Category: Lawal Ogienagbon

BY ALL standard, Prof Attahiru Jega, immediate past Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman, discharged himself creditably in office. He was an electoral umpire par excellence, and he performed his duty as if his life depended on it. Jega came to office in 2010 when INEC’s record was nothing to write home about. INEC under the leadership of Jega’s predecessor, Prof Maurice Iwu was just an electoral commission in name.

During Iwu’s tenure, we knew the winner of an election ever before it was conducted. It was standard practice then for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to win any election no matter how unpopular its candidate was. By his own making, he turned himself into PDP’s man and he had no apologies for it.

Nigerians got a relief when his tenure expired. Ever before the expiration of his tenure, many had called for his removal, wondering why he was still being retained after the disastrous  2007 elections. The elections remain the worst ever in the annals of the country. Even the late President Umoru Ya’Adua, who was elected that year, condemned the polls, promising to reform the electoral process. He could not do that before he died, leaving the onerous task for his successor, Dr Goodluck Jonathan. Former President Jonathan’s choice of Jega was hailed by many, who saw him as a man of integrity.

Truly, Jega lived up to expectation. Those who worked with him knew his stand on elections – let the party with the highest number of votes win in a free and fair contest. But many of his men from some of what we have seen at the election tribunals may not have been on the same page with him. While Jega toiled day and night to leave a legacy of an impartial umpire, some of those he entrusted with electoral job were not that bothered about their image.

They cared less about public perception and as such they hurt a process that should have been open and transparent. They were Jega’s eyes and ears  in the states they served. But some of them chose to work with politicians and play by their own rules. It was to avoid a situation like this that Jega went to his constituency – the university – to get these people to work with him during the 2011 and 2015 elections. By so doing, he was using his own standards to judge others.

He thought his fellow teachers will be like him in character but he forgot that no two persons, even where they are twins can have the same traits. Jega’s undoing was placing too much trust on these academics. It is unfortunate that some of them breached the trust Jega reposed in them.

It is a shame that instead of honouring their colleague by giving off their best, they chose to play for pecuniary gain.

Are there no more good and honest men in our universities? If university teachers cannot be entrusted to conduct free and fair elections, then we are done for as a nation. Will we have to go and look for angels to do a job, which men like us do in their countries without fuss? What happened in some states during the last April 11 governorship election, especially in Abia, Akwa Ibom and Rivers, has exposed the underbelly in banking on lettered men  to conduct elections. The public will not easily forget the  way the professor who acted as the returning officer for Rivers conducted himself during the collation of the presidential poll results on national television. It was a forerunner to what we are witnessing today – the annulment of the governorship election in that state by the tribunal and appeal court.

I do not understand why a professor will declare a candidate winner of an election where the number of votes cast is more than the number of registered voters. Without being told that should have sent a signal to the returning officer that something is wrong somewhere. But the returning officer saw nothing wrong in such discrepancy. He used the result, as it were, to declare the winner of the election when he should have cancelled the result outright. Should we continue to use dons as electoral umpires? INEC Chairman Prof Mahmoud Yakubu has adopted Jega’s style, but from what we have seen of the performance of these lecturers in the 2015 elections, isn’t it time for us to look for other men and women outside the ivory tower to do this most sensitive and delicate job?

There is no big deal about using university teachers for the job. If we are looking for upright men, they abound in every stratum of the society. Let Yakubu cast his net wide and he will find them. He should not make the mistake of relying solely on lecturers to conduct the 2019 elections. He has enough time between now and then to get men and women of honour for the exercise.

Oh, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant – Shakespeare

It is a well known fact that the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) otherwise known as Shi’ite has always treated Zaria, where it has its headquarters, as its fiefdom. The group rules the ancient town with iron fist. Members treat their leader, Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, like royalty. His word is law and they are ready to lay down their lives for him.

Many wear their faith like a cloak. Once you see such people you know  the faith they profess. I am not against being religious, but people should not allow their faith to get the better of them. No matter how religious we are, we should not lose our sense of reasoning. Let us be religious and reasonable at the same time in order not to hurt the feelings of others, who do not share our faith.

According to the holy books, blessed is the servant that applies wisdom in his actions. This presupposes that we should not be overly religious because of the inherent danger. It is because of the atrocities that many cause in the name of God that Karl Marx described ‘’religion as the opium of the people’’.

