The Undue Censure of Prof Iwu
Prof. Maurice Iwu, the present chairman of the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC), once lived in the Washington, DC area. In
my earlier, periodic meetings with him, I observed that he is a very
brilliant man. Subsequently, as I became the General Secretary of
Nwannedinamba Association in the Americas, I met him more frequently at
the association’s meetings and other events. Then, I realized that he is
also a confident and eloquent speaker and an equable man who can remain
cool under heat.
The name of the association, Nwannedinamba which loosely translates to
brotherhood in the Diaspora, denotes the mission of the organization.
Its mission was to rally the Igbo in the Washington Metropolitan area
together in brotherhood. Due to ideological differences, I had a few
run-ins with the older members (including Prof. Iwu) of the organization
that essentially controlled the association. I was not enamored of this
group. Understandably, therefore, I am not a fan of the professor, and I
am not holding briefs for him. Nevertheless, I believe that to a
considerable extent, he has been unduly censured.
The reports of both the international and local election observers are
eloquent testimonies that the April 2007 general election did not meet
international standards. To deepen democracy in Nigeria, we need to
learn from the problems that beset the election by objectively reviewing
what went wrong with it. Instead, it seems that Nigerians scoured the
horizon for a scapegoat, and found one, Prof Maurice Iwu. To fault one
man for what was essentially a failure of an entire political system is
unconscionable. To believe or insinuate that all that went wrong with
the 2007 general election can be blamed on one man is monumental
nonsense. The elections were flawed for reasons that go beyond the
capabilities and culpability of any one individual.
A detailed and rigorous analysis of all the issues that undermined the
fairness and freeness of that election is beyond the scope of this
writing. However, it is important to note that there were a number of
factors beyond the control of the INEC and its chairman that militated
against the transparency of the elections. For one, there were
entrenched interests that were opposed to the conduct of an up to
standard election at the time. These interests coupled with the
institutional, structural and attitudinal problems of the Nigerian
society contributed immensely to the troubles that attended the
elections.
As president, Olusegun Obasanjo had dictatorial aspirations. He was
contemptuous of both the constitution and the laws. He despised court
rulings and sought to usurp the powers of the legislature. He bullied
and intimidated powerful politicians, including state governors and
legislative leaders. For his party’s (Peoples Democratic Party)“primaries”, he, in his characteristic military fashion, barked his
orders at the PDP governors, and they all obeyed unquestioningly. With
his “do or die” mode of politics, he muscled through his plan to remain
a power behind the throne by forcing the election of his loyalists in
key national and state offices; inexorably hamstringing the impartiality
of the whole election process. What was expected of Prof. Iwu, an
Obasanjo appointee? To defy the president, stand in his way or trespass
on his usurped prerogatives?
It was not in the interest of the power establishment for the INEC to
hold a free and fair election. The INEC has no financial independence.
It depends on the government for its budget. Its preparedness for the
April 2007 elections was contingent on the government and its objectives
and mission subject to the manipulation of the presidency and PDP
powerbrokers. An unpopular autocratic president plotting to extend his
stay in power in violation of the constitutional could not have
encouraged the conduct of a credible election, as that would result to
his rejection at the polls. Once his Third Term bid failed, his need to
rule by proxy, by imposing his political protégés on the country, became
paramount. Nigerians were not in agreement with his preferred
candidates, and would have rebuffed most of them with their votes. So,
to successfully foist his candidates on the people, INEC could not have
been tasked to hold elections that will accurately reflect the will of
the people.
It is unfortunately true that Nigeria is a lawless country. Nigerian
politicians are unabashedly disdainful of the law and their conducts are
utterly devoid of moral and ethical sensibilities. They lack discipline
and political maturity. They squabbled and bickered endlessly.
Intra-party wrangling and intrigues resulted in the elimination and
substitution of nominees, even just a few days before elections. INEC
had no choice, but to accept the parties’ choices of candidates.
Recently, the Election Tribunals nullified elections due to these last
minute and unlawful removals and replacements of candidates who had
earlier won the party primaries. To now condemn INEC for what was
totally an intra-party affair is grossly unfair.
Secondly, the law enforcement agencies failed to contain the political
parties’ resort to thuggery and violence. Brutal and violent, political
party thugs tried to aggressively impose their party’s will on the
electorate and to intimidate and victimize the supporters of rival
political parties. Such party sponsored hooliganism and hostility
undercut the performance of election officials. It frightened and in
some case dissuaded prospective voters from voting, disrupted the voting
process and give latitude for all forms of election malpractices.
The Nigerian police, ill-equipped, ill-trained and under-paid are a
rag-tag band of shiftless and unenthusiastic men and women. They have
not been particularly successful with any law enforcement assignment.
Naturally, they also failed in their assigned roles in the general
election. The inefficiency and corruption of the police force, and their
consequent ineptitude, slothfulness and acquiescence to election
irregularities by political parties were factors that marred the
elections that were beyond the control of either INEC or its chairman.
In addition, the general corruption of the Nigerian society resulted in
polling station workers, including some INEC staffs being compromised by
political parties, thus permitting rigging and other election wrongdoing
at some polling stations.
Nigeria is a fledging democracy. She has not outlived her undemocratic
past. The institutional anchors of democracy are yet to be fully
established and developed. Vestiges of past military despotism continue
to hold sway on the country. There remains an inordinate concentration
of wealth and power in the hands of an Oligarchy who resist changes that
will enfranchise and empower the people, and thus, weaken their own grip
on the levers of power. Still not weaned from the mindset engendered by
long periods of military dictatorship, the Nigerian masses are
politically apathetic. They lack confidence in the democratic process
and fail to appreciate their civic rights and responsibilities.
Secondly, the politicians, with their rustic political skills, vicious
instincts and crudity, lack civility and refinement. In addition, the
police force is an institution populated by incompetents, dispirited by
under-payment and enervated by graft.
Collectively, all these factors contributed to the lapses in the April
2007 general election. To ignore this incontrovertible truth and choose
to blame everything that went wrong with the election on Prof. Maurice
Iwu is an appalling perversion of facts.
By Tochukwu Ezukanma
By Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria.