due attention and righting of wrong doing?
As simple as these presented, the actions of tending extremities among the factors in the days before the rerun indicate that because of rigidly held views, ego and, perhaps, obduracy, it will be a bit difficult to assume that resolution of the questions above would be simple and if ascertained, assuage the frayed nerves and cause Nigerians to accept due process, including recourse to rule of law.
This is where it becomes important for us in the Election Peer Review Initiative, EPRI, to bring back some valid questions we raised sometime in the recent past:
Are Nigeria’s political elites really interested in a stable order if they continue to reject open avenues to addressing grievances?
If matters of contention are not taken to the law courts – in this case, electoral tribunals – are it on the streets of Ekiti or some shrines in grooves, that they will be resolved?
If quarrels of aftermath of elections are not allowed to be resolved in courts of law – that is degenerating to actions that will cause the hapless masses to be hacked down - where is the discipline to lead and to inspire?
WAY FORWARD
We of the Election Peer Reform Initiative, EPRI, do not accept that whatever took place in Ekiti should degenerate to name calling, and never violence;
We believe that, if for the benefit of democratic development in Nigeria, grievances should be taken to the courts of law;
We argue that rolling over to the courts should be with the mindset to accept the definition of the actions under the law, as may be pronounced by the judges;
We insist that any action, (including the familiar easy path in name-calling), other than seeking redress in the court of law, shall be tending to anarchy;
We are bold to question the integrity of any person/s or group, which shall seek to embark on actions that will not contribute to the evolution of democratic culture and consolidation of rule of law.
Mahmud Azaiki John Song Adewale Johnson Gozie Nwike Ejiro Uwe
Secretary General PRO President Head of Research Auditor
that electoral officials on duty are attuned to the yearnings of Nigerians who hope and have worked for the emergence of leaders (if in a democracy) by their choice and not by any other means;
that in carrying out its duties as stated in the books and in the full view of all, electoral officials, by their inclination to rule of law, shall leave the other intriguing issues (as also stated in the books) to be taken up in the now virile and proactive judiciary; and,
that rather than recourse to arm-chair pontifications and name calling, Nigerians, especially the elite, shall see the need to extend the pursuit of their specific interests, albeit their preferences, in the reasoned and sober courtrooms, where judges are believed to have the grooming and depth of mind to weave through the intricacies of claims and come out with considered opinions.
Now, the Ekiti re-run election, though with so much thunder and vibration, has come and gone. As usual, it is going to be some deluge of pontifications, allegations and persistent calls for some heads to roll. This is even made more remarkable by the conduct of the Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, Mrs. Ayoka Adebayo, who, was it in unsure-footedness or prevarications, raised so much matters about the forces at play.
Of course, yes, that conduct of the REC has become an eye-opener in some ways.
Before her claims of intimidation, purported resignation and eventual turn around, many Nigerians had thought that the Chairman of INEC was the all-being and all-doing of the electoral body;
Before that show as exhibited by the REC, Nigerians barely knew that even the INEC Chairman, (Iwu or any other person in that capacity) was a REC, though first among equals;
Before her show, Nigerians had thought that it was customary in INEC for the INEC Chairman to dictate the conduct of elections in any part of the country;
Before her show, Nigerians never knew that Iwu, in all his broad-chest display, would wait, as other Nigerians, and in suspended breathe, for the result of an election under another REC; and,
Before her show, many Nigerians, other than lawyers and the law-minded, never knew that a REC can be so independent, directly appointed by the President of the Federation and is to be expected to conduct the business thus.
Indeed, this evolving scenario as the combat issues in Ekiti, the conduct of the election and the exhibits of the REC, has really raised the stake in:
understanding the conduct of elections,
evaluating the elections,
results of the elections,
practice rules for the electoral body,
process of the elections, and,
the persona of factors assigned with specific functions in elections.
As we did observe sometime in the past, it is a practice recorded in the history of Nigeria political culture to rail and claw at electoral bosses in the past. So, rather than engage in review of elections, as expected in every prevailing democracy - by tackling matters of the process instead of the persons - our pundits always resorted to personal attacks just as in tackling the foot rather than the football. In other words, where swift and intransigent factors tended to vitiate the process, the surface idea and easy attractions to Nigerian elites had been the persons of officials.
