Category: Emeka Omeihe

By the time this article is published, the governorship and state assembly elections would have been held. Perhaps also, results would have started trickling in with winners and losers emerging in some instances.

So also is the overall picture of the actual conduct of the polls. In this wise, the actions or inactions of officials of the electoral umpire and sundry political actors and the extent they worked to guarantee free and fair electoral process would have become manifest. This is more so against the background of some of the infractions recorded in parts of the country in the presidential and National Assembly election held two weeks ago.

The outcome of the elections would provide a veritable yardstick to assess the overall performance of the current leadership of the electoral body under Mahmood Yakubu. This is more compelling given serious issues and reservations raised against penultimate Saturday’s elections. Opinions have been expressed in many quarters that the overall conduct of that election fell short of the progress recorded in 2015.

It may be convenient for some to repudiate this assertion citing some of the comments of international observers especially in the area of the peaceful conduct of voters. But the truth is that there were manifest infractions that cast serious slur on the capacity of that election to truly reflect the wishes and aspirations of the electorate as freely expressed at the ballot box.

Not only were there reports of ballot box snatching and deliberate acts of sabotage sometimes leading to the burning of INEC offices and materials in some places, smart card readers were either stolen or deliberately put into disuse to enable rogue politicians to swing the outcome of the polls to predetermined directions.

Perhaps, the gravest infractions recorded during that election were in the area of collation of election results. Compromised INEC officials deliberately made the process ineffective by either hiding or securing the services of law enforcement agencies in connivance with politicians to bar accredited agents of the parties from accessing the collation points. With that, they had a field day to write results that had nothing to do with the actual number of votes cast. Instances where returning officers had to declare election results under duress illustrate most poignantly some of the glaring imperfections of that election. And one asks where were the security agencies when returning officers were forced to declare results? If such could happen at that level, then your guess is as good as mine.

It was therefore the general expectation that INEC would take a serious perspective of all these complaints and infractions and ensure they do not rear their ugly heads in the governorship and state assembly elections. They must take more seriously the role of security agencies.We were made to believe that security agencies will provide a secure environment for the voters and agents of the parties to perform their electoral obligations without let or hindrance.

But allegations of partisanship were very rife; precipitating demonstrations in some states by women groups at army and police headquarters. Apparently in reaction to this, the Nigerian Army came out to reassure of their impartiality in electoral matters. But the import of the demonstrations at their headquarters as well as that of the police should not be lost on these key security institutions.

How acceptable those assurances are will predicate on the roles security agencies play in the governorship and state assembly elections. There have been suggestions that the stakes of the governorship and state assembly elections are not as high as those of the presidency and National Assembly. This school of thought believes the tension associated with the first election would considerably reduce in subsequent ones.

Whereas one may be inclined to share in the opinion that the stakes of the presidential election are much higher given our convoluted federal contraption and the sweeping powers at the disposal of the center, it is no less correct that localized elections can also be that vicious, rancorous and contentious. Given this, our security agencies still have more work to do as they had during the presidential and National Assembly elections. In many of the states where sundry electoral infraction were prevalent, allegation were that the situation would have been different had the security agencies lived up to their professional responsibilities. In many of these states, the parties have mobilized to take their destinies in their own hands. They do not seem to have been sufficiently reassured that the security agencies will be fair to all contenders and political parties.

We may witness more acts of violence as the various political parties resort to self-help in protecting their votes. We may see more organized resistance from the people to any attempt to circumvent the rules of the game or use security agencies to do the selfish bidding of politicians. All these will further raise tension during the elections. The outcome may snowball into more violence and killings than witnessed during the presidential and National Assembly elections.

But all this will predicate on the overall perception and dispositions of the security agencies. All will depend on how truly the security agencies are seen to be manifestly impartial in their conduct. Apart from the actions of officials of the electoral umpire, the successful outcome of that election will depend on the actions and the inactions of security agencies.