Let us face fact, many people misbehave when it comes to religion, notwithstanding their status. The big man will stay back and use the poor to fight his cause under the guise of religion. The poor, who know nothing about what the big man is using them to do, will go all out to execute the job in the name of God because they have been brainwashed that it is a religious cause. Since they believe that they are fighting for God they are ready to die and become  martyrs. But, martyrs are not made of such stuff. Martyrs are those who die in genuine pursuit of God’s work and not those helping their fellow man to keep his empire.

What happened in Zaria, Kaduna State, on December 12 was avoidable if the self-styled Muslim Brothers as the Shi’ites refer to themselves and the convoy of the Chief of Army Staff had exercised restraint. But because they have become used to having their way in an area, which they have come to see as their territory, the Shi’ites insisted on defending their fort against what they perceived as an overbearing army. It was a little matter that led to unnecessary bloodbath. The army chief’s convoy wanted to pass through the sect’s domain on its way to the palace of the Emir of Zazzau en route the Army Depot for an official function.

The sect, which was preparing for today’s celebration of Maulud Nabiyy (the Prophet’s birthday), reportedly refused the convoy passage. The Army Chief, Lt Gen Tukur Buratai, reportedly alighted from his vehicle to appeal to the sect members to remove the road blockade and let him pass. Other officers too were said to have joined their chief to plead with the Shi’ites. They reportedly stuck to their gun. But, the Shi’ites deny disallowing the army chief the use of the road. They claim that they did nothing to provoke the soldiers, who allegedly opened fire on them, killing many of their members.

With these conflicting accounts, one does not know which to believe. Certainly, one of the parties is being economical with the truth. Be that as it may, the Shi’ites, as stated in Mohammed Haruna’s column of December 16, are known for denying top government officials the use of that road. Early this year before the March/April elections, they were said to have stopped immediate past Kaduna State Governor Ramalan Yero from passing through the road to visit a bereaved family. They reportedly asked the former governor and his entourage to disembark and walk to their destination.

Enraged by their demand after all entreaties to convince them otherwise failed, one of Yero’s guards fired warning shots into the air. Since he knew what could follow, Yero rebuked his aide and submitted himself to the sect’s demand. Of course, the Shi’ites felt on top of the world that they could cut a governor to size. This might have got to their head and they felt that they could, in their own thinking, treat the army chief the same way. They forgot that khaki no be leather. You cannot deal with a soldier the way you deal with a civilian. And we are not talking about an ordinary soldier here – but the army chief. There was no need for the flexing of muscles between the soldiers and the Shi’ites; what was needed to resolve the matter was patience and understanding.

The road in question is a public road and every Nigerian has a right to use it – whether a governor or not or whether an army chief or not. So, the Shi’ites cannot under the guise of their right to freedom of assembly block a road and stop the public from using it. If it were to be any other person that day, only God knows what  would have happened to him. Because let us face it, how many of us can face the Shi’ites when they decide to be unruly? If a then sitting governor can avoid their trouble by doing their bidding, is it lesser people like us that will challenge them? But this is not to say that the army was right in the way it reacted to the Shi’ites’ audacity. There is no way the Shi’ites can challenge the army to a fight. It will be foolhardy of the group to think that it can take on the army.

This is why the army should have exercised restraint in the face of what it called extreme provocation by the sect. It should have known that whatever happens,  it will still carry the can at the end of the day. It would not have been cowardice if it did not react the way it did. Unfortunately, soldiers are not known to turn the other cheek when they are slapped. Whether it was provoked or not, many will still blame the army over this matter because it has all it takes to crush the Shi’ites.  For the army, it is a lose-lose situation. Why should a well trained army take on a ragtag bunch with no training at all in the art of warfare? The army may have a good case, but its handling of it was poor. Two wrongs, they say, do not make a right. Yes, the soldiers may have fought back in self defence, but the casualty figure paints a different picture.

It is a picture of the kind of massacre that we witnessed in Odi (Bayelsa State) and Zaki Biam (Benue) in 1999 and 2001. The soldiers should learn how to apply their rules of engagement to avoid such calamities when dealing with civilians in future. For the Shi’ites, it is high time they reordered  their steps to avoid being seen as treating established authority and the public with contempt. May we not witness such incident again.

Merry Christmas

It is that time of the year when we send season’s greetings to our loved ones. It seemed like yesterday that we started the year and so soon, it is coming to an end. Christmas is tomorrow, but many will tell you that they have no reason to celebrate because they have no money. Yes, things are hard but that is not enough reason to give up on  life. Remember, there are some who do not even know it is Christmas. Also, spare a thought for the Chibok girls. Cheer up, despite the biting fuel scarcity; unstable power supply and the other ills plaguing our country. Merry Christmas.

