Deconstructing the Imo Gubernatorial Election Result and Logic – Professor Maurice Iwu and Governor Ikedi Ohakim, - Fallacies and Myths
By Martin Ajaero
Did Professor Maurice Mmaduakolam Iwu act in contemplation of law when he cancelled the Imo gubernatorial election of April 14, 2007? The Nigerian Electoral Act of 2006 is very clear on when an election can be postponed. It is now left to the citizens of Imo State and Nigeria to read Clause Part IV, section 27, subsection 1-5 of the Electoral Act of 2006 and determine if the minimum threshold requirement for postponement of an election was met. It is also the collective duty of every Nigerian to weigh in on a case that is so clear of its injustice it shocks the conscience. While the lawyers joust at the Abuja Court of Appeals, the ordinary citizens of this country have the common sense to separate facts from fiction. As regarding the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial election, Nigerians are interested in the legalisms of the lawyers and the academic exercises of the finest intellectuals that money can buy ‘only’ to the extent that the truth is eventually discovered and the wrong done to the people of Imo State and Chief Martin Agbaso is righted and in a comprehensive way.
Chief Martin Agbaso’s case is as clear and simple as it gets. It does not require the legal sophistry usually reserved for the more complicated cases where the law is either, silent, unclear or indeterminable. As I see it, Chief Agbaso’s case is an example of where an individual in authority changed the outcome of an election in total disregard of the law, for the sole purpose of furthering zonal interest. It is undoubtedly an example of arrogance of power. The law envisaged dire situations such as a natural disaster, serious breach of the peace, or, emergencies of the kind where it would be impossible to carry out the task of conducting an election successfully as requisite conditions for postponing an election. The law did not allow for the manufacture of reasons or excuses to cancel an election that was well underway and by all accounts peaceful and perhaps determinative. In reading the Act, in respect of this issue, it provided for ‘postponement’ and not for ‘total cancellation’ and there is an important difference.
For purposes of this argument, whereas, postponement connotes putting something off until at a later time or date and implicit in the idea is that you will return to it and begin from where you stopped; cancellation on the other hand connotes stopping something completely from happening for example, ending a contract or starting all over. As I read the Act, the intention was not to start all over (i.e., beginning afresh) in cases of election irregularities or violence. The intention of the Act is to begin from where an election was stopped and in respect of the affected area or areas. Clause Part IV, section 27 (1), makes this point and is replicated here for the benefit of the reader. It reads,
“Where a date has been appointed for the holding of an election, and there is reason to believe that a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur if the election is proceeded with on that date or it is impossible to conduct the elections as a result of natural disasters or other emergencies, the Commission may postpone the election and shall in respect of the area, or areas concerned, appoint another date for the holding of the postponed election”.
Going by Professor Iwu’s decision to cancel the Imo gubernatorial election, there must have been a serious breach of the peace, a natural disaster, or other emergencies as articulated by the Electoral Act. If we are to believe him, we the citizens of Nigeria must ask the question, whose responsibility is it in a civil society to declare when a serious breach of the peace, a natural disaster or other statewide emergencies have occurred? Would it be the proper function of the Chairman of a supposed Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to do so, or is this function well within the province of the State Governor, which at the time, was Chief Achike Udenwa or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the advice and counsel of the state governor?
Is it the proper function of the Chairman of an electoral body to determine that a serious breach of the peace, a natural disaster, or other emergencies have occurred in any state of the federation without the consent and acquiescence of the governing authorities of that state? Shouldn’t the Chairman’s decision to cancel an election that was well underway be predicated on the state’s conclusion and declaration that a serious breach of the peace was likely to occur, or that a natural disaster or other emergencies have occurred? It is my view that while the 2006 Electoral Act gives the Commission the authority to postpone an election given certain conditions, it did not give the Commission the authority to determine the condition or to declare it. In a democracy, the conditions are determined by the civil authorities of the state.