To some extent, you may not blame this elite stance. As we held in an earlier statement, it is no longer contested that:
Bosses of previous electoral bodies were seen and feared as stooges of the various heads of government who appointed them;
Bosses of electoral bodies, in the past, were seen to be hell bent in installing unpopular Nigerians as winners of elections;
Bosses of electoral bodies were understood to be in connivance with desperate politicians who were not leaving any stone unturned in their quest for power;
Some bosses of electoral bodies were, themselves, tactless, loquacious and controversial, and always dragged themselves into what would consume them eventually;
Some bosses of electoral bodies were either arrogant and acted as if it was not any business of theirs to explain to Nigerians what they were doing;
Bosses of electoral bodies showed themselves as clearly ignorant of the values of two-way communications that they assumed that their intensions, good or bad, were glaring (one good example is the fallout of the exhibits of the Ekiti REC);
For the considerate elite, bosses of electoral bodies were always helpless in the hands of members of the ruling group and had always failed in the expectations of citizens; and,
Generally, electoral bodies in Nigeria appeared to have operated two rules; one for the government or party in power but against which Nigerians build their high reservoir of incredulity; the other for those outside power but who wished to try their luck in gaining political power.
But, today, quite far from theories, the happening of Ekiti rerun has presented a good case for Nigerians to engage in meaningful exercises in election reviews. This is one rerun characterized by, among others:
good wishes of the long suffering Ekiti people for proper election;
voluble and heart-rending threats of violence from both sides of the major divide;
real indices of violence and disruption of good order right on the ground;
rough tackles of some gladiators probably far removed from Ekiti land proper;
probably a test of relevance or might among political players, most of whom are in the genre of never-say-die; and
(though not the least) the challenges for INEC to prove the desired point of umpire status.
THE DAY AFTER EKITI
If, as after the final results of the Ekiti rerun have been released and winner and losers known, Nigerians aspire to inquire into the exercise, the fashionable action, after recent practices, is to blame officials, if not Maurice Iwu, boss of INEC, in person. And against the background of the shows displayed by State REC, Mrs. Adebayo, she is the well defined culprit who had raised alarm, changed her mind and finally declared the results.
But if the desire is, as should be the case, to expend the indices of democratic development, some questions are pertinent:
If the election was wrongly conducted, what should aggrieved members of the public do?
If the election is seen to be a travesty, what should affected players do?
If the affected players are to pursue their grievances in the courts of law (may be tribunal) can they be hopeful of justice?
If wrong doing is discovered, exposed and fully articulated, are there likely to be punishment or reversals for good order? and,
whose responsibility is it to input the values for recourse to law as furtherance to national claims to rule of law, so that aggrieved persons can hope for due attention and righting of wrong doing?
As simple as these presented, the actions of tending extremities among the factors in the days before the rerun indicate that because of rigidly held views, ego and, perhaps, obduracy, it will be a bit difficult to assume that resolution of the questions above would be simple and if ascertained, assuage the frayed nerves and cause Nigerians to accept due process, including recourse to rule of law.
This is where it becomes important for us in the Election Peer Review Initiative, EPRI, to bring back some valid questions we raised sometime in the recent past:
Are Nigeria’s political elites really interested in a stable order if they continue to reject open avenues to addressing grievances?
If matters of contention are not taken to the law courts – in this case, electoral tribunals – are it on the streets of Ekiti or some shrines in grooves, that they will be resolved?
If quarrels of aftermath of elections are not allowed to be resolved in courts of law – that is degenerating to actions that will cause the hapless masses to be hacked down - where is the discipline to lead and to inspire?
WAY FORWARD
We of the Election Peer Reform Initiative, EPRI, do not accept that whatever took place in Ekiti should degenerate to name calling, and never violence;
We believe that, if for the benefit of democratic development in Nigeria, grievances should be taken to the courts of law;
We argue that rolling over to the courts should be with the mindset to accept the definition of the actions under the law, as may be pronounced by the judges;
We insist that any action, (including the familiar easy path in name-calling), other than seeking redress in the court of law, shall be tending to anarchy;
We are bold to question the integrity of any person/s or group, which shall seek to embark on actions that will not contribute to the evolution of democratic culture and consolidation of rule of law.
Mahmud Azaiki John Song Adewale Johnson Gozie Nwike Ejiro Uwe
Secretary General PRO President Head of Research Auditor
No comments:
Post a Comment