Tag: annulment

  • Aspirants seek annulment of Smart Adeyemi’s election

    Three of Kogi West senatorial aspirants have asked the National Working Committee (NWC)to declare outcome of the primary which produced Senator Smart Adeyemi as null and void.

    They alleged the primary was not conducted in accordance with the party’s constitution and guidelines.

    They alleged the entire process was manipulated by agents of the state government whose continued stay in office was tied to the outcome of the exercise.

    In a joint petition, Dr. Williams Akanle, a retired Director of the Department of State Services; Chief (Mrs.)Doyin Ibikunle and Alhaji TajudeenBismillah appealed to the party to follow the path of honour.

    They asked the national secretariat to order a fresh primary and disband the panel that conducted the exercise.

     

  • Investigate June 12 polls’ annulment, Urhobo leaders tell President

    PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari has been urged to investigate the annulment of June 12 presidential election.

    The Urhobo Leaders of Thoughts made the call yesterday in a statement in Warri by its secretary, Alhaji Mumakai Unagha.

    The statement lauded the President for having the foresight to honour and award late Chief M.K.O Abiola; his running mate , Ambassador Babagana Kingibe and a human right activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi.

    Describing the May 29 Democracy Day being celebrated as a hypocrisy on the part of ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, the group  stated that the recent declaration by the presidency allows for “genuine and a sustainable democracy”.

    Noting that the key players of the botched and historic 1993 polls will now rest in peace, it added that reversing democracy day to June 12 goes further to show how democratic the President is.

    “We commend the President for the honour and the award, as nothing can be more historical than this. It is a triumphant of good over evil. With this declaration, Nigerians can now breathe the air of genuine and a sustainable democracy. Our struggle was no longer in vain.”

  • ‘FG must first resolve existing legal hurdles, de-annul the annulment’

    Dr. Soni Ajala, an Abuja based legal practitioner, spoke to Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, on the legality of the awards and the declaration of June 12 as Democracy Day

    LET me start by saying that the politics of the issue of the posthumous award of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) must not be muddled up with the core legal issue of the politics of the award.

    Much as all patriotic Nigerians applaud Mr. President, Muhammadu Buhari, for the bold step of recognising the supreme sacrifice of Chief MKO Abiola as the acclaimed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, there are landmine legal puzzle that cannot even be cured by administrative publication in the Federal Government Gazette by the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation as directed by President Buhari.

    I seriously share the sentiments expressed by Senator Ike Ekweremadu at the floor of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2018 when he attempted to sensitize the hallowed chambers on the complex legal issues intertwined in the gesture of Mr. President in bestowing posthumous award of GCFR on Chief MKO Abiola and the declaration of June 12 as Democracy Day.

    Lest we forget, the presidential election conducted by the National Electoral Commission under the able leadership of Professor Humphrey Nwosu on June 12, 1993 was annulled by a decree, duly promulgated by the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) presided over by the Military President Ibrahim Babaginda on June 26, 1993. This historical legal instrument is very well to the knowledge of the presidency of today as it is open secret that the presidency of the day has one of the finest minds in the legal firmament of contemporary Nigeria.

    Therefore, the unsettling question to dispassionate legal analysts  of the web of legal issues thrown up by the gesture of President Buhari in bestowing posthumous award of GCFR on Chief MKO Abiola and the declaration of June 12 as Democracy Day is thus; ‘Can something be placed on nothing and it’ll be expected to stand?

    By lexical and legal connotations, the word ‘annulment means void, completely erased and never existed. By necessary implication of the subsisting decree of the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) promulgated in 1993, de jure, there is no valid basis for the actions/gestures of Mr. President as what is/was annulled remains annulled until de-annulled.

    Lest we forget, there was also an order of the FCT High Court, Abuja made on June 15, 1993, restraining the National Electoral Commission from announcing further the result of the presidential election. There is/was no appeal against the said order of the FCT High Court. Therefore, the said order subsists as it is trite that an order of a court, no matter how irregularly it was procured, remains valid and in force until set aside either by the court that made the said order or by a superior court.