If we accept, Professor Iwu’s foreknowledge of events, and conclusion of the situation in Imo State on April 14, 2007, then, we must ask the question, how were the citizens of Imo State informed of the natural disaster, or, of the emergency or, of the serious breach of the peace? What were the citizens asked to do following the announcement? Where were the citizens asked to take shelter? What was the executive order number for the declaration? Which radio or television stations were used to inform the citizens of the emergency? Which hospitals or relief agencies were present in Imo State on April 14, 2007 to cater for the dead or wounded? Better yet, how many people were arrested by the police as proof of serious breach of the peace?
Is it possible to have a real emergency, such as a natural disaster or serious breach of the peace in any state of the federation that is not heard in any other state of the federation? Is it really possible that an emergency of the type envisioned in the Electoral Act of 2006 for postponement of an election could occur in Imo State and the news is not carried by the local news media or any national newspapers, radio or television stations? I don’t know the answer to these questions but, I do know one thing, it would be the end of intellectual life if we don’t ask these questions and find honest answers to them. If Iraq and Afghanistan could hold elections successfully given their failed state and foreign occupation status, with exploding bombs and munitions near or at polling stations, why can’t Professor Maurice Mmaduakolam Iwu carry out a simple gubernatorial election, which comparatively speaking, happened in an atmosphere of relative tranquility?
The circumstances that were presented on April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial elections were the same and yet, different reasons were given for the different results for the state house of assembly and gubernatorial elections. Both elections shared pari-pa.su , the same polling booths, time, space, and resources and yet, the state house of assembly election was certified as having met the minimum standards required by law. The governorship election, we were told, could not be so certified because it was marred by violence. The citizens of Imo State and indeed the entire country are not delusional and if anyone is, it would be the Professor who believes he can pull this nonsense off. I am once again reminded of the famous statement of the abolitionist, Fredrick Douglas, which is that ‘power concedes nothing without a demand’. Perhaps, we the people must now make a demand of Professor Iwu before he can really understand the gravity of his action and his folly in the Imo gubernatorial election.
Professor Mmaduakolam Iwu is a tragic individual who does not understand that power has limits and that ‘man must know his limitations’ to draw from Clint Eastwood’s “the good, the bad, and the ugly”. The Abuja Appeals Court must now ensure that he learns this lesson. The Professor has for so long been involved in these high level algorithms that are inimical to the people of Nigeria. In state after state, the courts have overturned election outcomes that he oversaw. And, in the Imo gubernatorial election, he was completely devoid of common sense. The professor’s math in Imo State simply did not add up, and will not add up no matter how one slices or dices it. It is now in the hands of the Abuja Court of Appeals to deconstruct the mathematics of this innumerate Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission. At the Abuja Court of Appeals, both Governor Ohakim and Professor Iwu have a rendezvous with destiny. They may emerge as common criminals or as victors, but, I am hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the later could be true. It would be indeed a travesty of justice were it to happen.
Let’s think about this a little bit. How does a college professor not know that individual intervention in a contested election, even if one has the noblest intensions, would immediately result in accusations of favoritism and nepotism? Which political textbook was the professor reading from, that informed him he could intervene in a contested election as Chairman of INEC? Take the example of the 2000 US Presidential election (Gore vs. Bush). Were there not people in authority in the US who could have easily used their position to determine an outcome in favor of one candidate? Why didn’t they do that? Professor Iwu’s lack of sagacity and discernment in this matter concerns me greatly. He is without a doubt, the wrong person for the job and should not be allowed to count another vote or touch another ballot box. He should be summarily dismissed by the Nigerian Senate. President Yar Adua should bring the full force and weight of the presidency to bear on the Senate and end this national embarrassment and nightmare.
In our system of government, the court is the impartial agent who must interpret our laws and decide conflicts. We the people gave the Court this function. By design, they must operate from a veil of ignorance. It is called separation of powers. Why didn’t Professor Iwu wait for the Court to render a decision in the Agbaso litigation before it before declaring Ohakim, Governor? Chief Agbaso had immediately filed a petition with the Court following Professor Iwu’s announcement of the cancellation of the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial election. Professor Iwu trampled on the Court’s authority and proceeded with the April 28, 2007 arrangement in Imo State. The judiciary must now throw the book at him. Professor Iwu was intent on aiding and abetting his kinsman, Governor Ikedi Ohakim, which was why he couldn’t wait for the court to decide. Our democracy cannot survive if this behavior shown by Professor Iwu in furtherance of self and zonal interest is allowed without peril.