It is the minimum expectation that they should proceed beyond these assurances and issues clear instructions to their men and officers to strictly adhere to the rules of engagement. Electoral infractions impair the growth of democracy and it should be in the interest of our security agencies to ensure that genuine grounds are provided for our democracy to thrive without let or hindrance. It is in our national interest that the rules of free and fair electoral contest are neither abridged nor compromised.

Since we have opted for representative democracy as opposed to other forms of governance framework, all our energies ought to be channeled on how to perfect that order rather than explore loopholes to incapacitate its effective functioning. Unfortunately, not many of our political actors are fully committed to allowing the participant political culture to germinate and flourish. But there exists a limit beyond which we cannot continue to trample on or sabotage the collective will and destiny of the peopleunder the guise of practicing democracy. We must not only begin to make substantial progress in the rungs of the democratic ladder but demonstrate discernable commitment to it such that will disabuse views held in some circles that Africans abhor opposition and benevolent dictatorship is most suitable for their organization. That is the potent danger we face given the wobbling and fumbling that have been the miserable fate of our electoral process and democratic outing.

But it appears not much will change unless we identify and seriously address both the manifest and latent factors that propel and reinforce bitter competition for political power that has been the greatest undoing of our political recruitment process. Why our politicians seek power at all costs is at the root of the unwholesomeness of our electoral process.

We are contending with the imperfections of a federal order that compels the constituent units toseek power to take advantage of its enormous resourcesfor the advantage of their ethnic groups and members of their family. This in turn, breeds corruption and other associated ills. A dysfunctional federal order and corruption are two sides of the same coin. The first breeds and incubates the other.

As long as we continue with this decadent federal order, so long will our electoral process witness the kind of assault we have seen in the past. It will be neigh impossible for people that emerged through a corrupt electoral process to fight systemic corruption. There is a choice before us.

Those exposed to the social contract account of the theory of state are familiar with the evolution of modern governance framework from the atavism of the state of nature. The state of nature aptly captured by Hobbes, Montesquieu etc was ‘war of man against man-the survival of the fittest’.

But man in the state of nature got fed up with the lawlessness and uncertainties of that order. They yearned for a superior power, a sovereign to which they will surrender some of their powers in return for their safety and protection.

Having surrendered some of their powers to the sovereign, they remain the ultimate sovereign since power is exercised on their behalf. Thus, government is a contract between the people and their leaders. It involves rights, duties and obligations.

That was how the concept of democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people emanated. But the size of modern states has precluded direct democracy as practiced in the Greek City states. In its place, we have representative democracy in which people participate in governance through representative freely elected at periodic elections

Each time elections are held, the supposition is that the people are given unfettered latitude to elect their representatives. This inalienable right to choose leaders is one cardinal feature that gives allure to modern democracy as opposed to other forms of governance framework. It is this pristine value of democracy that is assailed each time the will of the people is not allowed free reign in the selection of their leaders in supposedly democratic electoral contests.

For us in this country, we have overtime had serious challenges conducting elections that satisfy the conditions for free and fair contest. These challenges have been there in varying degrees recording some improvement during the regime of President Jonathan.

In the early years of the PDP regime especially when Obasanjo held sway, Nigerians got so disenchanted with manipulated elections that they began to lose confidence in the electoral process. The refrain was that it was needless wasting valuable time casting votes when the final outcome will not reflect the actual wishes of the electorate as expressed at the ballot box.

Sentiments and dispositions to electoral matters were so negative that public confidence waned very considerably. Apparently mindful of the increasing loss of confidence in the electoral process, late President Yar’Adua, a beneficiary of that flawed process began to reassure Nigerians of improvements in the electoral process such that would make the will of the people count. His successor, Jonathan took over from there and introduced a number of reforms to guarantee the sovereignty of the people as reflected at the ballot box.

Substantial improvements were recorded in the 2011 elections and capped in 2015 culminating in the defeat of an incumbent for the first time in our electoral history. Nigeria gained considerable mileage in the rungs of the democratic ladder, attracting for itself the attention of the world. It was therefore not surprising that as the 2019 elections drew nearer, our country became the cynosure of world attention and focus.