    With these weighty issues, the controversy of whether Mr. President can bestow the award of GCFR posthumously on Chief MKO Abiola, when he is/was not a serving or past president pales to insignificance. After all, the then President Shehu Shagari, in 1982, conferred on Chief Obafemi Awolowo the award of GCFR. Again, the fringe issue of whether the National Honours Act, 1963 permits Mr. President to confer GCFR posthumously on persons other than dead military/fire service officers, is of no moment as there is no provision in the Act that expressly ties the hands of Mr. President from extending the national honours of GCFR, GCON, etc., and/or medals posthumously to persons that did not serve in the military/para-military. To any student of presidential constitutionalism, it is unarguable that the powers of the president are enormous subject however to the law and the sacred provisions of the constitution.

    Consequently, it is suggested that the National Assembly, which is the replacement of the defunct National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) has work to do pursuant to Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended to effectually give meaning to the gesture or more appropriately the noble intention of President Buhari as disclosed through the press statement issued on June 6, 2018 by passing a bill to de-annul the annulment of the result of the June 12, 1993 elections. This could either be by executive bill or individual bill of a senator of the hallowed chamber.

    On the other hand, the Hon. Attorney General should pick up the gauntlet to ‘disinfect the order of the FCT High Court, Abuja made on June 15, 1993, restraining the National Electoral Commission from announcing further the result of the presidential election held on June 12, 1993 that was generally believed to have been won by the visionary nationalist, Bashorun MKO Abiola.

    Instructively, President Buhari, under the 1999 Constitution as amended has no power whatsoever to waive a valid subsisting court order of a competent jurisdiction, nor does the power of Mr. President to grant clemency by any stretch of imagination extend to pick and choose which of the laws of the land to obey, including the June 12 election annulment decree, which until de-annulled by an Act of the extant parliament still has the force of law.

    Except the needful are done as explained here, all the noble intentions and altruistic gestures of Mr. President are prone to being decimated upon vehement legal challenge in court on the validity of the pronouncements of President Buhari on the June 12, 1993 election and Chief MKO Abiola as the law frowns at ‘placing something on nothing and expecting it to stand.’

    Furthermore and indeed very significant, even upon clearing the hurdles of the subsisting court order and de-annulment of the annulled June 12, 1993 elections, Chief Abiola cannot be recognised as former president of Nigeria as he never satisfied the mandatory provision of the 1999 Constitution that an occupant of the office of the president must subscribe and swore to an oath of allegiance. For now, that’s a legal impossibility.”

  • Kogi: No to annulment

    Kogi: No to annulment

    To his teeming and ardent supporters, the late Prince AbubakarAudu, the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in last Saturday’s governorship election in Kogi State was great in life. His no less enthusiastic traducers would insist that the controversial politician remained unacceptably haughty and imperious till the very end. Today, however, both his admirers and sworn adversaries speak approvingly of Audu. Despite the painful circumstances of his transition on the cusp of a long desired and much deserved electoral glory, death may have been kind toAudu after all. The grim reaper has drastically changed the narrative of the Igala prince’s epochal political adventures this side of eternity. He is turning out to be surpassingly greater in death, at least in popular perception, than he was in life.

    Audu will now be remembered by posterity for his landmark achievements as a performing governor of Kogi State who set a standard in infrastructure development that no other occupant of the state’s apex political office had been able to equal. His name will evoke memories of a dogged and tireless fighter for his political objective who, in the process, contributed his quota to the country’s political development.  He does not now need the second chance in office he so earnestly yearned for to either validate his credentials as a visionary and effective leader or to exhibit his promised new humility and modesty in office. By the unexpected and unanticipated manner of his exit, Audu’sis also set to help significantly to deepen the constitutional basis of Nigeria’s electoral process as indicated by the legal fireworks provoked by his demise.

    Yes, brilliant but unscrupulous and mischievous lawyers may cynically manipulate the interpretation of the law to serve partisan ends. This is inevitable given the high premium placed on political office as a means of primitive accumulation in Nigeria. The important thing is that, no matter how untidy, distracting and time consuming they may appear, incessant and interminable legal squabbles only indicate how critical the law is to Nigeria’s evolution on the path of sustainable democracy. It is thus only natural that the struggle over the interpretation of the electoral laws will not only be as fierce as but intricately interwoven with partisan tussles for power.

