President Yar’adua’s recent engagements and parley with the news media and public is very pleasant indeed. For one reason, the naysayers can be assured that our president is hale and hearty and (borrowing from Baba Iyabo’s lexicon), “him dey Aso Rock and him dey kampe”. First, it was his sit down interview with The Guardian newspaper and then a quick follow up with a press conference involving Aso villa news correspondents.
Nigerian ‘ruler-ship’ appears to be moving onto another level. A few guesses as to what may have spurned this development is apt because they provide the template for my arguments over the next few lines. It is likely that the administration, for reasons best known to them, has found a new sense of urgency after the go-slow months or the threat of public protests by the labor movement required some kind of reaction. Maybe the Ekiti debacle occasioned a change in tune and with that came the need for a new dance. Or perhaps the sight of those bare-chested senior female citizens unleashed diabolical effluents that breezed up to Aso Rock corridors. We do not know. One thing is sure though and that is Mr. Yar’adua’s introduction of his arguments into the public space is refreshing for news junkies like me and we do hope that just as they expect of us, the administration would receive our feedback with equanimity.
I want to assume that given the amount of coverage the topic received, the Ekiti issue was partly a reason for the press conference in Aso Rock. So, let the debates begin! Mr. Yar’adua and his administration should be commended for finally setting the ball rolling on this much needed electoral reforms but there are a couple of salient points to note from his sessions with the media. First, according to him, those of us clamoring for a full implementation of the Uwais report must be ignorant—don’t we know that no government in the world has ever fully accepted and implemented a committee’s report without making any inputs. No mischief meant here but accepting 73 out of 83 recommendations does not come across as incremental, if anything they actually took away from the Uwais report. But let’s leave that argument for the devil’s advocate and move on. The more important point is not the quantity of recommendations they accepted but the inherent quality or absence of same from the ones adopted. For example, do we really need another Centre for Democratic Studies? How well did Omo Omoruyi’s CDS serve us in preventing the June 12 annulment? Second, the president informed Nigerians that he has called for a probe of the Ekiti state election violence. He promised that offenders would be prosecuted.
My guess from having read several comments on this issue is that the core of the argument around which people have called for the wholesome adoption of the report bothers on two things: the appointment of the INEC Chairman; and the seating of candidates with disputed mandates. This second grouse bears a nexus with the matter of fixing time limits for hearing and concluding litigation on disputed elections. Mr. President’s rationale for their decision to turn down the recommendation on INEC appointments flies in the face of reason. Hear him—“integrity is not who appoints the people. It is the integrity of the people who are appointed...” Nigerians should not be surprised at such comments, after all the process that brought him and his fellow travelers into office (from the primaries at the party level to the general election) was anything but fair. It is really bothersome that it does not matter to him that the process or persons that appoint officials to sensitive positions is/are seen to be transparent and based on integrity. If the person or process appointing lacks integrity, what credibility would the appointee bring to the office and to what source would such appointees derive legitimacy while in office? The fact that Maurice Iwu had to report to the presidency remains one of the most dangerous fallouts from the Ekiti rerun debacle. The NASS, as the closest proxies of the people in Abuja should by simple logic, be the first and only port of call for INEC officials.
The second grouse of the protagonists for the ‘all-or-nothing’ adoption of the Uwais report bothers on setting time limits for conclusion of election disputes vis–a–vis preventing candidates from taking office until all litigation matters are concluded. Again, the reasoning behind this position is intuitive and anybody who has followed our adventure in politics over the past five decades should not be hard pressed to see this. The anxiety occasioned by the litigation process and the rhetoric that goes with it constitute enough distraction to prevent the office holder and indeed the rest of the office from performing their jobs. The disputed office holder has to balance the demands of the office and pursue the court case and at the same time, has to accept that s/he remains legitimately bankrupt for as long the litigation process lasts. The president should know this—until the Supreme Court proclaimed him winner, I doubt that he fully unpacked the boxes he moved from Katsina to Aso Rock.
But the very argument that the legal process should be allowed to run a never ending course because only then can justice be served undermines the very notion of justice and fairplay. A candidate who takes office absent of justice should be seen as a usurper: the incentive to mismanage and govern in an unbalanced manner is pronounced under this circumstance. On average, an office holder with a disputed mandate is more likely to steal than those with fair mandates. Besides, the dismantling and rebuilding of cabinets and governance structures when a candidate is axed from office by the courts comes at a cost that we can ill afford at this time in our quest for nation building and development.
Mr. Yar’adua’s call for a probe is very interesting but welcome. We are watching with bated breaths to hear from the likes of Olagunsoye Oyinlola who has remained jittery since the turnover of governorship seats in Edo and Ondo. Submissions from Ayo Arise, Ayo Fayose and who knows, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu would make very interesting read. Of course, it would be naïve to expect testimonies from such high profile persons. In our country, the fall guy is always the ordinary, down-trodden fellow employed by these intolerant, power hungry misfits occupying high offices in the land. Before Mr. Yar’adua and his hungry-for-justice probers arrest and crucify the poor in our midst, let them sit back and examine themselves, go back and read every line of rhetoric that spewed from their oral cavities prior to the election. If truly they find themselves absolutely devoid of any blame in engendering the violence, then they can come forward and probe and issue arrest warrants to those hungry and desperate youths. Youths that have been left uneducated, untapped and consistently misused by the conscienceless ruler-ship we find ourselves saddled with. The clock is ticking and we are holding our breaths.
UYI LAWANI
Robert Toulouse Fellow
University of North Texas, USA
HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"[email protected]
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });