IWU WINS WITH KUKAH AND 70% OF NIGERIANS

By: Ibrahim Danlami

At a season of deep emotion over the debate of the of tenure of Iwu as Chair of INEC, Rev. Father Matthew Hassan Kukah’s words of wisdom merit what Maurice Iwu’s virulent pursuers should contemplate. Rev. Kukah is not a politician and neither is he of the partisan streak. He is an unbiased, morally upright messenger of God who speaks from a heart, not induced by political or pecuniary gains. He is a man of wisdom who has established a fine reputation on national discourses. His remarkable and intellectual contributions to the development of the nation at times of national crises have been immense and invaluable; his responsibility as secretary to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and lately, a member of the Electoral Reform Commission. When Rev Kukah spoke recently, precisely in The Guardian of Sunday, March 29, 2009 advising Iwu’s foes, that the nation “cannot progress with the harassment of Iwu”, Kukah’s candid opinion sounded as always, the reasonable and impartial arbitrator on national issues than the droning rhetoric of the “kill Iwu now” crusaders.

And nearly 70% Nigerians have given Iwu a vote of confidence. In a running poll at the Thisday website (as of April 6, 2009), more than 68% against less than 30% prefer that INEC (instead of SIECs) conduct LGA elections in states. Universally, polls are used to gauge where people stand on a particular issue based on their recent experiences; and polls don’t lie, especially this electronic sort by Thisday which returns real-time results in seconds. Therefore, what the direction of this poll tells us is that Maurice Iwu’s INEC (and the elections it conducted) is enjoying the confidence of nearly 70% percent of Nigerians. When time comes to writing history, Iwu’s place in it will be measured more by this than the collective animus of those who seem to have a personal axe to grind with the man.

Kukah pointed us to the bitter truth and reality of our electoral experiences and the need to refrain from the blame game of every successive electoral commission chairmen for our electoral miseries. His position was explicit and logical. He would not be, and cannot comprehend why “people are complaining about” the chairman of INEC and how he constitutes our electoral problems. He was emphatic when he acknowledged “the very fact that we say we are looking for a person of integrity does not mean that anybody that gets there would not become a crook”. The point arising from this which critics of successive INEC chairman should note is: The political environment, rather than the person of Chair of INEC is the primary determinant of the outcome of our elections. Thus, the problem of elections “would not be solved by who is the chairman of INEC” even if that person is the Pope, the infallible.

So, whoever the chairman of INEC or whatever electoral reforms is put in place will not make any difference in the electoral process except the politicians first “decide by themselves to live above board…and subordinate themselves to the principles of decency”, per Kukah. The politician, the chief stakeholder in the electoral process is the one that urgently needs a reformation of character and a reorientation to elections. Electoral malpractices, maiming and killing of political opponents are the makings of the politicians, not the chairman of INEC. This should challenge Iwu’s critics to rationalize their thought processes and the need to judge the outcome of elections not in isolation but the disposition of the contestants for whom such election was conducted.

Rev. Kukah has called Iwu’s critics to this objective self-assessment. This must first start with a just appraisal of INEC’s performances under Iwu in the 2007 and subsequent re-run elections. Kukah has taken the lead in this and his honest judgment in the said interview was unequivocal. According to him, “as intellectuals, we need to ask, what is it that happened in 2007 that had not happened in 2008? Why is it that the elections had gone relatively speaking, without serious controversies? Because it is the same INEC that has been conducting the elections. Has he (Iwu) gone to Damascus? Why is it that things have changed?” With an enabling environment and right preparations, INEC has demonstrated with the bye-elections that it has the character and experience to meet with the challenges of election management. This is an apparent contrast with the “state of emergency” elections of 2007.

Though Iwu’s sworn adversaries tend to close their minds on the predicaments his electoral commission faces in every election, they will never deny the man his courage of convictions. The scenario painted of the April 25th Ekiti governorship re-election in the back page of Nigerian Compass Newspaper of Saturday, March 21, 2009 was too scary for angels to dare to thread in the state until after the elections; yet Iwu is intent on forging ahead. The artistic impression of parties holding all manners of cudgels with the umpire standing between the divides, holding a symbol of the coveted governorship crown told the complete story of electioneering process in Nigeria and the vulnerability of the electoral umpire. The Gabriel Akinadewo article “K’olomo kilo fomo re, Ekiti a ro” (Parents, warn your wards, Ekiti will be bloody) indeed, summarized electioneering time in Nigeria as the “era of destruction, demolition devastation, dismantling smashing, vandalism, violence, killings, elimination, extermination, liquidation, abduction, propaganda and all the vices”; the decisive factors for winning public office in Nigeria. So far, on March 9, 2009, Ahmed Saddiq, an Ekiti indigene was viciously murdered in a clash between PDP and AC supporters at Oye Ekiti. How many more will be killed? So, where is Iwu’s fault in all these? None. This is the crux of Kukah’s thesis.

On March 22, 2009, Simon Kolawole, a die-hard critic of Iwu wrote (in Thisday) that “the conventional wisdom is that if you control the motor parks, you control the thugs; if you control the thugs, you control the polling booth; if you control the polling booth, you control the votes! That is why associations such as National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) and Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) are very strategic to politicians and there is always a fierce battle to control them”. I don’t think Kolawole meant to, but this very remark of his completely exonerates Iwu from all the previous blames he had heaped on the man in his previous essays; and it also makes Kukah’s point. The other day, in a press conference to disparage Iwu and INEC, Peter Obi, the governor of Anambra state involuntarily let the world into how ungovernable his state has become. The governor cannot conduct local government election in his state even at the expiration of the tenure of the present officials. Conducting the election, the governor declared, “would likely precipitate mayhem”. “If you put ballot boxes anywhere in the state, they will carry it and run away”. However, INEC (under the much under-appreciated Iwu) will have to conduct the governorship elections in the Anambra and Ekiti states.