    Ever since Audu’s demise, there have been divergent opinions on the way forward towards legally consummating Kogi’s rudely interrupted electoral process. The most learned Senior Advocates have expressed impressive but diametrically opposed views on the matter. Was the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) right in declaring the election inconclusive on the basis of cancelled votes in 91 units across 18 local government areas of the state and thus scheduling supplementary elections in the affected areas for next Saturday?

    I must confess that as a layman, my initial impression was that INEC’s action was in consonance with the stipulations of the Electoral Act. Yes, the APC scored 240,867 votes to the PDP’s 199, 514. The difference between the two parties is over 40,000 votes. Although the total number of cancelled votes in the 91 units is 49,000, those with Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) and those eligible to vote are reportedly less than 30,000. On the face of it, a supplementary election appears pointless since the APC has an irreversible lead even if all outstanding eligible votes are cast for the PDP. However, if the Electoral Act refers to total registered voters and not voters with Permanent Voters Cards as some have argued, INEC’s decision is, in my view, legally impregnable.

    However, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to the APC’s running mate in the election, Mr James Faleke, has come up with legal arguments that compel a radical reconsideration of INEC’s decision in the matter. In his letter to INEC on behalf of his client, Olanipekun stated: “We may draw Mr Chairman’s attention to the clear and mandatory provision of Section 68(1)(c) of the Electoral Act to the effect that any result declared by the Returning Officer shall be final and binding, and can only be reviewed or upturned by an election tribunal. In effect, the results already announced by INEC are binding, not only on all the parties, but also on INEC itself”

    Chief Olanipekun continues: “With further respect to INEC, cancellation of election results by it cannot be grounds for declaring any election as inconclusive. INEC is enjoined to declare a winner of an election based on lawful votes cast. Thus, the cancelled results by INEC, for whatever reasons, and assuming without conceding that INEC could legitimately cancel such results, amount to unlawful votes. In effect, INEC cannot declare a well conducted election as inconclusive based on unlawful votes”.

    This reasoning is in my view clinical, precise and surgical. The elections have been held, votes counted and results announced by the Returning Officer. The APC scored not just the highest number of votes cast in the election, the party also satisfied the spread of scoring no less than 25% of votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of Local Government Areas in the state. It has met the constitutionally stipulated criteria for victory. INEC’s declaration of the election as inconclusive on the basis of unlawful and thus cancelled votes amounts to an annulment of the lawful votes cast.

    The APC leadership is reportedly preparing for fresh primaries to pick a substitute for the late Audu to fly the party’s flag in the planned supplementary election. Now, there appears to be a fundamental contradiction here. The very idea of supplementary elections rather than fresh overall elections assumes the validity of all other results declared in last Saturday’s Kogi polls. But fresh primaries by the APC imply the expiry of the validity of the ticket, which the party presented to contest the election.

    Theoretically, therefore, the APC is free to present a candidate that participated neither in the previous primaries nor even in the general election for the supplementary polls. This implies that the party is free to present Faleke as its governorship candidate in place of the late Audu, retain him as running mate to a new candidate or even exclude him altogether from the new ticket. In reality the party, in my view, enjoys no such liberty. It may be heading for a legal quagmire of immense proportions.

    Some have cited legal precedents which indicate that, going by Nigeria’s electoral laws, it is parties and not individuals that contest elections. The constitution makes no allowance for independent candidates. As a result, the votes cast in last Saturday’s Kogi elections, according to this school of thought, accrue to the APC and not necessarily the candidates it presented to the electorate. This view is, I believe, ultimately unsustainable.

    The candidates presented by the APC were eligible to contest the general election because they emerged through intra-party electoral processes stipulated by the constitution. There is a clear and unbreakable link between the primaries that produced the AbubakarAudu/ James Faleke ticket and the legality, credibility and integrity of the APC’s participation in the election. By conducting fresh primaries, the APC will be delinking itself as a party from the primaries that made possible and legal its participation in the Kogi governorship polls and thus creating the basis for a valid legal challenge of the polls in its entirety.

