The Nation Newspaper

Tag: legitimacy

  • Legitimacy, power and democracy

    In politics  and indeed in any  democracy, winning power  is one thing.  Securing  that power  however  is  another  matter. Ensuring  that power is won  and  won in the right  way and manner is the  main  ingredient  of  legitimacy  and the  rule  of  law. Some  world  leaders  are  locked  in a  grip  of  a fight  to protect  the power  that they  won at elections  and  are  as it were fighting for their  political  lives  as such.  Others  have such overwhelming victories at elections that  their  legitimacy  is assured  if not  already  taken  for granted. In effect  then the acquisition  of  power  in elections and the keeping or loss  of it thereafter is the crux  of our discussion  today.

    Nothing illustrates our  topic  today  more  vividly  than  two events,  first  in Osun  State  in  Nigeria  last week,  as  well as the Mueller Report in the US which  literally cleared US  President Donald  Trump  of collusion  with  Russia  in winning  the US  2016 Presidential  election.  The  two  events  are also  two sides  of the same coin. One  removed  legitimacy  from the Osun State incumbent governor  Olugboyega  Oyetola  in  Osogbo  the other in Washington affirmed  the legitimacy of the American president’s election  two  years  ago . .  We  shall  examine the two  events alongside  Brexit  Adventures  and Deals of UK PM  Theresa  May in clinging to  the legitimacy  of the Brexit Referendum at  all  costs and branding those  MPs  opposing her  as anti  democracy  and against    the  declared  interests  of the British  people.  We also  examine the challenge posed to the new  mandate of President Muhammadu  Buhari  of  the APC  by  the  court case  brought  after the election by his defeated  opponent  who  gave figures purportedly from INEC  server thereby  claiming to have won the  2019 presidential  elections in Nigeria.

    It  is well known  that the legitimacy  of an elections  flounders when  the  integrity  of  its fairness  and  legality  is successfully  assailed in a court  of  law.  Yet  it is not only in a court  of  law  that electoral  integrity  can  be  attacked  or undermined. Public  opinion  too  can drag  legitimacy  in the  mud as the CNN, Washington Post  and New  York  Times  have shown  the US President over alleged  Russian Collusion  in  the  last two  years.

    Belief  in the legal  system  or its opposite  can  also  tax  the legitimacy  of any newly  elected leader when  post  election  legal battles  begin as is the case  in both  Osun  and the last presidential  elections in  Nigeria. In  all  these  scenarios  and in any political  system,  legitimacy,  the affirmation and conclusion  that  a leader has been  elected in a free and fair election  according to the electoral  rules  is the icing on the cake in any democracy  in our  world as we know it  today.

    We  go back  to the Osun  guber  election  where  the Court ruled that the incumbent  governor  Olugboyega Oyetola  should vacate  office and his  opponent  Ademola  Adeleke  who  lost  the election earlier should  be given a fresh  mandate  certificate  by INEC  which appears  to  be a straight  forward  situation.  Until  INEC announced  that it would  not do this yet  because the displaced incumbent  governor  has 21  days to  appeal  according to the law.

    Which  he has done, meaning  the status quo remains  and the incumbent  governor remains  in  office  till  the  case is decided in the Supreme  Court  at a time no  one can  certainly  predic. That  simply  means that the incumbent  governor’s  legitimacy  is fractured  even  as he rules  as governor  in borrowed  robes. Unless of course  the  Supreme  Court  overturns  the verdict  that stripped  him  of  legitimacy  later. For  now  according to our  law,  the new  winner must brood  over what  he  thinks  is  his stolen  mandate  and legitimacy.  Certainly  he  and his supporters must  think  of  the law  as an  ass  in this  case, at  least  for now. But  if  the  Court  of  Appeal  or  Supreme  Court  affirms his  verdict  and  he assumes  his  mandate  he  can  certainly refer  gladly  to the legal  saying that says the mills  of  justice may grind  slowly  but they grind  exceedingly  fine.

    Certainly  Donald  Trump  can  also echo  the  view  point on the mills  of justice  on his clearance  by the Mueller  Inquiry  on Russian  Collusion. But  one  must commend  the doughty US  President for  the fierce way  he  defended his  mandate  and legitimacy  all along.  Undoubtedly  if  he  had  been  quiet  I doubt  if  the decision  would have  favoured  him. He  fought  the  anti  Trump Press with  a huge barrage of tweets  never  seen  or  used  before by any  President in the US or  even  our entire world.  His counter  Charge of  ‘fake news’  and’ witch  hunt’  were  catch phrases  he used  to blackmail  his media  opponents  and to secure his  legitimacy  which  the Russian Collusion charge  threatened mightily. He  has my  grudging  admiration  in this  regard  as well as my  pity on what he has been  made to go through  since his election.  He  is certainly  a good  lesson  for  Political  Science and  politicians  on how  world  leaders  should  fight  for their mandates  and power, secured in a free  and fair  election in any democracy.

    Let  us  now  look  at  the Brexit  issue  and especially  the role of the British  PM, Theresa May  on her  many  deals  that Parliament never  bought till  she pitched in  her resignation as the ultimate price of approval. She  has  thus    literally    given  her head on a platter  of  gold  for  a lamentable  reason  and a  pitiable  excuse. In  a way  she has turned  legitimacy  and democracy  on their  heads by insisting on the Brexit  Result  of  a  Referendum that the British  people now no  longer want. In  insisting on that Brexit  Result  she  is  pursuing  a false  legitimacy  for  which history  would  judge  her harshly  as unduly rigid  and frigid  or even  blind  on the direction of  public  opinion and the true wishes of the British  people on  Brexit.  She  has taxed  the patience  of MPs, the  loquacious  but    brilliant  Speaker, the taciturn EU leaders  and she  has  lost  her  leadership  role cheaply  and quite deservedly  for  the  wrong  reasons  including that the British  people  must  fall  on their  sword  for  voting Brexit. Her  act  is a wonderful  and unbelievable one in  how  to be a  poor  first  amongst equal  in the Cabinet  System  that  has been the backbone  and  legitimacy of  the  British  Parliamentary Democracy  that  has  now  crashed  with  her handling of  Brexit.

    It  is not sad  at  all  in my view  to see her exit as  PM over Brexit. Good  riddance would  indeed  be an understatement. On  the  presidential  election    appeal, the  charge  by the spokesman  of  the ruling  APC  that  it was criminal  for the PDP  to access  the server of INEC    to  collate  a result  different from that  announced by INEC  as election  results for  the presidential election makes interesting  reading.  First  the APC  Spokesman  is a well  known  lawyer  and should  know that the  case  is already in  court  and commenting on it is  subjudice. But  since  he  has broached  a crucial  issue  one  must  ask if  it is wrong  to  access

    election  results on a public server  especially  in an election. The issue  at stake is the integrity  of  the figures. That  is what APC  should dispute and  INEC  should  affirm or  disprove.

    Nigerians are  watching  to  see that justice  is  done one way or the other.  That  is the mark  of  legitimacy  in any  democracy  and Nigeria is not an exception. Once  again, long live the  Federal Republic  of Nigeria.

  • Senators disagree on 1999 Constitution’s legitimacy

    The legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution came to question at the just ended Senate retreat on constitution amendment.

    While some senators described the military-imposed 1999 Constitution as lacking in legitimacy which should be completely changed, others saw the attack on the document as unwarranted since the question of its legitimacy had been settled.

    A resource person, Prof Okechukwu Oko, in his presentation, titled: The Need for a New Constitution and the Procedure for Achieving It, provoked the debate.

    Prof. Oko asked rhetorically whether the National Assembly could write a new constitution for the country instead of the incremental approach to constitution review the lawmakers adopted.

    He posited that after repairing a car so many times, a mechanic might summon the courage to ask the owner to buy another.

    Also, another resource person, Prof. Sam Egwu, was categorical that the National Assembly was not elected to write a new constitution.

    Senate Chief Whip Olusola Adeyeye said the call for a new constitution because the 1999 Constitution was not written by the people was misplaced.

    The Osun Central lawmaker noted that even the American constitution did not originate from the people.

    He said the American constitution came from the Aristocrats.

    Adeyeye said the legitimacy of the American constitution was because of the faith and trust in the fidelity of the people that came later.

    The senator said if Nigerians insisted that the 1999 Constitution lacked legitimacy, the way out was to conduct a referendum to change what Nigerians opposed.

    Adeyeye said it should not be forgotten that leaders had been sworn in by the constitution.

    Enyinnaya Abaribe said the talk about a new constitution meant the dissolution of the National Assembly.

    The senator noted that nobody elected the National Assembly to write a new constitution.

    He said the question of the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution could be settled through a referendum.

    Abaribe supported the incremental approach adopted by the National Assembly to amend the constitution.

    Senate Leader Mohammed Ali Ndume cautioned that rather than talk about the legitimacy of the constitution, the retreat should focus on fundamental issues bothering Nigerians.

    A House of Representatives member, Nkem Uzoma Abonta, said those who say the constitution is not the issued missed the point.

    The Abia State-born lawmaker said the constitution was the issue “because what we have as a constitution makes some people lazy due to a lot of imbalances, especially in sharing formula”.

    He insisted that there should be fundamental changes in the constitution to make the document workable.

    Abonta said the first part to amend is Section 9, to enable Nigerians write their constitution, instead of the military-imposed document.

    Hamman Misau said anybody talking about changing the constitution should be prepared to resign his or her membership of the National Assembly.

    Senator Jeremiah Useni threw the session into a prolonged disquiet when said: “Some people just sit down here to talk nonsense.”

    Useni said some of those who benefitted from military rule still had the audacity to talk ill of the military.

    “They don’t know what to say. I mean they came to talk nonsense,” he said.

    But Senator Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central) replied Useni.

    He said: “If we are going to have a constitution that is truly called the people’s constitution, I will be the first to resign.

    “I will be one of those who will be prepared to resign my position. If we say we senators, we know senators are elected; if you say teachers, you know that teachers are trained. For us to say ‘we the people’, let it be truly the people.

    “No matter what we do, this document we call the constitution remains an illegitimate document. The (former President Goodluck) Jonathan’s Confab report is even better than this document. If it means referring to the Confab’s report, we should do something.

    “Some people just sit here as if some of us did not fight for democracy. Some people will sit here and want to rewrite history.”

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu said the talk about a new constitution was not about legitimacy but about being futuristic and thinking ahead.

  • Legitimacy of Political Science as a discipline in Nigeria

    Legitimacy of Political Science as a discipline in Nigeria

    Text of a lecture  delivered by Dr. Tunji Olaopa as Guest Speaker at the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan’s Public Lecture and Post-lecture luncheon in honour of Prof Emeriti ‘Bayo Adekanye and John Ayoade held at the university.

    Permit me to express my sentiments at being on this podium at this time in these words: if I say that I am profoundly honoured and humbled to be invited to make an intellectual statement by my mentors and founding fathers of the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan, who also constitute the core of this assembly, then I would have simply made an understatement.

    Having expressed that sentiment, I want to begin by deeply appreciating the organisers of today’s programme. My gratitude comes on two significant fronts. The first is that we are paying fundamental tribute to the personalities and achievements of two worthy avatars of political science scholarship in Nigeria. I am not sure if there is a precedent for this commendable gesture. I recognise the deep import of such gesture because I have made it the underlying principle for the series of newspaper articles I wrote to critically celebrate Nigerians who have confronted the Nigerian state and her national project in national proportions. I took that critical celebratory challenge from one of our own, the late Prof. Claude Ake, who lamented, in the foreword to my biography of Prof. Ojetunji Aboyade that Nigeria is a country which ‘yearns for heroes, acknowledge none and it devalues and derails those who could be.’ Today, it is commendable that we are unlearning Nigeria, and celebrating those who have impacted our lives in one way or the other.

    And this takes me to the second point of my gratitude to the organisers of this programme. It is as if I have been brought back home to pay homage to the indefatigable dedication of those who sharpened the teeth of any scientific and analytical skills I can lay claim to today, especially in my reform campaign for a better and world-class public service in Nigeria. I began from this place, and these two old gentlemen played some defining roles in my theoretical maturation. I consider it a distinct privilege to be asked to speak at such an august occasion that honours two personifications of what political science used to be in Nigeria, and what it ought to return to as a matter of urgency.

    As a last point, I desire that we observe a minute silence in honour of the late Professor Adekunle Amuwo who eventually succumbed to the pandemic anomie we are all struggling to make sense of.

    Introduction

    We lost Billy Dudley, then Claude Ake and Omo Omoruyi and lately Ali Mazrui and now Kunle Amuwo. The lesson is this: they all fought a good fight; but they were not done fighting, and scholarship need not bow to finitude. The battle is still raging, and the prospect of a worthy contribution by political science to the eventual victory is not looking too good. Nigeria has, since her independence in 1960, thrown political science scholarship in Nigeria some serious challenge—Boko Haram and insecurity, corruption, bad governance, abuse of power, poverty, dissonance, bad leadership, the list is endless.

    I should know about all these because I have been engaged, for the past twenty five years or so, in the forefront of recalibrating a public service that is deeply challenged and requires massive reform to move forward as a valiant institution. The crisis of the civil service system in Nigeria is simply a reflection of the crisis of the Nigerian state in the dynamics of reinventing good governance.

    The privilege of standing before you all today, and before these veterans of political analysis and confrontation with the Nigerian state, is that we can get down to serious heart-to-heart real talk about our collective responsibility as Nigerian political scholars. This is like a homecoming for me. But while I have been away, I have noticed all manners of intellectual morbidity with scholarship in Nigeria. In recent times, I have had to comment on philosophers, and on the humanities as well as the general state of the Nigerian educational system. Where we are now is precarious and troubling.

    I carry a personal vision which I first got when I read Plato’s Republic in my pre-university days. That lesson is this: scholarship must be responsible. And specifically, according to Plato, until philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers, the task of social order will become impossible. Let us grant Plato his disciplinary pride. At least he sees the connection between his discipline and the salvation of Athens.

    Getting admission into the political science department in 1981 was  a defining moments for me. And I came in at a period when the department was in what we can call its heydays—all the big fish were present then: Essien-Udom, Peter Ekeh, Bayo Adekanye, John Ayoade, Larry Ekpebu, Busari Adebisi, Tunde Adeniran, Alex Gboyega, Augustus Adebayo, Femi Otubanjo. Fred Onyeoziri, Bayo Okunade, Kunle Amuwo, Adigun Agbaje, Egosa Osaghae, O. B. C. Nwolise, Jimi Adisa, Rotimi Suberu. These were the stars in my intellectual firmament at that time.

    Civil-military relations resonated with us in those days from the energetic Professor Adekanye. Though the Shagari administration was in the saddle at the time, but the option of diarchy was in contention, and so, civil-military discourse was topical. So also were federalism and the role of the legislature which Professor Ayoade taught us.

    As these two emeriti are celebrated today, it would be significant to reflect deeply on a discipline they have spent most of their life and intellectual energies nurturing. It has become a troubling pastime to worry about the general state of education in Nigeria. And this is because we all recognise the role that education plays in the harnessing and positioning of the human capital of any nation for worthwhile and composite development. The situation, it is sad to say, has further degenerated. It has now become imperative to commence another diagnosis from a disciplinary perspective. What do the disciplines need to do to assist in nation building? The concern for me has always been with my constituency, what I am calling the humanities and the social sciences (HSS). But today, we are forced to beam the searchlight of critical inquiry on our most immediate constituency—political science and its scholarship. Specifically, the question is: What is the state of political science in today’s Nigeria?

    From then to now: Initial worries

    Political science scholarship has been around for a while now. The two avatars we celebrate today are in the best of position to outline for us a critical historical excursus on the trajectory of events and circumstances that gave birth to this scholarship in Nigeria, and how it has evolved over time. Like most things “Nigerian”, it is likely that their narrative will end with much solemn shaking of their heads at what we have now compared with the high hopes we began with. I also have reasons to share in this unflattering assessment. This is because I was also part of the beginning, in a sense. As a student at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, I felt the pulse of the department’s energy when it was still at its highest. I was taught by the best, including our distinguished professor emeriti here today.

    I remember the rigour and earnestness of spirit with which we were taught. Of course, it is only the perceptive hindsight that now reveals that the academic drill we had then wasn’t just the consequences of the whims of some academic sadists inflicting intellectual pains on a bunch of hapless students. There were two distinctive things about the period then. The first is what we can call a disciplinary framework of engaged political scholarship that had Professor Adekanye espousing civil-military relationship, Professor Ayoade taught federalism with a passion, Professor Osaghae was then beginning to work out the framework for his ethnicity and ethnic theory, Dr. Adebisi revealed the dynamics of international political economy structure within the centre-periphery configuration as imperialism, Professors Tunde Adeniran, Femi Otubanjo and Jimi Adisa took us through the labyrinth of international relations and strategic studies, the late Essien Essien-Udom was then one of the leading light in nationalist studies and pan-Africanism, Profs Alex Gboyega and Bayo Okunade and Augustus Adebayo introduced me to public administration. I also had other erudite scholars like, Profs. OBC Nwolise, Larry Ekpebu, Fred Onyeoziri, Kunle Amuwo and Adigun Agbaje who grounded us in research methodology, statistics and some dimensions of theory.  I can definitely speak for the generation of those of us taught by these great teachers that we got the best they had to offer. They all knew what political science was capable of.

    The second distinctive thing about my education in political science then was the robust cross fertilization of ideas in the entire faculty of the social sciences in which political science was not a mere onlooker. By its very nature, political scholarship is concerned with themes and subject matter—democracy, politics, political institutions, etc.—that are necessarily cross-disciplinary and embrace other social sciences and humanistic studies. This period was defined with collaborations across disciplines. Our experiences as students were refined by an active town and gown interaction that saw the likes of Ojetunji Aboyade returning regularly to the classroom with insights drawn from national development planning in the Central Planning Office in Lagos and the planning studies programme he ran with Akin Mabogunje. Those were the heady days of real scholarship!

    But obviously, something has gone critically wrong.

    It is our duty, as concerned stakeholders, to raise the stakes of our expectations about a discipline that has aided our intellectual development in more ways than we can appreciate. I am a true beneficiary of political science scholarship. I can boldly say that what I have been able to achieve in terms of the understanding and facilitation of the reform agenda for the Nigerian Civil Service were due largely to my early preparation in political analysis and methodological intervention. I left University of Ibadan at that time with an acute sense of the worth of institutions and institutional values, and how the Nigerian national project can be reinvented through institutional rehabilitation. So, I suppose I have a moral right to be concerned.

    Why should we be worry about political science scholarship in Nigeria?

    In the days leading to the just concluded general elections in Nigeria, one of the respected voices in political science scholarship in Nigeria, Prof. Ayo Olukotun wrote a piece in his celebrated column in the Punch newspaper. He titled it: “Elections: Where are our political scientists?” that article lamented not only the glaring invisibility of the political scientists in Nigeria on the national conversation about national development and progress, but also about the role of public intellectual in national discourse. His opening epigraph is instructive:

    Public intellectuals attempt to widen and deepen the public discourse by adding further analysis and coming at issues in surprising or unexpected ways. There is a craving for that thoughtfulness which public intellectuals are able to provide.

    Substitute ‘political scientists’ for ‘public intellectuals’, and you still get the same result. However, we are all in full retreat from an arena that ought to motivate our scholarship. Allow me to outline a specific dimension of my larger worries.

    For a while now, as my recent newspaper articles reveal, I have been deeply troubled by the state of the humanities and social sciences, especially within the context of Nigeria’s development. I had called out philosophers and humanistic scholars on their responsibilities to the Nigerian project. It was only logical that I would sound the alarm on my own discipline. So, I took an interest in the Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA). What better way to follow its progress than to access its website. I came away utterly disappointed. The NPSA website is totally out of date. You cannot even get an updated list of political science departments in Nigeria or the names and affiliations of political scientists! My first query is simple: Shouldn’t we judge the state of political science scholarship in Nigeria from the dearth of significant activities in NPSA? One of the scanty information the website reveals is that the NPSA executives themselves recognise that political science in a certain state. What is that state? Well, first, the website of its professional body is bare! Second, when was the last conference, how regular has it been and where are the concrete outputs and outcomes? What has happened to Studies in Politics and Society, the flagship journal of the association? Lastly, does NPSA have any hold on the generality of political science teachers and researchers in Nigeria (we do not even have the list of the various departments of political science or a database of political scientists in Nigeria)?

    The larger point is that if the body that ought to oversee the affairs of the discipline of political science is comatose, what can we then say about the legitimacy of such a discipline? The NPSA is needed to coordinate the national relevance and focus of the discipline. Its absence could only imply that individual political scientists are thereby left to forge ahead alone in their specific intellectual development. And those who have any fundamental insights into the Nigerian predicament may just be backing against a stone wall. There is no concerted effort at influencing policies either on education generally or on specific issues. Individual political scientists speak alone, and are mostly ignored by that fact. As the disciplinary gatekeeper of the study of politics, it seems to me that NPSA has bowed finally to those morbid symptoms of national dysfunction it is meant to actively and proactively diagnose!

