Imo Guber Election: Ohakim and Perception of Impropriety
By Martin Ajaero
Republicanism as a political philosophy or ideology vests the ultimate power of the state on its electorate. This is especially true in a democratic republic such as Nigeria and encompasses all of its constituent states and local government areas. If we agree on this basic foundational matter, then, it follows that governors of states are not Monarchs and are not to be installed as such, by those who have power and influence or plutocrats. The Imo State gubernatorial election of April 28, 2007 may have been an instance of a coronation instead of an election. This view, if confirmed, is diametrically opposed to the basic building blocks and values of the democratic system of government.
In defense of the country’s fragile democracy, the courts must stand tall as they have in other cases in teasing out the evil machinations of a corrupt few whose desires to win at all costs undermine the public interest. The people decide and legitimacy is confirmed through the ballot box. Legitimacy in a democracy is not a function of some powerful individual’s interest or instructions out of Abuja, but rather, it is a derivative function of the collective decision of the people. To believe or do otherwise, in a democracy, is an oxymoron that must be shunned.
A general framework that is supreme and guides all actions in a democracy is generally known as the constitution. The constitution gives rise to the establishment of documents, enactments, statues, and acts, to address specific situations. An example is the 2006 Nigerian Electoral Act which spelled out the nation’s election laws and guidelines. The court’s role, in addition to interpreting the laws of the land is ensuring that those entrusted with the powers of government are fair and judicious in its use as well as in making sure that the laws are faithfully carried out. The citizen takes comfort in knowing the laws are written, transparent and available to all who may have a need to refer to it for verification or clarification of certain issues. And as is often the case, the courts are occasionally invited to interpret the law when parties disagree or have different or varying interpretations of it.
Generally, there is a direct correlation between the democratic system of government and litigiousness. This is the reason why presidential democracies have three tiers to it; namely, the executive, legislative, and judiciary. It is actually by design that the judiciary is a robust and intelligent part of the system. The design envisaged conflicts and provided the aggrieved citizen, avenue for equitable relief rather than taking matters into their own hands. The citizen who feels wronged by the action of another has the absolute right to request a judicial hearing without any discouragement or inhibitions from anyone no matter how knowing they are or claim to be. And so is the case of Chief Martin Agbaso who by every reasonable measure and calculation may have been wronged and has followed due process as prescribed by law.
Chief Martin Agbaso believes he was robbed of victory in the Imo gubernatorial election of April 14, 2007. Disagree with his postulation as you may but, agree that a judicial intervention is not only necessary but is needed as the only avenue afforded to him under our laws to have his grievance all sorted out. No matter where one comes down in this particular case; if we are to get somewhere in our democratic experiment, we must all agree that Chief Agbaso is entitled to a hearing on the substance of his case and no one should do anything to scuttle a judicial examination of the evidence and an honest interpretation of the facts under the rubric of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the 2006 Nigerian Electoral Act.
The more Governor Ohakim and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) fights to prevent a hearing by the court, the more a reasonable person would wonder why? A reasonable person might wonder for example, if there was something sinister that went on during the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial election that lead to the abbreviation of that election. Was there an unwholesomeness directed by some invisible hand?
In our system of government, it is well within the proper province of the courts to find the answer to that question. Clearing up this matter will reassure the citizens and give them hope that their democracy will endure. Citizens have the right to be outraged at the unnecessary but deliberate conflation of facts by those opposed to allowing a judicial review of the substantive evidence of the case. Why would a democrat not want a hearing that proves their legitimacy? It simply boggles the mind. Are the laws made only for those at the lower rung of the ladder? Can Nigeria live up to the true meaning of its creed by exempting those powerful and mighty individuals who violate her laws with impunity?
Without equivocations or fear of contradiction, it is totally untrue that the Election Tribunal sitting in Owerri or the Election Appeals Tribunal sitting in Port-Harcourt have heard the substance of the case and ruled against Chief Agbaso. The people have a right to at least a minimum threshold level of honesty from their supposedly elected officials. Why would governor Ohakim and INEC’s lawyers stoop so low to make the argument that the substance of Chief Agbaso’s case against INEC has been heard and therefore postulate that an Abuja Court of Appeals hearing is unnecessary? Their argument is dishonest to say the least.
If we are to believe them, then, they should answer the question whether or not INEC has the authority to cancel an election that was more than halfway completed and cite their source from the decisions of the very Courts that they referenced? Answering this question is the central tenet of Chief Agbaso’s case. Is it because the governor and INEC’s lawyers believe Nigerians are so ignorant or too stupid to understand what the courts said or were they deliberately conflating the fact to bore us?
What the courts have said is that they do not have the authority to hear Chief Agbaso’s case because, his case did not arise out of the April 28, 2007 redo election but rather that his case arose out of the April 14, 2007 election for which they were not authorized to entertain. In other words, they were impaneled only to hear issues arising out of the April 28, 2007 election. No one could reasonably infer or interpret these courts decisions to mean that the substance of Chief Agbaso’s case was heard unless of course the individual has some sort of a psychiatric disorder. So, it is bunkum and a total fabrication for anyone to conclude or insinuate that the substance of Chief Agbaso’s case was heard. If the substance of the case has not been heard by any court, then, it follows that their must be some court in the land competent to hear his case. It only makes sense, doesn’t it?
From my reading of the case, Chief Agbaso simply wants to know why the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial election was cancelled. This is a simple and reasonable request. The reason given to Nigerians that there was violence in 9 of the 27 local government areas of Imo State defies logic and common sense. The state house of assembly elections that were held pari-pasu were not affected by the same violence that supposedly marred the gubernatorial election that was held on the same day and at the same time.
INEC’s mendacity that it was violence that led to the abbreviation of the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial elections was a betrayal of a sacred covenant with Nigerians to operate honestly and above board. Their reason is beyond stretching the truth, it is total baloney. There has to be a more intelligent and cogent explanation of why the Imo gubernatorial election was cancelled, after all, it shared the same time, space, and resources with the state house of assembly elections. The people of Nigeria are far more intelligent for INEC’s crass explanation. We deserve a better explanation and it is now up to the Nigerian Supreme Court to direct that we have such a hearing. I have the utmost confidence that it will be so.
Does the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its Chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu, have the authority under the Nigerian Constitution and/or the 2006 Nigerian Electoral laws to cancel an election that was more than 70 percent completed. Having read the relevant portions of both documents, I did not see that this authority exists for them. I am now more inclined to believe that the law may have been violated. This case warrants the court’s urgent attention. From my vantage point as an ordinary citizen of the federal republic of Nigeria, this issue is of such consequence and import that a judicial interpretation is not only necessary but inevitable and here are some of the reasons why:
The Imo gubernatorial election of April 14, 2007 is a test case which if properly settled will save the country billions of naira in legal fees and jousting. It will free up the courts’ time for other very important businesses arising not only from the previous election cycle but also from future election cycles. The Courts will devote more time to other non election related matters and save the country money from having to sit for protracted periods hearing election disputes such as in the instant case.
Imagine a scenario where the court fails to address the issue of whether or not INEC has the authority under our laws to cancel an election that was more than 70 percent completed for no apparent reason. This is a nightmare scenario that will encourage future lawsuits and challenges when similar situations arise. But, if this issue becomes dicta, i.e., settled law, the citizens will know when INEC is within their proper province and INEC on its part will know the limits of its authority. This is reason enough for the court to hear the case and settle it.
Another reason why it is in the country’s interest to get to the bottom of this matter by having a hearing is the apparent quid pro quo that was reported in the Vanguard newspaper of November 12, 2008 by Mr. Virginus Ugochukwu. His article was titled U.S. Election, Imo Governorship and Iwu’s Debauchery. He wrote and I quote, “not surprisingly, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt at the tribunal that Iwu’s INEC dispatched election materials to Imo State a day after the election was supposed to have taken place. It was under such massive fraud that Ohakim came to power. Chief Victor Umeh was unequivocal in saying that “at the April 2007 election, Ohakim’s 10,000 votes suddenly shot up to 700,000 votes in two weeks.”
The same article by Mr. Ugochukwu alleges that Professor Maurice Iwu in return for installing Ohakim as governor of Imo State, received and I quote, “nothing less than the agreed number of political appointments which included the Professor’s immediate younger brother, Cosmos Iwu, as Secretary to the State Government (SSG), his daughter, Mrs. Ada-Nwafor (Nee Iwu) as Executive Assistant to the Governor, his brother-in-law, Mr. Vitalis Ukaegbu, as Commissioner and a host of others who constitute what is now referred to as the Iwu clan in Imo Government.”