    On its part, the PDP submits that its candidate, Governor Idris Wada, should be declared automatic winner of the election following Audu’s death. According to the party “What if AbubakarAudu had finished voting and then announced his voluntary withdrawal from the election…If AbubakarAudu had withdrawn on Saturday, the election would have continued and Wada would have been declared winner”. The PDP states further that “With the unfortunate death of Prince AbubakarAudu, the APC has no valid candidate in the election leaving INEC with no other lawful option than to declare the PDP candidate, Idris Wada, as winner of the election”.

    By this submission, the PDP admits that the votes cast in last Saturday’s polls were valid and cannot be annulled. It is on the basis of those votes that it is asking that Wada be declared winner in the absence of the late Audu. There is therefore no basis for calling for fresh elections. But the PDP discounts the critical fact that the APC did not present just a candidate for the election but a joint ticket made up of Audu and Faleke. All the votes accruing to the APC were cast jointly for Audu and Faleke. In the same way, all the votes scored by the PDP were cast jointly for Wada and his running mate. The vacuum that the PDP believes Audu’s death creates thus exists only in its imagination.

    The APC is contemplating fresh primaries and the PDP advocating that Wada be declared winner of the election because both parties ignore the critical Faleke factor. Faleke remains the only legal link between the APC and the party’s victory in the Kogi polls. If both Audu and Faleke were no longer available for any reason after last Saturday’s polls, there would have been no choice but to hold fresh elections in Kogi.For as long as Faleke is alive and willing to exercise the mandate so clearly and freely given the Audu/Faleke APC ticket by the electorate, there can be no annulling the Kogi polls.

  • Agenda behind annulment of Feb. 14 election date

    Agenda behind annulment of Feb. 14 election date

    The postponement of the general elections from February 14 and 28 to March 28 and April 11 has thrown up some perinent questions about the role of the military in the electoral process. In this article, Professor of Philosophy and Director-General, Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, Osun State, Moses Akinola Makinde (FNAL), argues that the military is acting the script handed to it by the Presidency and the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    A few days before the annulment of the February 14 date for the presidential election by President Goodluck Jonathan and the military Service Chiefs, the army, navy and airforce had asserted categorically that they were more than prepared for the election. To the delight of most Nigerians, they even told the nation about the preparations made for the exercise. But, the Service Chiefs who had shown readiness for the election two weeks earlier said the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must shift the date because the President wanted it that way.

    For about five years, the security operatives, especially the military, have been helpless in “crushing” the Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast. Now, just as the election was about two weeks away, the National Security Adviser Col. Sambo Dasuki said “we will crush them in six weeks”. Now, the questions:

    1. How come the same Service Chiefs who had failed to provide security for the people of Borno, Yobe, Adamawa states for five years now decided to do their job only for the sake of postponement of February 14 election? The implication of Dasuki’s statement is that it was the Presidency and the military that were behind the insurgency and the attendant killings of innocent people in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states in the Northeast, a stronghold of the All Progressives Congress (APC), all these years! This means that only those who are behind the problem can solve the problem. We now know why the military and security operatives have refused to stop the insurgency in the region, even after more than N3 billion had been wasted on the matter. It is either to prevent the election or find excuses to postpone it as a result of their unreadiness and unwillingness to perform their constitutional duty of creating a conducive atmosphere for a peaceful election in the APC’s stronghold. By this postponement, they have now exposed their hidden agenda by telling us that what they had willingly failed to do in three years they can now willingly do in six weeks!

    2. The postponement of the elections till March 28 and April 11 was to give the PDP time to prosecute their case against the APC presidential candidate Gen. Muhammadu Buhari’s certificate saga, a case which even the PDP lawyers said could not be won by any stretch of the imagination. As for the claim of perjury being prepared over Buhari’s certificate, Gen. Alani Akinrinde had made the point that the military did not return certificate to their owners and, in most cases, it appeared that these certificates were lost or misplaced by the military. After all, the Vice President claimed that his certificate was lost in an inferno and has not provided any evidence for this with a police report.