The expectation was that this election would be a substantial improvement on the last one by enhancing and consolidating on the gains of the past. The electoral umpire was expected to tap into the gains of the past and conduct a seamless election to demonstrate that the democratic political culture is being imbibed and internalized on these shores.

But that failed to happen as most of the sordid features of our political past were fully at play during that election. Killings, snatching of ballot boxes and election materials, outright manipulation, tampering with and falsification of election results were all visible drawbacks of the just concluded presidential and national assembly elections. Ironically, the public space had been awash before the elections with allegations and counter allegation of speculated plans to rig the exercise.

It was perhaps, in apparent attempt to ensure the elections meet the standards of free and fair conduct that President Buhari came out with the stern warning and instruction to the police and the military to deal ruthlessly with those who attempt to snatch ballot boxes or lead a body of thugs to disrupt the electoral process. Though that directive did not go down well with a lot of people because of prospects of abuse by overzealous police and military officers, the order saw to the massive deployment of the military for the exercise.

Writing under the title ‘Ballot box metaphor’, I had in this column last Monday examined the emphasis on ballot box snatching and the propriety in singling it out as the raison d’être for the president’s directive. I had appraised the malfeasance called ballot box snatching vis-à-vis other manifestations of electoral infractions- banditry and arson leading to loss of lives and property and tampering with smart card readers. Falsification and tampering with results by officials of the electoral body was also a potent consideration. Contrived attempts by unscrupulous officials of the electoral umpire in connivance with politicians to disenfranchise the electorate through late supply of materials and non supply at all to skew the outcome of the election to predetermined directions was also raised.

It was argued that the president’s order of death penalty for ballot box snatchers was seriously impaired in addressing more potent, more debilitating and destabilizing manifestations of electoral infractions in a technologically driven electoral process. Not only is it incapable of addressing the sabotage of the collective will of the people that stands to be subverted through pre-configuring of the smart card readers, it is patently helpless in checking the falsification and alteration of results at collation centers by unscrupulous officials of the electoral body whether ad hoc or permanent.

My conclusion was that “the propriety of the president’s order will be measured by the extent the conduct of the military is seen to enhance the overall credibility of the elections and it is hoped they will not succumb to political partisanship and pressure from the government in power”.

Alas, events seem to have borne out these predictions. Though there were incidents of ballot box snatching, much of the grouse of the opposition against Saturday’s elections hinge on allegations of tampering with smart card readers, falsification and manipulation of results at the collation centers and intimidation of voters by security agencies. There have also been copious allegations on how the security agencies were used to prevent accredited agents of the political parties from gaining access into the collation centers.

That left sundry collation officers to alter and manipulate the results with reckless abandon. The verdict of the people as expressed at the ballot box was fatally vitiated as the final outcome in many areas had no correlation with votes cast at the polling booths.  This is damn serious and can only be ignored at the risk of our democracy. It may be convenient for some people to makes excuses or dispute this but the reality on the ground is that the outcome of that election is not such that imbues confidence on the electorate that their votes count.

The consequence may manifest in voter apathy during this week’s governorship and state assembly elections. There is palpable apprehension, fear and low morale among voters and if nothing is done to give confidence to the electorate that the conduct of coming elections will be a substantial improvement on the last one, not many people will come out for that exercise. This is more so given threats and intimidation of voters in parts of the country for exercising their franchise they way they considered best.

What this country requires is immediate electoral reforms that will guarantee the sanctity of the collective will of the people as freely expressed at the ballot box. The current process of collation of results is a serious fault line in the electoral engine. It gives ample room for the manipulation and falsification of results by those who hold the coercive apparatus of state power. Ironically, the electoral reforms passed by the national assembly but which the president refused assent, provided solutions to all that. We must get back to it if our democracy will not turn out a charade.

The original article slated for this column today was titled ‘Fire at INEC’. It was an appraisal of the fire incidents that razed INEC offices in parts of the country in the face of mounting allegations that the electoral umpire was working to rig the polls.