Ibrahim Danlami ibrahimdanlami@yahoo.com

PETER OBI AND HIS FEAR OF TWO UMPIRES

By Ipole Amajama

Indeed we live in interesting times as the Chinese would say. We live in a time when men of little convictions, lovers of idle talk, and revelers in the absurd hold sway. So, it was not surprising when in the Daily Sun of Friday, March 27, 2009, at page 9, the wispy-sounding Governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi fouled the political atmosphere with his sterile argument of why he has failed to hold local council elections despite nearing the end of his controversial court-inspired rule.

Obi spoke when he played host to the Civil Liberties Organisation in Awka, Anambra State. In his typical manner, the governor in responding to a question as to why he has not held local government poll in his near four year tenure canvassed a rather ridiculous and untenable excuse that because the chairman of the State Independent Electoral Commission, Chief Cornel Umeh is related to former Governor Chris Ngige that is why he choose to deny millions of Anambra people the opportunity to consolidate on democracy at the local government level.

There is little doubt that the Mrs. Halima Ibrahim-led delegation would have been scandalized by the governor’s poorly articulated reason. For those of us who have watched Obi for the almost four years now, we could easily discern his little mind and his many misstatements on important policy issues. First it was that Ghanaians should conduct our elections; second was that the Umunna system in Igbo land is better than local government elections; now it is one Cornel Umeh who must go before he conducts the elections.

The squeaky-sounding governor described the composition of the state electoral commission as “family business.” Obi queried “Who is the chairman of Anambra State Electoral Commission? Chief Cornel Umeh, he is Ngige’s uncle. Who is his deputy? Ngige’s cousin. So you see it has become family business. “No, I will not conduct election; we will conduct election when their tenure expires. I will call Anambra people; they will make a choice on who will be the chairman of the electoral body. Peter Obi will not be part of it, the people of Anambra will do that, then we will fix the election and the people will elect those they want.” One may ask: Is Obi going to ‘conduct election’ to choose who becomes Chair of his LGA electoral Commission? Confusion and smoking mirrors - vintage Peter Obi.

Governor Obi who would want Nigerians to believe that he is a democrat and the perpetual victim in electoral contest has shown after all that he is at best a man of little, if any, conviction. Does his rationale hold in the face of empirical evidence that because one single individual is related to a former governor of the state, then the system should suffer for thousands perhaps millions of others? Has he not failed to deepen the democratic process not only in Anambra State but also in the country by refusing to give the people the opportunity to exercise their franchise by deciding on who should preside over their affairs at the local government level? Or more significantly, did he withhold the elections so as to have total control of local government funds, steal as much as he can in the bid to shore up his war-chest for his governorship bid the second time? Further, is he planning to install his own brother or lackey so as to guarantee his waning chance in next year’s election?

A few months back, Obi was all over the place crying wolf when there was not on the unsuitability of the INEC chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu to conduct next year’s election in the state. He based his warped and jaundiced argument that the 2007 election, which he (Obi) was no participant as “seriously flawed” because it was Iwu that conducted it. Obi expressed the fear that the INEC chairman would work against his interest. For this reason, Obi was all over the place calling for Iwu’s sack in the hope that Iwu will be succeeded by an umpire of Obi’s own choosing. So, what we now have in Peter Obi is a situation where he will rather elections not be conducted until he has gotten his pet umpires to do it. Talk of umpire-shopping or fear of two umpires (Iwu and Umeh) and I will show you a Peter Obi that personifies one. It is sheer poppycock!

Here is Obi who has failed to guarantee grassroots participation at the base of democracy. Here is Obi who has shown how infantile and childish his mind works. Simply because Umeh is related to Ngige, he is not qualified to conduct local council poll owing to the whim and caprices of the governor. Perhaps, since Obi seems to be so much in love with the Ghanaians since he had suggested not too long ago that we should invite them to hold our elections for us; he would go and bring them when Umeh and his deputy’s tenure end in June to conduct local government election for Anambra.

It is expedient that the Minister of Information and Communications, Prof. Dora Akunyili who incidentally is from the same state with Obi should enroll the governor as her pupil numero uno in the rebranding campaign. Obi has demonstrated a penchant for the treasonable by suggesting that we are incapable of governing ourselves as he has typified by failing to hold such a small thing as local council election.

Before we are further hoodwinked by his monkey business of saying Anambra people would decide on who becomes the next ANSIEC boss, we should ask him who will appoint those that would make the shortlist. Or is he trying to play to the popular by saying the people would decide while all along he has tele-guiding the process, maneuvering the conduct so as to install the individual that would ensure that his loyalists win the poll to guarantee his safe passage to a second term? The governor should by now know that he is only clever by half. He should rather forget about the Anambra people in the selection process of the state SIEC boss. He should simply go to Ghana, pick whoever catches his fancy and bring him to hold elections for the state. So much for patriotism!

This advice is important in view of the constitutional provisions in appointing a chairman for government boards and commissions. He cannot pretend he loves the people when he does not. By denying the Anambra people a chance at having their own grassroots leaders, he has stifle democratic flourish, economic growth and all the attendant dividends of popular participation in governance.

Anambra deserves better, not pseudo-intellectuals and democrats; not individuals with primitive thoughts and little minds, not persons that have no sense of global happenings except when it has to do with buying and selling. Anambra is in need of persons that can transcend the bounds of pettiness, individuals that are truly democrat, tolerant and not rabid and struts and jesters.

Amajama writes from Abuja.
amajamaip@gmail.com