    3. Perhaps, the most important and dangerous agendum of Jonathan and the PDP is their plan to “sack” Prof.  Attahiru Jega, the hardworking and totally uncommitted cerebral Chairman of INEC, before the election on March 28. This was another reason behind postponing the election for six weeks; so that Jega would be asked to proceed on terminal leave by the middle of March 2015, until the end of his tenure on June 30, 2015. In this way, he would not be allowed to complete the elections he had started. Jega’s sin was that he, a reputable intellectual that he is, could not afford to soil his hands and reputation by heeding Jonathan’s and the PDP’s instruction to rig election for them at all costs. They now want to appoint a stooge to rig the election in their favour. Of course, Nigerians and the whole world know that Jonathan cannot stop Prof. Jega from completing the assignment he had started about five years ago, which is to conduct the presidential and other elections in 2015. To think that stopping Jega is possible is to demonstrate a high degree of illusion and folly; not even when no new appointment could be made without the consent and approval of the National Assembly. To such hidden agendum, Nigeria and indeed the international community say “no way” to Jonathan. He should stop behaving as if he owns Nigeria, and whatever he wants he gets by force, just as he forced Jega to postpone the election. Prof Jega enjoys the confidence of Nigerians and the international community, while members of his constituency, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), stand behind him as a tested man of integrity and honour, and will stand behind him to the end.

    4. The military’s unholy and dangerous alliance with the Presidency might just be another hidden agendum. Could it be there was a secret pact between the military and the President to precipitate a crisis before or after the election for the army to take over from Jonathan in order to allow him a soft landing instead of facing a Buhari administration? Or could it be a preparation for interim government or tenure elongation, also by the aid of military, that would allow Jonathan to spend another two years to make up for the constitutional limit of 8 years as president, since he cannot be president for 10 years? Under the Nigerian constitution? That is probably why the Service Chiefs said the election was postponed for six weeks “in the first instance”. The second instance may be to create a constitutional crisis that would lead to an army take over in favour of Jonathan. For Jonathan, it is as the Yoruba would say, “kaka ki eku ma je ere, a fi se iwadanu” (instead of the rat not being allowed to eat the peas, it would scatter the peas, so that nobody would be in a position to eat the peas). But, my fear is that this time around, the army cannot succeed, as the result of any army take-over for Jonathan or for themselves would be greater than the Egypt’s or Algeria’s Arab Springs where the whole country stood up for their rights, and eventually the army and the police had no choice but to be on the side of the people. The Nigerian case would be worse because the military had already been perceived to be supporting Jonathan against the people.

    Be all this as it may, both Jonathan and the military have boxed themselves into a corner. Their dilemma is a follows: (1) crush the insurgency in the Northeast in six weeks and admit that the President and the military have been behind and supporting the escalation of the activities of the insurgents for more than five years. (2) Fail to crush the insurgents in the Northeast in six weeks and admit that you want to use the failure as a reason for further postponement in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a military take-over, just to prevent Buhari from ruling the country, and provide a soft landing for Mr. President and his galaxy of sinners against the people of Nigeria. In either case, Jonathan and the military are in great trouble and have questions to answer before Nigerians and the international community. Already, the postponement has already backfired, as more and more Nigerians are now angry and only waiting to nail the coffins of Jonathan and PDP with protest votes at the March 28 and April 11 election.

    The bottom line and the most important of course, is that Professor Jega must complete his assignment of conducting the elections by which he is to be judged for the sake of posterity. You cannot prepare so hard for an examination only to be cruelly prevented from taking the examination for which you have prepared so hard and for so long. The examination must be taken and results of your efforts made known to you and the public. Having told the US and the UN that the election would be free and fair, Jonathan must not confound Nigerians and the international community by a super rigging device i.e. changing the umpire in the last minute in order to give room for rigging of the 2015 election.

  • June 12 annulment: A calendar of infamy

    June 12 annulment: A calendar of infamy

    By the time Justice Bassey Ikpeme delivered her first pronouncement on the petition of the Association for Better Nigeria (ABN) on June 7, 1993, it was clear that the presidential election scheduled for the following Saturday, June 12, was headed for a debacle

    ABN, the shadowy but well-funded and highly-connected organisation that has in recent times emerged as a major vehicle for consummating military president Ibrahim Babangida’s hidden agenda, had gone to court to seek an injunction restraining the National Electoral Commission (NEC) from conducting the presidential election.