In that write-up, we took a cursory perspective of the fire incidents in Plateau, Abia and Anambra states and wondered at the sequence with which they were occurring a few days to the election. In the inferno at the Qua’anpan local government area of Plateau, ballot boxes, newly printed manual and electronic voters register, uncollected Permanent Voters Cards PVC’s were consumed. INEC attributed it to a novice security man who attempted to put on the generator.

At Umu-Ikaa in the Isiala-Ngwa South Local Government Area of Abia State, an unspecified number of PVC’s were burnt. It was attributed to the handiwork of hoodlums. As if these were not enough, containers housing a whooping 4,695 card readers went up in flames in Anambra State in inexplicable circumstances. INEC quickly issued a statement promising to make up from the consignments of other states.

The opposition cashed in on this curious development to reinforce allegations that the fire incidents were primed by the government in collusion with INEC to disenfranchise their members in identified areas of their stronghold. My submission was that though the uncanny coincidence gave serious cause for worry, the conclusion that they were targeted at compromising the outcome of the elections remained within the realm of speculation that only the actual conduct of the election can bear out.

But one also observed how these allegations eventually play out will depend on the organizational prowess, capacity and ability of the electoral umpire to provide a level playing ground for all the political parties to participate in a free and fair electoral contest. It will predicate substantially on the operational efficiency and effectiveness of INEC in making election materials available at the polling booths within the stipulated time. All would eventually depend on events during the actual conduct of the elections. I surmised that what INEC does or fails to do on the day of the election will serve as a litmus test for the veracity or otherwise of these allegations.

As fate would have it, we woke up on Saturday morning only to be confronted with the news that INEC had postponed the elections citing logistic, operational challenges and the imperative to guarantee free and fair elections. In a brief statement signed by the chairman of the commission, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the presidential and the National Assembly elections were shifted to February 23 while the governorship and state assembly polls were put forward to March 9.

Curiously, the postponement was done few hours to the commencement of accreditation of voters and actual voting. It came when election materials had been dispatched to the local government areas and for subsequent distribution to the wards and the polling units. It came when the various political parties had effectively deployed their agents to ensure that unscrupulous ones do not tamper with the materials.

It could therefore be conjectured how confused the atmosphere was when the news filtered that elections were no longer going to take place. Many were jolted. Businesses had been shut and many travelled far and wide to cast their votes where they registered. The nation lost immeasurably in terms of productive hours and the time wasted in anticipation of an elusive election.

For INEC that had already deployed its staff, the dislocation and the attendant cost was colossal. Materials had been moved to the local governments with the possibility of some of them finding their ways to the wards and polling units. With the postponement, INEC resorted to the panicky measure of recalling all the materials to the state headquarters for safe custody.

But chances are that some of them may have developed wings and fled. In a clime where people go at lengths to compromise election outcome, the conditions provided by the postponement stand the risk of being further exploited to compromise the overall outcome of the elections.

What INEC succeeded in doing by the manner and timing of the postponement is to provide further loopholes for manipulation and exploitation by unscrupulous ones. Rather than enhance the overall perception of the elections, the shift will further fuel speculations that there was more to it than ordinarily meets the eyes. It is not surprising allegations that the government worked in concert with INEC to effect the shift so as to perfect their rigging plans have resonated with increased ferocity.

Surprisingly, Festus Keyamo of the Buhari Media Organization has also sought to place the blame for the postponement at the door steps of the main opposition party, the PDP. There is now mutual suspicion regarding who stands to reap from the postponement or who it favours most. Different theories have been floated and suggestions made with varying degrees of plausibility depending on the divide one stands.

One thing that stands clear is that INEC cannot escape culpability for bungling this election. It is good Yakubu has taken full responsibility for the muddle. He has also sought public understanding citing all the efforts they made to ensure a foolproof performance. But the reality is that all this failed to deliver on promise. This is an electoral body that told who cares, time without number that it was fully prepared for the conduct of the election. Its chairman had boasted severally that the commission was so ready for the elections that any talk of postponement was a futile imagination.