    STEMming the tide: Between knowledge and power

    The global educational awareness is focused right on the evolution of the STEM fields—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—as the engine of national development anywhere. The STEM revolution derived from the United States’ concern with the need not only for an integrated curriculum in education but also with its perceived lack of specialists for specialised tasks. These two concerns are understandable within the context of a nation striving to increase its development profile in a global world of economic and technological competitiveness. It has become so significant in the United States that it determines some aspect of its immigration policy and the issuance of visas.

    The essence of STEM is to place a nation on the cutting edge of development through a sound educational programme that transforms learning into a serious human capital empowerment. However, the basis of STEM is fundamentally flawed. It considered that development is only possible through the coordinated expression and application of the four STEM disciplines. But the significant lesson to draw from this STEM discourse is the consequences of the relationship between knowledge and power. In other words, knowledge is a singular sine qua non for prodigious progress anywhere. And the addition to this truism is that the type of knowledge one chooses also determine the type of development path one is likely to take, and the kind of consequences that will result. When Prometheus decided to steal fire from the heavens and bring it down to earth, humans were not aware of what that kind of gift would do to them; when Adam and Eve got the knowledge of good and evil, they didn’t know it will lead them out of the blissful Garden of Eden. The search for knowledge empowers. But we need to beware the kind of power we desire.

    The underlying philosophy behind the STEM curriculum is the assumption that the study of nature is more worthwhile that the study of human nature. It is this distinction that explains the ever growing divide between the sciences and the humanities and social sciences. Yet, the knowledge that can be derived from studying nature cannot be empowering if it fails to enlighten us about the human condition. Knowledge for knowledge sake cannot translate to power unless it enables us to know ourselves as human beings and how we can positively translate such knowledge to our own well-being.

  • Flawed poll and crisis of legitimacy

    Flawed poll and crisis of legitimacy

    Controversy has continued to trail the flawed Anambra State governorship election. Can the poll result pass a test of credibility and legitimacy? Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the implications for democracy. 

    When the people of Anambra State trooped out for the recent governorship poll, little did they guess that the exercise will generate a controversial result. At the close of poll, the election was inconclusive. Three out of the four main parties rejected the results. The supplementary election organised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was boycotted by the aggrieved stakeholders. Local and foreign observers described the election as a sham.

    The state had been polarised by the competition for power by the flag bearers and parties. Now, the poll result has further divided the state. To many people, the next government may be enveloped in a crisis of legitimacy, owing to the controversial election that catapulted it into power.

    Contrary to the assurance by the INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, the poll was bungled by the electoral officers. The late arrival of polling materials, the omission of names from the voter’s register, the late arrival of polling officers for duty, and shortage of result sheets marred the exercise.

    Jega confirmed the irregularities, to the consternation of stakeholders. “We regretted that the commission ended up shattering the expectations of Nigerians. There were many matters arising in the conduct of the election. And, there is no doubt that the INEC’s operational performance in that election has not met with the expectations of Nigerians. We regret shattering the expectations of Nigerians, but we did our best under very difficult circumstances to have free and fair election”, he said.

    Following Jega’s remarks, many expected the umpire to order a fresh election. The protesting parties said that that was the only option, adding that it would restore public confidence. But Jega frittered that opportunity when he said: “The situation does not merit the cancellation of the election as being canvassed by some parties. Instead, the INEC would hold supplementary election in areas where results were cancelled.” Despite protests by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the All Progressive Congress (APC) and the Labour Party (LP) about the flawed poll, Jega was adamant.

    The supplementary election, which Jega thought would be a remedy, was marred by voter’s apathy. The turnout was very low. For instance, at Anyaeji, Ward 9, Onitsha North, only 54 out of 484 registered voters were accredited to vote; at Ward 6, Fegge, Onitsha South, only 20 out of 12,000 voters were accredited; at the Nkpor Junction Polling Unit, Idemili North, 26 voters were accredited to vote, out of the 372 registered voters.

    According to the results by the INEC, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate, Chief Willie Obiano, polled 174, 710. The PDP, APC and LP got 94, 956; 92, 300 and 37, 446 respectively. In the supplementary election of November 30, Obiano polled 5,468 while Ngige polled 3,663. Nwoye scored 2,744. The final results released by the commission showed that Obiano polled 180,000 178. Nwoye, who came second, got 97,200 votes. Ngige came third with 95, 963 votes and Ubah polled 37, 495 votes.

    Criticisms trailed the supplementary election in 212 electoral wards where 113,113 voters could not vote on November 16 and where the elections were cancelled. Despite the boycott by the PDP, APC and LP, the APGA was able to score a little over 5,000, out of over 113,000 votes.

    Out of 1.8 million registered voters, only 442,000 were able to cast their votes. Over 1.3 million eligible voters were disenfranchised. The implication, according to analysts, is that the result was based on minority votes.

    The low turn out for the supplementary election cast a big question mark on its credibility. The apathy, in the opinion of APC leaders, stemmed from the disappointment of the voters during the November 16, election. They said that the outcome of the poll had been pre-determined by the INEC and its collaborators.

    A community leader from Umoji, Idemili North Local Government Area, Mr. Michael Obi, said that the people shunned the supplementary election because they believe that it was meaningless. “INEC had refused to cancel the election of November 16. So, nothing would change. If INEC had accepted that it made errors and has apologised, what remains is for them to conduct a fresh one.

    “I am not saying that a certain candidate must win or lose. Anybody who is losing should lose gallantly. We do not accept a situation where it appeared to us that the vote had been manipulated to favour one candidate from outset and they were trying to use the supplementary election to validate and legitimate the flawed election”, Obi said.

    Following the report by observers that the main and supplementary elections were severely flawed, can the two exercise produce a legitimate result?

    A lawyer, Ajibola Bashir, said that “what happened in Anambra was not an election, but a coronation”. “It is mere imposition of an agreed candidate between the Federal government and the INEC. In a situation where many voters were disenfranchised, the result can never reflect the popular choice of the people”, he added.

    Bashir said the behaviour of the INEC officials portends danger for the sustenance of democratic rule. “The situation where the INEC decided to disenfranchise the majority of the voting population by manipulating voters’ register is a proof that democracy has totally being compromised. The fact that the security operatives were used to support the manipulation of the election creates fear about future elections in Nigeria. The minimum standard for a genuine democratic election is that all eligible voters should have the opportunity to exercise their franchise. But in Anambra, the process was manipulated by the INEC, whereby the overwhelming majority of the people were denied the right to exercise their franchise,” he said.

    Lagos lawyer Jiti Ogunye questioned the legality of the supplementary election. He said there is no room or provision for it in the Electoral Act and the constitution. According to him, under the Electoral Act, there are four types of election. These are a general election, a bye election, a fresh election or rerun election, and a run-off (second ballot or third ballot).

    “It is our submission that Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, only contemplates the postponement of a scheduled election before the arrival of the date appointed for the conduct of the election on any of the three grounds: the postponement must be before or ahead of the date earlier appointed, not during or after; the postponement of an election date; the appointment of a new date for the postponed election must be done pari passu. Under the section, an indefinite postponement is not envisaged or permissible.

    “This section is therefore, not a statutory authority for the now familiar absurdity in Nigeria’s electoral system, called supplementary election. There is no legal backing in the Electoral Act or the constitution for this travesty of electoral practice,” Ogunye said.

    A legal luminary, Yusuf Ali, advised the aggrieved parties to approach the court. “It would be ideal for those aggrieved to allow the court to make pronouncement on the election”, he said. cautioned against speculations, saying that the facts are not before the public.

    His colleague, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN), shared this view. He said only the tribunal can rule on electoral issues. “Whatever comment anyone makes is mere academic exercise. The aggrieved should seek redress at the tribunal”, he said.

    Social critic Bernard Briggs said the Anambra election result is illegitimate, stressing that the poll was neither free nor fair. “It is not a true reflection of the people’s choice. The result was awarded to the APGA by in anticipation of Anambra support for the PDP in 2015. The only regret I have is the collusion with the government by the INEC to undermine the electorate. The chaos has dampened the hope of improving the voting system, ahead of general elections in 2015″, he said.

    Briggs added: “Electoral malpractices in Anambra State have become a recurring decimal. The incumbent governor was re-elected in 2010 in an election characterised of vote-buying and ballot box theft. Only 300,000 people cast their ballots out of 1.8 million voters. Obi received almost 98,000 votes, about five per cent of the total registered voters”.

    The social critic said that the pattern of fraud is not new. “It is a deliberate attempt to deny the Anambra people the right to exercise their right to freely elect a governor of their choice”, he maintained.

    Fears have been expressed by Nigerians about INEC’s competence as the polity prepares for 2015 elections. If the commission could not conduct a free and fair election in one state, how can it perform the task in 32 states simultaneously in 2015?, many have asked. To ensure a hitch-free exercise in Anambra, the commission had mobilised security apparatus, 21 electoral commissioners and many ad hoc polling officers. Yet, the exercise was marred by irregularities.

    Irked by the INEC’s performance, Briggs said that, if a credible poll could not be conducted in one state, despite the concentration of human and material resources, more dangers loom in the future. He therefore, called for electoral reforms to avert the danger.

    Many observers support this line of thought. They said that the commission, political parties and civil society groups should embrace the reform as a joint responsibility.

    “This is very important. Elections are features of democracy. When it is not free and fair, the government that emerges from the poll cannot be legitimate”, Briggs said.

  • Court insists on hearing suit challenging NGF’s legitimacy

    Court insists on hearing suit challenging NGF’s legitimacy

    The Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) yesterday lost its bid to stall hearing in a suit challenging its legitimacy and seeking its de-registration.

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, refused to entertain an application for a stay of proceedings filed by the NGF.

    The judge overruled the argument by NGF’s lawyer, Okunade Olorundare (SAN), that the court should either hear his preliminary objection first or entertain his application for a stay of proceedings, pending an appeal.

    The court, on April 29, adjourned till yesterday for hearing of all pending applications, particularly the preliminary objection and originating summons.

    The parties were expected to argue both applications yesterday, but Olorundare and Nasiru Tijani, representing the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), objected. They insisted that the court must first hear their objections.

    Olorundare, who first said he held the brief of Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), later told the court that he had filed an application before the court seeking a stay of its proceedings, pending the determination an appeal he filed.

    He said his appeal was against the court’s decision on April 29 to hear the substantive suit together with the defendants’ preliminary objection.

    The plaintiff’s lawyer, Tubotamuno Dick, described Olorundare’s argument as part of the defendants’ antics to frustrate the prompt hearing of the case.

    He averred that the court’s decision to hear both substantive suit with the objection was in line with the provision of Order 29 of the court’s Civil Procedure Rules.