    Why?

    Because, as claimed by the wily and mercurial Arthur Nzeribe who never championed a cause without bringing it into disrepute, 25 million Nigerians do not want the election to hold. They want General Babangida to continue as president for four more years. The petition, Nzeribe claims, is backed by the signatures of those 25 million Nigerians.

    Justice Ikpeme, about whom little was known until that day, was impressed enough to order NEC Chairman Professor Humphrey Nwosu, Federal Attorney-General Clement Akpamgbo and President Babangida to appear before her the following Wednesday to show cause “why the election should not be stopped.” She reserves ruling till Thursday, June 10.

    That ruling, delivered in the dead of night, follows closely her pronouncement at the first hearing, her language is just as exorbitant, and her conduct just as heedless. The election must not hold, she rules, but NEC is free to ignore her order.

    For the next 16 hours or so, there is no clear indication that the election will hold. It is well past lunchtime on Friday, June 11, when NEC finally announces that the election will go on as scheduled, Justice Ikpeme and the ABN notwithstanding.

    The Federal Government’s affirmation that the election will hold comes indirectly, in response to a statement by the United States Information Service, in Lagos, to the effect that any postponement of the election would be “unacceptable to the U. S. Government.’’

    The elections hold on Saturday, June 12, as scheduled. Minor hitches are reported here and there, the type that can be expected even in the best-ordered poll. For the most part, NEC and everyone connected with the election gets high praise for a job superbly executed.

    By late Sunday, intimations of a grand sweep by the Muslim-Muslim ticket of Chief MKO Abiola and Babagana Kingibe, of the Social Democratic Party, are all over the place. By lunchtime on Monday, June 14, victory songs are in the air in the SDP. The NEC has authenticated the returns from 14 states, and returns from the remaining 16 states are being “collated.” It names a chief electoral officer, an indication that it is set to declare a winner. The National Republican Party (NRC) is putting the finishing touches to a statement conceding defeat and pledging to work with the SDP in the country’s best interest.

    By the next day, Tuesday, the NRC is singing a different tune, following a telephone call to its candidate, Bashir Tofa, from Aso Rock. The NRC, per Nduka Obaigbena, publisher of the defunct newsmagazine ThisWeek, who had made an unsuccessful run for the Senate from Delta State, the NRC charges that SDP candidate Chief Abiola had gone to vote on election day attired in a dress on which was embroidered a stallion, the party’s symbol, in breach of the electoral rules,.

    The penalty for such a breach, they hint darkly, is a huge fine or a two-year jail term, or both fine and imprisonment. They assert that the breach raises questions of “morality;” that the entire poll stood fatally tainted, and should therefore be voided.

    Meanwhile, NEC has stopped announcing results, while apparently continuing the “collating.” But the results from all except two of the 30 states are everywhere at home and abroad. For just N200, you could at Oshodi Bus Stop, in Lagos, purchase a set of documents detailing how Nigerians had voted ward by ward and precinct by precinct. They show unequivocally that Abiola has won a decisive sweep.

    Unencumbered by NEC’s order forbidding publication of “raw scores,” foreign correspondents covering the election had filed the results with their media back home. Even the national press has all but called the election. So, why all the fuss, especially when the results that had been authenticated tallied in virtually in every aspect with the figures earlier circulated in Nigeria and abroad?

    A clearer but more troubling picture emerges as the day progresses. Another high court in Abuja Federal Capital Territory, Justice Dahiru Saleh presiding, grants a petition by the ABN to stop further announcement of election returns. Attorney-General Akpamgbo orders NEC, first, to comply with this order, and second, to show cause why it should not be punished for discountenancing the order of Justice Ikpeme, aforementioned.

    The following day, Wednesday, June 16, the New Nigerian, wholly owned by the Federal Government, and the Daily Times, in which it holds controlling interest, come out with editorials expressing diametrically opposed views. The Daily Times hails the election results a “people’s triumph.” The New Nigerian denounces the entire poll and calls for its cancellation, even while proclaiming that it had been won by a “third party,” presumably the ABN.

    How so?

    Because, says the New Nigerian, the 25 million ABN members who did not vote outnumbered 2:1 the 13 million Nigerians who had voted.

    That day, NEC chairman Nwosu fails to address a scheduled press conference. Also missing action is NEC’s director of publicity, the voluble Tonnie Iredia. An assistant director, about whom little has been heard previously reads out a convoluted statement saying NEC would seek legal clarification of Justice Saleh’s clarification. It is being bruited that Nwosu has offered his resignation, to no avail.

    It comes to light the following day that Yakubu Abdul-Azeez, editor of the New Nigerian, has resigned over the editorial attributed to the paper and by implication to him. He is quoted as saying that he is quitting because he cannot continue to affix his imprint on a newspaper being used to pursue policies that can “lead to Nigeria’s disintegration.”

    Throughout all this, there has been no word from the Presidency, save a statement by Chief Press Secretary Onabule, to the effect that the Federal Government had in no way interfered with the election and that NEC had not complained of any difficulties.

    Everything stands still until Monday, June 21, when NEC rises from the stupor into which it had been lulled by the events of the previous week and files a petition before the Kaduna High Court against the ruling of Justice Ikpeme, a certified copy of which it has not been provided, and against the ruling of Justice Saleh. None of NEC’s officials is in circulation. Professor Nwosu is reported to be ill, with an undisclosed ailment. The appeal is scheduled to be heard two days later, on Wednesday.

    Just as NEC is filing its appeal, Justice Saleh who had barred NEC from announcing further results, swings back into action in Abuja and declares the presidential election of June 12 null and void and of no effect whatsoever, on the ground that it had been conducted in violation of a restraining order.

    The order under reference is Justice Ikpeme’s. She had issued it fully acknowledging that NEC was not obliged to heed it, since the court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Justice Saleh now says that since NEC had disregarded that order, the election is null and void.

    Two days later, on June 23, the Federal Government strikes a blow that leaves everyone practically breathless. It cancels the presidential election, suspends NEC, and repeals the law governing the final phase of the political transition programme that had been eight years in the making. By that singular move, it also terminates all court cases relating to the presidential election.

    The statement announcing these measures is not signed and not dated. Typed on plain paper, it was issued on behalf of the government by Nduka Irabor, press secretary to the Vice President, Admiral Augustus Aikhomu. The statement says the government has taken these sweeping measures to ensure that a judiciary that has been built on a sound and solid foundation is not “tarnished by the insatiable political desire of a few persons.”

    This stunning announcement comes a few hours before the National Defence and Security Council is scheduled to meet and deliberate on the crisis. Can it be that the Council had met earlier than scheduled, or is the announcement designed to present the Council with a fait accompli?

    The Council disperses only after a brief meeting, ostensibly for what Information Secretary Uche Chukwumerije calls “wider consultations.” It is to convene the next day.

    When it finally convenes, it members are reported to have taken far-reaching decisions on a new agenda that could include the appointment of a prime minister to serve along an unelected military president, formation of more political parties, and the un-banning of all those who had been kept in political purgatory during the transition. Field commanders, principal staff officers in military formations, and the police hierarchy, are to be briefed the next day, Friday, followed by a national broadcast by Babangida.

    Friday ends without the promised broadcast, which is now rescheduled for Saturday, June 26. But it does not take place at mid-day as the public has been led to believe, nor an hour after mid-day as announced in a revised schedule. It does not take place at 7 p.m. as rescheduled again.

    It takes place, finally, two hours later, at 9 p.m. Even more than the benumbing events of the previous 12 days, the content is beyond belief. It provides proof, were any still required, that the “hidden agenda” was not the invention of cynical commentators.

    The broadcast, a tissue of self-serving lies and fabrications and evasions and rationalizations, eviscerates the promise emblematized by June 12, that one nation might emerge at long last, from the plethora of nations inhabiting the Nigerian space, and it locks the country even more securely into a debacle.

    Its place is assured in Nigeria’s calendar of infamy. So also is the political and judicial debauchery of which it was the culmination.