THE November 21 Kogi State governorship election was as good as won by the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate Alhaji Abubakar Audu before news of his death filtered in. Even though the Returning Officer (RO), Prof Emmanuel Kucha, declared the election inconclusive, it was glaring that a clear cut winner had emerged in the late Audu. The results showed that the late Audu floored Governor Idris Wada by a margin of 41,353 votes.

But, relying on the 2015 INEC Election Guidelines, Kucha declared the poll inconclusive because the outstanding votes of 49,953 were higher than the late Audu’s lead of 41,353. In such a case, he said, the candidate with the highest number of votes should not be declared or returned the winner. The appropriate thing to do is to declare the election inconclusive and hold a fresh election in the affected areas in due course.

The affected areas are the 91 polling units in 18 of the 21 local government areas of the state where election was either not held or cancelled. To win a governorship election, according to the 1999 Constitution, a candidate must (a) have the highest number of votes cast and (b) have not less than one-quarter of all votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all local government areas in the state. The late Audu fulfilled these constitutional requirements as he won the highest number of votes – 240,867 – cast  in the election to Wada’s 199,514. He also won in 16 of the 21 local governments.

Logic and commonsense demand that the late Audu should have been declared winner since there is no way Wada and his party can upset the apple cart in a supplementary election. The outgoing governor is trailing the late Audu by 41,353 votes, meaning that for him to turn the tide he has to clear all the 49,953 votes, which is an uphill task. Moreover, of the 49,953 voters, 25,000 are said to have permanent voter’s cards (PVCs). This means that only 25,000 people can vote in the supplementary election. If Wada is given all the 25,000 votes he will still not win. So, why a supplementary poll?

The problem is neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act envisaged what befell the Kogi election – death of the leading candidate during the process. This is what Wada and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are now capitalising on to create a problem where there is none. Irrespective of what the election guidelines say, it is as clear as daylight that APC, which fielded the late Audu in line with Section 221 of the Constitution, won the election. According to this provision, no association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election…

Yes, Audu is dead, but as painful as that is, it should not rob APC of its victory at the poll. Yes, the Constitution did not envisage a situation like this, but no constitution in the world envisages everything. It is when unexpected issues crop up that constitutions are amended to meet the exigencies of the time. For now, what should the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) do? The RO has complicated issues by declaring the election inconclusive when it is obvious that there is no magic that Wada and PDP can perform to erase the lead of the late Audu (read APC).

The argument may be made that the 25,000 people with PVCs. will be disenfranchised if the election is not held, but their right to vote may be subsumed in the public interest because of the huge resources required to hold the election. PDP will not want to hear that, of course, and I am not even advocating that because I believe in universal suffrage. All I am saying is what is the need for the supplementary poll when it will not change anything at the end of the day? Is it just to satisfy PDP, which will cry wolf where there is none if the poll is not held? Is it to satisfy the law, which genuinely made that provision to suit the occasion when it arises? Does the Kogi scenario fit that bill? It does not.

But that is by the way. INEC has fixed the supplementary election for December 5. It has also asked APC to substitute the late Audu. To PDP, INEC is wrong to have made that allowance. Section 34 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 allows parties to change their candidates 60 days before an election.  As if the law envisaged the Kogi situation, it states in Section 34 (3): Except in the case of death, there shall be no substitution or replacement of any candidate whatsoever after the date referred to in subsection (1) of this section. It is unfortunate that Audu is no more to enjoy the fruit of his labour. If he had died after winning the election, his running mate, James Faleke, would have automatically become the governor-elect since they ran on a joint ticket.

As things stand now shouldn’t Faleke automatically step in as the party’s standard-bearer in the December 5 supplementary poll? Well, that is a party affair and the APC is at liberty to take any decision it deems fit in that regard.

BIAFRA is not a new phenomenon. It was the idea of the late Ikemba Nnewi Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who felt that he had no choice than to pull his people out of Nigeria in 1967 because of perceived injustice, marginalisation and unfair treatment.

But what the late Ikemba did not tell his people was that he too had his own agenda to become the head of state following the death of Maj-Gen Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi. With the involvement of many Igbo in the January 1966 coup that was a pipe dream. Other officers, particularly from the North, felt that ‘’how could the leadership of the army be entrusted to an Igbo, no matter his position in the hierarchical structure, following his kinsmen’s role in the bitter January 1966 enterprise?’’ What happened in 1966 destroyed military camaraderie, creating room for mutual suspicion.

The military is known worldwide for upholding seniority and not allowing ethnic or religious affiliations to affect its outlook. The Chukwuma Nzeogwu coup was a turning point for the military and our nation. It altered the power calculus and put the enterprising Igbo in a disadvantaged position since then. Many of its sons in the Nigerian Army lost their commission because they lost the trust of their superiors and subordinates. The army became divided and as we all know a divided house will fall. The late Ojukwu’s separatist agenda, which some likened to inordinate ambition, deepened the schism in the army.

The pogrom that followed the coup was not expected. Nigerians turned against themselves, especially the Hausa and the Igbo, giving the late Ojukwu a ready made excuse to secede, an agenda, which he would have executed anyway, whether or not his people were being killed in some parts of the country. The nation learnt a bitter lesson from the civil war that followed the secession. Nigeria was the loser in that better forgotten enterprise. Virtually every home was touched by the war. Men were conscripted to join the army on both sides, leaving wives and children with the short end of the stick. It was a harrowing experience for many families.

And it still is. But, unfortunately, some funny characters who knew nothing about the origin of Biafra are today making noise all over the place, claiming that they want to resuscitate Biafra. The Raph Uwazuruike-led Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) started it all about 16 years ago. There was nothing the group did not do to sensitise the Igbo on the need to exhume Biafra. Uwazuruike, who is today living big in Owerri, the Imo State capital, got the late Ojukwu to his side and the former warlord reportedly gave him his blessing. But he knew that Biafra is dead and long forgotten. Only those living in a fool’s paradise believe that they can resuscitate Biafra. To resuscitate Biafra for what? To fight another civil war? With who? It cannot be with Nigeria because the country has  gone past that stage of fighting itself. The truth is if these Biafra agitators do not retrace their steps, they would be treated like the Niger Delta militants and Boko Haram insurgents – that is as common criminals.

The crack in their rank shows that the Biafra promoters are not working together. Out of MASSOB has since emerged the Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Of the lot, IPOB is now the rave of the moment, having seized the initiative from MASSOB and BZM.

Like others, its agenda is not clear beyond seeking a sovereign state of Biafra. What I do not understand is why they are so crazy about having their so-called Biafra Republic. Is having that republic a solution to the Igbo problem? What the Biafra agitators should know is that other ethnic groups have their own grouse too.

The Hausa, the Yoruba and the Igbo may be the major ethnic groups but that does not make them more special than others. The Bini, the Kanuri, the Nupe, the Ijaw, the Ibibio, the Okun, the Anang, the Afenmai and the Itsekiri also have one or two things they can agitate for. Their silence does not mean that they are satisfied with the system, which has made them second class citizens in their own country.

In the last few weeks, IPOB sympathisers have been marching through some Southeast and Southsouth states, whipping up sentiments for a Biafra state. Their action was sparked by the detention of Nnamdi Kanu, Director of the London-based illegal Biafra Radio. The times are different. This is what the Biafra agitators do not know. This is 2015 and not 1967 when it seemed we had our eyes at the back. Kanu is free to set up a radio station if he so wishes, provided he follows the law.

The law, according to Section 39 (1) of the Constitution is : Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. It has this proviso: Provided that no person, other than the government of the federation or of a state or any other person or body authorised by the president on the fulfilment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for any purpose whatsoever. Did Radio Biafra fulfil this requirement before beginning operation? It did not. Yet, it has continued to broadcast to Nigeria – a clear case of treason.

Kanu and his cohorts know the rules of the game so they should play by them and avoid playing on our collective intelligence. If the radio is not meant for clandestine purpose, why did they not apply for licence from the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC)? The Biafra project is not popular among easterners, save for some misguided elements, who are ready to swear by Kanu, as some did by the late Ojukwu some 48 years ago. Some leaders from the region, notably the governors have spoken against what IPOB is doing. With a democratic government in place, there is a forum for discussing matters like these; they are not done by street protests.

Kanu’s cry for a Biafra state is taking ethnic jingoism too far. There is nothing like Bini nation, Yoruba nation, Hausa nation, Igbo nation, Okun nation, Ijaw nation, Itsekiri nation; Nupe or Kanuri nation. There is only one nation state to which we all belong and that is Nigeria. Why then do some people want to tear the societal fabric? Biafra is an idea which time has gone; that is if it was ever an idea in the first place. The earlier Kanu and his co-travellers know this the better.

IN COURT, lawyers hold sway. They do all the talking, while the rest of us watch them in action. But takes individual style to win a case. every lawyer has his own style. He adopts the style that best suits his case at any particular time. He may not use the same style in all the cases he handles. He varies his style when there is need to do so. But whatever style a lawyer adopts, his goal is to win the case at hand. No lawyer takes up a case in order to lose. He goes into court with the mind to win, no matter how bad his case may be. Despite knowing that he has a bad case, a lawyer will stop at nothing to win.

He will throw everything into the tussle to enable him prevail. The lawyer’s  prowess is one thing; having a good case is another. No matter how good a lawyer is, he will either win or lose on the strength of his case.To know the law like the back of one’s hand is good, but without a complimentary good case, the lawyer will be like fish out of water. He will be gasping for breath in court without anybody to come to his aid.

Lawyers can be terrible when they know they have a bad case. Rather than tell their client that he has no chance in court, they will give the poor fellow the impression that all is well and that the case is as good as won. Do not get me wrong. There are times that a good lawyer can make a bad case look good and end up winning in court. If that happens, it is not that the case is bad as such,  it is just that it requires the lawyer’s expertise to turn things round, if not in the court of first instance, then on appeal.

Good lawyers are rare to come by these days because it is difficult to sift the chaff from the wheat. Every lawyer believes that he is good even when he knows that he does not merit the certificate he is carrying. Donning the wig and gown is not all that makes a lawyer. As they say, the hood does not make the monk. But, once some lawyers are robed, they see themselves as all-knowing, an attribute that belongs solely to God. Inside the court, they turn themselves to something else. Everybody, including the judge, who is the high priest in the temple of justice, amounts to nothing before them.

For all they care, His Lordship can go to blazes. As long as they appear before him, they must do so on their own terms and in their own way, without recourse to the rules of court. Yet, they are in the temple of justice, where they should play their role as ministers with decorum, decency and civility. To them, the law must take a back seat for them to get their way. Their attitude is “what is the law where people like us is concerned?” They arrogate to themselves the power they do not have. They want to be the advocate and the judge at the same time contrary to the well known maxim that a man cannot be the judge in his own case.

This is not in defence of Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman  Justice Danladi Umar before some people misconstrue my stand; it is stating it as it is since Senate President Bukola Saraki’s case started before him. The defence, from all indications, seems not ready for the case. It may have its reasons (or is it strategy?) for taking that position, but it should do so with utmost respect for the court. And the court, as we all know, is the judge. There is danger in disrespecting a judge and a lawyer who disrespects a judge is not worth his wig and gown. No matter how big or famous a lawyer is, he cannot be bigger than a judge sitting in his own court. Let that lawyer be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and a Queen’s Counsel (QC) all rolled into one, he must respect the judge, no matter how junior His Lordship may be to him at the Bar.

By respecting the judge, the lawyer is respecting the judicial institution which tie them together as ‘’learned men’’. After all, a judge is first a lawyer before being a judge. The way the Saraki trial is going is not good for the judiciary. Yes, judges and lawyers do disagree, but they do so with mutual respect; they disagree to agree and not disagree to disagree to disagree until everything becomes messy. The defence could have adopted a better strategy in  withdrawing  from the case last Thursday. Of course, there will always be better ways of doing things, but those options were not taken last week when the lawyers stormed out of court.

In law, there is a procedure for a lawyer’s withdrawal from a case. Where there is disagreement between a lawyer and his client, in most cases over money, the lawyer will come by way of a motion to withdraw his services. He will state his reasons for doing so and the judge, after listening to him, will  grant his request and give the litigant time to look for another lawyer. But where a lawyer is dissatisfied with the court’s decision, he can excuse himself from the case without casting aspersion on the judge’s integrity as Saraki’s counsel did last week. It is not every time a judge rules in favour of a party and it is not every time the court also rules against a party. So, to expect a favourable ruling always will be asking for too much.

Lawyers know where to go when a ruling does not favour them. They go on appeal, without storming out of court, mocking,  taunting and deriding the judge with such legalese as : ‘’I wish to withdraw from this case in view of what I call judicial rascality’’. Pray, who is the rascal here? The jury is still out on that.