    Dick urged the court to discountenance the defendants’ argument and hear the case the way it was planned.

    Justice Ademola held that his decision to hear the applications together was informed by the provision of Order 29 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules.

    The judge held that Olorundare’s argument, supported by Tijani, was a ploy to stall the court’s business for the day.

    Justice Ademola overruled Olorundare’s argument for being misconceived. He adjourned to July 4 for hearing of the defendants’ objection with plaintiff’s originating summons.

    The suit, which was filed by Tijani Ali Danjuma, the Northern Coordinator, Network for Defence of Democracy and Good Governance (NDDGG), has NGF and the CAC as defendants.

    It seeks, among others, an order de-registering the NGF on the grounds that it was “erroneously registered by the CAC”.

    The plaintiff, who argued that the NGF was an illegal body, posed four questions for the court’s determination. He is seeking three declarative reliefs and an order.

     

  • Leaders, legitimacy and security

    Leaders in all walks of life especially politics derive their authority and legitimacy from the way and manner they assumed or took office. The authority here is the legitimate power to act and execute their mandate of office, while it is assumed that security is a sine qua non for the exercise of powers inherent in their designated offices. That normal assumption of security as given and constant in the execution of the given powers of powerful and mighty office holders is our food for thought today.We shall look at this topic from one end of the spectrum of global leadership to the other – from the peaceful and blissful, to the bloody and violent; from the sublime, if you like, to the utterly ridiculous and unbelievable.

    From the Middle East, that hot bed of violent politics especially the sectarian type, where US Secretary of State John Kerry just announced that there would be no role for embattled Syrian President Bashir Assad in post- war Syria, just as the US and Russia have agreed to a Syrian Conference to end the war; to the Netherlands where a much loved Queen abdicated in favor of her son to become King, the issues above are at work and at play. In Nigeria, state governors with huge security votes, lament and even cry in horror as the lexicon of terrorism expanded bloodily to include Ombatse Cult in Nasarawa state, in a security night mare that started with Boko Haram, and in recent times accommodated Baga and Bama, scenes of gory killings that included innocent women and children. In soccer, the surprise announcement of the retirement of the best Mnager in the world, Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manager of Manchester United, the biggest soccer brand that transcends continents, religion and cultures in terms of global followership was matched by the immediate announcement of his successor, David Moyes, the Manager of Everton . We end with an anecdote which is a faction, a mixture of facts and fiction, on how some leaders succeed to offices they desire, not through the normal succession procedures but through mischief, misinformation and virtual coup detats, even though they are not in the military.

    Again we go back to the Middle East and look at events in Syria and Israel the agent provocateur of Islamic militancy globally, just as Iran is the biggest supporter of global terrorism. That the US and Russia have agreed to a conference is at least a face saving playoff on their inability to decide and agree on what to do to end the bloody carnage in Syria. The US wants the Syrian rebels installed in Damascus but the Russians say they support Assad at all costs and will not allow the sort of exit that the allies inflicted on Gaddafi in Libya over the no flying zone UN resolution that Russia supported then , much to its chagrin and vexation later as Gaddafi was toppled . Either way though, Assad has lost legitimacy and authority over Syria and cannot eve guarantee his own security, not to talk of the security of his nation , which is an extreme negative example of the topic of the day. Israel on the other hand is behaving illegitimately in announcing this week, the building of 300 houses on occupied territories in violation of UN resolutions not to do so. Israel is unwittingly creating insecurity and opprobrium on itself in the way and manner it is misusing authority by building on occupied territories and claiming that this will not affect future peace talks when such news violently provoke Arabs and Muslims globally on a daily basis and attract young ones to bloody jihads to redress the situation in the region.

    The abdication and succession in The Netherlands provide a good example of a smooth transition of authority and legitimacy in a calm and secure environment even though role of the monarchy in The Netherlands is largely ceremonial. Just as it is in Great Britain where this type of transition is equally expected as the aged Queen Elizabeth 11 has started sharing royal duties with the fast ageing Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and heir apparent in the English Royal line of succession.

    Similarly, the retirement and succession story on SirAlex Freguson in Old Trafford is a lesson on the smooth management of transfer of power, authority and legitimacy. The board of Man U asked for and got the recommendation of Sir Alex Ferguson and appointed that nominee as his successor and that is David Moyes. That is management of a soccer club in a secure environment. Compare that with Chelsea where the owner, Abramovich has fired six managers in a row because they lost matches he deemed as important. In fact, he picked Mourinho as Chelsea Manager by announcing that he would pick the Manager of the winning team in the Champions League Final between Monaco and Porto that year – and Mourinho was Manager of Porto which won. He fired the same Mourinho after he was unable to win the Champions League for Chelsea even though he won back to back Premier League titles for Chelsea. That to me is like Management and soccer politics in a war zone. In addition the news of Moyes announcement as Sir Alex Ferguson successor puts paid to Mourinho’s undisguised ambition to manage Man U. Obviously the Board of Man U do not want the war credentials or volatile management style of Mourinho to destabilise the orderliness and solid management success that Sir Alex has taken 26 years to build , to disappear in a jiffy. Hence the safe bet of appointing David Moyes, a son of the soil as it were, to ensure corporate and stable success at Man U.