Alas, it is the same body that came up few hours to the commencement of voting to announce a shift in dates citing logistic and operational challenges. This has raised questions as to the propriety of all the assurances INEC had given regarding the level of its preparedness for the successful conduct of the 2019 elections. How come INEC discovered it was ill-prepared for the elections only few hours to voting? And was there any attempt at any time to test run its logistic and operational readiness before it came to the conclusion that it had all it takes to hold the elections. It cited sabotage in the burning of its offices. But there is no full disclosure as to who is sabotaging who and whether full security measures were taken to protect the materials.

I raise these posers because the impression the action of the electoral body conveys is that it really did not have a good idea of what it takes to run a successful election. Logistics and operational readiness are entirely an internal affair of the INEC. If it only dawned on them a few hours to the elections that they cannot go ahead due to ill-preparations, it speaks a lot of the professional competences of those entrusted with the management of that critical agency of government. The overall cost of this miscalculation both in human and material capital is too heavy for a country in dire economic straits.

Those who sought to rationalize this postponement with the one carried out by Attahiru Jega in 2015 miss the point. Then, Jega had told the nation though his commission still had issues with the collection of PVCs, he was substantially ready for the elections and at a comfort level in the deployment and delivery of election materials. The challenge he had was at the level of national security given the letter issued him from the office of the National Security Adviser NSA to have the elections shifted for six weeks to enable them conclude some security operations in parts of the north east.

The situations are quite different, so also the handling. Jega announced his postponement a week before the elections. The circumstances that compelled him to shift the elections were entirely beyond his control. But Yakubu is the architect of his own problems notwithstanding the weather challenges, the sabotage and his touted commitment to avoid staggered polls. It remains to be seen how INEC will proceed in the days ahead to remedy this bungle and credibility hangover.

It is difficult to gloss over the row between Governor Willie Obiano of Anambra State and President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Nnia Nwodo over the group’s endorsement of the presidential ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP, Atiku/Obi for the forthcoming election.

The altercation surfaced in the public domain when Nwodo unveiled the contents of a private telephone conversation between him and Obiano in which he accused the latter of calling him an idiot. During the conversation, Obiano who was apparently piqued by the endorsement, was reported to have said to Nwodo “I did not know that you were so idiotic”.

Obviously rattled by that vile language unexpected of the person occupying such elevated office, Nwodo said he decided to make the private conversation public for the world to know between him and Obiano who was being idiotic. But Obiano has come up denying that he addressed Nwodo in such disparaging terms even as he admitted the private telephone conversation took place.

As things stand, it is difficult to conclude for certain that Obiano is guilty of the allegation against him unless perhaps, Nwodo proceeds further to provide evidence of the voice clips of the conversation. We are now inevitably left with Nwodo’s words against those of Obiano. Yet, it seems very improbable Nwodo could have gone out of his way to invent the abusive word and then turn around to ascribe it to Obiano.

What would seem believable given that Obiano really placed the call to express his displeasure with the endorsement is that he may have made the statement out of anger. Having realized the folly in his uncouth language following the publicizing of same by Nwodo, he was left with no option than to deny it. Nobody in his right senses would have expected anything to the contrary given the way the matter has turned out. But even with this, it is clear that a lesson has been served. Public officers must always be conscious of what they say both in public and private discussions.

It is very probable that Obiano, in a fit of rage over the endorsement, went out of his way to speak in a manner very unbecoming of his high office. But when next he is confronted with such a situation, he should take up his opponent on the merits or otherwise of the substantive issues rather than take resort to name calling or levying curses. Recourse to abuses and high temperament has always proved futile in conflict resolution.

Beyond this however, the key issue is the propriety or otherwise of Ohaneze Ndigbo’s endorsement of the Atiku/Obi candidature in the forthcoming election. As the apex socio-cultural organization of Igbo race, was Ohaneze right to have endorsed the presidential candidate of a particular political party over and above all others vying for that position? Does the mandate of the Ohaneze permit of it to dabble into the murky waters of politics through such endorsements? And is that the first time a socio-cultural group in the frame of Ohaneze would be getting involved in such endorsements in our polity?