Mr. Ugochukwu’s allegations are worth an examination by the court for it may have a direct bearing on why the April 14, 2007 Imo gubernatorial election was cancelled. It also might shed further light on why Governor Ohakim is arguing against judicial review and examination of the evidence. While the wheel of justice grinds slowly, it generally bends towards justice. If in the end, the Governor won the Imo gubernatorial election free and square, he would have our collective and complete support and admiration. For now however, he has to prove it.
It is against this backdrop that Governor Ohakim seeks to prevent Chief Agbaso’s case from being heard. The democratic thing to do is to allow anyone who questions his legitimacy to have their day in Court. The Abuja Court of Appeals agreed with this conclusion when it ruled in favor of a hearing. The Abuja Court of Appeals concluded there is an important issue, a live issue, in Chief Agbaso’s lawsuit that the court must decide. Rather than accept the opportunity to prove his legitimacy to those subject to his authority, Governor Ohakim, appealed the Abuja Court of Appeals decision to the Nigerian Supreme Court. The governor’s behavior, I fear, is antithetical to democracy and raises numerous questions.
A simple analogy might help the reader understand how ridiculous the Governor’s position is and the perception of impropriety that flows from his arguments. Imagine that someone accuses a referee of helping you win a game and drags the referee before a court of law. You, who would be most affected by the court’s decision, without being sued, petitions the court to allow you to join in defense of the referee because you understand an adverse judgment against the referee will have consequences for you. The court agreed and granted your request. Rather than provide evidence that proves you did nothing wrong and that you followed the rules and properly won the game, you argue to the court, not to hear the case because it is a waste of its time. And even when told by the court, it is not a waste of its time, that they will hear the case. You disagreed with them and ran to the highest court in the land to make the same arguments. This is exactly Governor Ohakim’s defense strategy. This line of argument not only looks bad for the governor, it stinks. It creates in many minds, a perception of impropriety.
Nigerians are befuddled and appalled at the Governor’s legal defense strategy now more than ever. Nigerians are more suspicious of the legitimacy of the Imo State governor more than ever. One understands that an adverse ruling against INEC would mean that he is no longer going to be Governor. The subsequent loss of his power, prestige and influence can not begin to compare with the restoration of the peoples hope in their democracy that may have been desecrated on the alter of greed by a few. While it is in the governor’s interest to apply every trick in the book to delay or prevent a hearing, it is not in the interest of the people of Imo state vis-à-vis Nigeria to prevent or prolong when a hearing is heard.
Those who read the Abuja Court of Appeals ruling and the arguments made by the governor’s lawyers and INEC’s lawyers cannot help but be horrified by their arguments. Their arguments can be decomposed into four component parts:
· Chief Agbaso’s case is a waste of the court’s time,
· Chief Agbaso’s case is an abuse of judicial proceeding,
· The Abuja Court of Appeals does not have the authority to hear the case,
· The Elections and Appeals Tribunal sitting at Owerri and Port-Harcourt respectively have already ruled on the matter and therefore there is no need for the higher court to hear the case even though they know their argument was claptrap.
Again, contemporaneous in these arguments is a perception problem for the governor. Would it not be entirely appropriate for anyone to conclude that the Governor may not have leveled with the people of Nigeria and that there may have been some unwholesomeness that occurred on April 14, 2007? It is clear from the governor arguments that he is not interested in proving his legitimacy. His efforts thus far have been geared towards preventing the case from being heard.
In building a just and prosperous society there must be a belief amongst the citizenry that playing by the rules does eventually pay off. No citizen should ever be made to feel that committing a crime is the only way to achieve success. If it becomes a general feeling, it is the case, then all is lost. No matter how herculean the task may be, we should always keep the public interest above all other interests. It is the corruption and arrogance of power by a few that threatens the collective aspirations of all. We must remember that deeply embedded in the individual is absolute self interest which does not always equal the public interest. The role of government in addition to all its numerous other functions is to check individual excesses. It is their categorical imperative.
Martin Ajaero
Dallas, Texas