    In contrast however, killing of 22 Police officers in Nasarawa state on their way to arrest members of the Ombatse Cult said to be notorious for forcing people to take oaths of allegiance to the cult, is a pathetic and sickening one in total negative defiance of the concepts being treated today. In killing Policemen, the Ombatse Cult whose name in the language of the area – Eggon – means ‘ we have just begun‘, has created anarchy in the area. Of course where security fails, as in this case, authority and legitimacy fly out of the window. So who is in charge to bring this blood thirsty cult to book? Is it the police it is killing with impunity; or the state governor who has an undisclosed amount to spend on security but which obviously has not been judiciously spent as Ombatse Cult is on rampage killing policemen? Surely there is a mix up in the understanding and application of the concepts of security and authority in Nasarawa state and this has made the security situation in the state untenable and I pity the people of that state and hope that this dangerous affliction will not spread to other states in the vicinity.

    Lastly, let me share an interesting story on succession politics, in a social institution in defiance of the spirit and order of the above concepts. It is the story of a leader who betrayed the authority that appointed him and took vengeance on another leader that asked the authority that appointed him to sack him for his disloyalty. The target of the vengeance had been leader of the vengeful leader’s team before the vengeful leader was appointed by the authority that he betrayed. The vengeful leader, in anticipation of his removal for his treachery, misinformed the leader of his team that there was a dangerous mutiny in his team and he should relinquish authority quickly and silently for his safety. The harassed and embarrassed leader in the interest of peace acquiesced and left office. Whereon the vengeful leader told members of the team that he was ready for a new office after the loss of his former office for treachery. The unsuspecting team members obliged him and gave him a new office as replacement for the leader he had misinformed to flee for his safety. This to me is a most fascinating story on the use of mendacity to gain power and calumny to sustain it. It flies in the face of integrity, loyalty and lacks any legitimacy. Which is a pity in any social institution as in this very interesting story . Please ponder awhile on the moral of this story, as I have more in the kitty.

     

  • Crisis of leadership and legitimacy

    Crisis of leadership and legitimacy

    It is a big party with a huge power base. It is an oak tree offering shades to antagonistic gladiators. Many of them are often rebellious. The protracted crises ravaging the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its endless, yet unfruitful reconciliation, make the ruling party to wobble on in self-delusion and decay.

    The battered state chapters have no rallying point to look up to for inspiration. Since the crises are overwhelming at the centre more than the distraught state branches, the renewed push for cohesion at that level has no prospect of altering the rigid character of the divided house.

    There are three characteristics of a political party. These are ideology, organisation and leadership. The three features are highly connected. But the PDP, the acclaimed largest party in Africa, lacks ideological outlook. Its lingering leadership crisis has no ideological connotation. Therefore, the party cannot generate ideas for the government it midwifes. Thus, the PDP’s manifestoes shallow. The uniting factors are power retention and power consolidation for personal gains. Although the party has structures created by its constitution, they are severely weakened by the power-loaded PDP President, who as the national party leader, has assumed the status of the alpha and omega.

    Except the pioneer chairman, Chief Solomon Lar, other chairmen emerged, following the endorsement of their candidature by the President. In the party, the word of the National Leader is law. He brooks no opposition. In the Second Republic, the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) fully subscribed to the idea of the party caucus, of which the President was a member. Its members met under the national chairman. I this dispensation, it is an outdated idea. The party secretariat, literarily, is the President’s bedroom.

    The root of the rot is the weak political culture, which has made democratisation of the political parties a herculean task. Party discipline in the First and Second Republics aptly mirrored the “leadership discipline”. But the regional or ethnically-based political parties were built around personalities who were perceived as ethnic champions. Thus, as recalled by the former PDP chairman, Chief Barnabas Gemade, “ the whole idea of political leadership in Nigeria has been based on regional politics, zonal politics and tribal politics, up to 1999 when we began to float national political parties”.

    “The stability of political leadership in administering those parties in the past was because parties were formed and owned by a group of people that were homogenous. But today, we have started seeing parties constructed around people from different backgrounds, different callings in life, different political ideologies, coming together to form one political party,” he stressed.

    Gemade stressed that a national party, which is a product of political dynamism, creates opportunities for the scramble for political control. “You begin to see sectoral conspiracies and, since it has been said that politics itself is a series on the concentric circles of conspiracies and when those things are no longer circles, then, there are compartments of conspiracies, then you also begin to see a lot of agitation internally about ascendancy and descendancy and here, PDP has suffered this more than other political parties because it is much more difficult to forge homogeneity, especially in a political party like the PDP,” he added.

    With the emergence of PDP, which has a national outlook, came the challenge of democratic party leadership evolution. The party would have naturally tried the path of surmounting the challenge, if its first national leader was not retired soldier, who could not adjust to the requirement of democratic civilian life.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s meddlesomeness in the party management had becone an integral part of party culture inherited by one of his successors, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. Just as the former President virtually stamped the candidature of Gemade, Ogbeh, and Ali, President Jonathan also insisted on the current chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur. Thus, in the PDP, the national chairman is like the President’s appointee.

    The implications are not farfetched. Whenever the succession battle of the President is factored into the considerations for the national chairmanship, internal democracy is the first casualty. Also, when the majority of the party chieftains are forced to embrace and relate with the party leadership that did not evolve democratically from majority consent, the chairman will always swim in the pool of legitimacy crisis.

    There is the thinking that Tukur has given the office some mileage. Should he be pushed out, as being suggested in some circles, the party will continue to swim in crises.