As do many other citizens, I am interested in the legal opinion that was given to Professor Iwu by INEC lawyers in respect of the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial elections prior to his cancellation of the election. What advice was he given pertaining to his authority to cancel an election that was about 70 percent completed? Was such an advice given? And, if it was, what statue or act or law was it based on? And, if it was not, why not? It would be unimaginable to think that a decision to cancel the election had no legal input from INEC lawyers. Did the Chairman of INEC shoot from the hip in the matter pertaining to the cancellation of the Imo governorship election of April 14, 2007? We, the people, need to know.
Can this nation afford to have policymakers who make decisions and policies of great significance and far reaching consequences without due recourse to the law as their guide? If someone had read the Electoral Act to Professor Iwu, perhaps, the cost on society of his indiscretion would have been avoided. It should be required that all actions of government and affiliated agencies and commissions be based on a sound reading of the law. The citizens must aspire to know the law and should challenge at every turn violations of it regardless of who the violator(s) may be or whose ox is gored.
Citizens, as praetorian guards are keepers and defenders of our laws and must ensure that our sacred covenant with those who govern are respected and protected. This is our democratic imperative as citizens and there can be no higher responsibility for the good citizen. Chief Agbaso is an excellent example of the citizen understanding the law and challenging violations of it. He played by the rule and must not suffer for doing what is right. We must appreciate what he is doing for the sustenance of our democracy and encourage him and others like him.
It takes enormous resources to take on powerful interests as in the instant case where an individual of modest means has gone up against INEC with its deep pockets, a sitting governor with the resources of state, and a Senator of the Federal Republic whose financial exploits are very well known. One is likely to run out of money in pursuit of justice. Therefore, it is in our collective interest as citizens to aid those without the resources of state or institutions such as INEC, who nevertheless feel a compulsion for justice.
Chief Martin Agbaso’s determination to expose those who robbed him of his mandate in Imo State and to reclaim it for the people of the state, the associated cost in terms of time and resources is an excellent example of how exacting the price and process can be. To those who have made such sacrifices, and those who continue to make them, we owe our appreciation and enormous debt of gratitude. I ask all citizens of this country that whenever you can, and wherever you may be, please donate free legal services, money, and time, to this kind of effort championed by Chief Martin Agbaso and others like him. You will be doing your part to ensure our democracy endures. Working together, we will meet any challenge and pay any price. Through serendipity, the Abuja Court of Appeals will make the right decision for the people of Imo State and Nigeria. You can feel that something is already stirring in Imo state and many other states delivered from the work product of the evil genius.
Ironically, those whose silly actions and perversions have cost all of us so dearly, soldier on, unperturbed by the stress they put on the system and the cost we all have to bear. Rather than encouraging a quick resolution of matters pertaining to their legitimacy in office, they throw up road blocks to keep the citizens from finding out the truth. They brag about their contacts, their connections, and their ability to use money to block the truth from being discovered. Their subordinates promise sure defeat for those who dared go up against them. What they fail to realize is that our democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder and that government can only work with the consent of the governed.
While the citizen who played by the rules fall further behind, those who failed to play by the rule gets father ahead and occupy positions of authority in government and in business. These serial violators of our laws use their positions achieved through Machiavellian means to instruct and judge the more moral citizens. What an irony. We, however, must not despair. If we continue to challenge manifest and not manifest evil, we will build a more perfect union built on accountability, honor, truth, and a descent respect for the opinion of all persons and our democracy shall endure.
We as democrats must press on, realizing that at issue is not what Chief Martin Agbaso told his people of Emekuku, it is not how hard he celebrated his February 26, 2009 Appeals Court victory, and it is certainly not why he participated in the sham arrangement of April 28, 2007, as if, his participation disqualified him. These esoteric and peripheral arguments are the work products of money. We know that at issue is the legitimacy of Governor Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State and the role played by the evil genius in total disregard of our laws and in producing an outcome in Imo State that is anything but democratic.
Written in solidarity with democratic forces of Nigeria.
Martin Ajaero
Dallas, Texas