And if not, is there anything particular about the Ohaneze endorsement that substantially marks it out from those hitherto done by other socio-cultural groups to attract the type of rage and bad temper ascribed to Obiano? The way these posers are resolved will place us in a better stead to understand some of the issues that have been traded in respect of the Ohaneze endorsement.

Those who pick holes with the Ohaneze’s endorsement contend that as a non-partisan and cultural organization, aligning with a particular candidate or party would amount to drawing the organization into partisan politics. This, they fear has the prospects of sowing seeds of discord in the organization as has become evident from the views of some dissenting voices. There is a point here. But Ohaneze is not alone in these endorsements.

Before now, the Pa Ayo Fasanmi-led, pan Yoruba socio-cultural organization, Afenifere had endorsed president Buhari and Osinbajo for re-election in 2019.  Afenifere spokesman, Chief Biodun Akin-Fasae said the decision was the outcome of a meeting of delegates and elders from the six southwest states held in Ibadan. The endorsement was validated last week also in Ibadan and the reason for it is the satisfaction of the group with the performance of the Buhari regime. The controversy arising from this is yet to die down.  Yet, there also exists the Ayo Adebanjo led Afenifere group that is favorably disposed to the candidacy of Atiku Abubakar. This group has also sought to disparage the other group querying their commitment to the ideals of the founding fathers of Afenifere.

There has also been an endorsement from an unusual quarter, the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria MACBAN. This Fulani socio-cultural group that exists for the protection of the interests of Fulani cattle breeders has also come forth to endorse Buhari for the coming elections. The national president of the group, Muhammadu Kirowa said they unanimously endorsed Buhari because of his numerous achievements and urged members at local, state and national levels to mobilize support and ensure his victory.

The same MACBAN had at other times spoken against the candidature of Atiku asking their members not to vote for him. The list of socio-cultural associations that have endorsed candidates for the coming election is endless. Northern youths under the auspices of Arewa Youth Forum had also resolved to use all their structures across the country to mobilize support for Buhari to return him to power in the coming elections.

It is thus clear that we are in a bazaar of endorsements and Ohaneze is not alone in this. In endorsing Atiku, Ohaneze said they took the decision after a “critical and dispassionate appraisal of issues and the visible fault lines in the polity, including the analysis of the manifestoes of various parties especially with regards to restructuring of the federation and continued relevance of the people of the southeast in the Nigerian geopolitical space”. The group also cited the nomination of Peter Obi as the vice presidential candidate of the PDP as another reason for their action. They are entitled to their views just as those who feel to the contrary.

There is nothing different in Ohaneze’s endorsement of Atiku from that done by other socio-cultural groups in other parts of the country. The same questions being raised on the propriety of the Ohaneze endorsement are equally relevant to other similar endorsements. The group feels sufficiently satisfied that the overall interests of the southeast would be better served with Atiku as the president and they are entitled to that decision. It also goes with some calculated risks. The problem is not much with the decision as the way it has been handled by those who felt the group should not have thrown its weight behind a particular candidate. The embarrassing row between Obiano and Nwodo bears this out.

The disagreement generated by the endorsements is not entirely unexpected. Given that we are contending with a political decision, it is only natural that those whose candidates or political parties are not favored will not take kindly to it. That is in the nature of politics.

Beyond this, the puzzle given that socio-cultural groups are increasingly showing political direction to their constituents is whether we can really detach them from politics without their losing relevance? This is especially so in a clime where parochial and primordial tendencies compete with the government for the loyalty of the citizens. Our politics is yet to progress beyond the realms of ethnicity, religion or geo-politics. So it would amount to wishful thinking to nurse the feeling that these socio-cultural groups could possibly detach themselves from the politics of their people. That is the reality we have to contend with. That is the uncanny paradox elevated to the fore by the Obiano/Nwodo tirade.