BySKC Ogbonia,
Ph.D.SKCOgbonnia@firsttexasenergy.comHouston, Texas
One of the earliest lessons I learned from my father, Ilogebe Ogbonnia, the Ikeoha, is that a
habit of excuses is an existential catalyst for failure. Nowhere is this
adage more evident than the attitude of Nigerian opposition parties toward
the Independent National Election Commission (INEC). Perhaps it is no
longer news that the INEC has been the common excuse for failures in the
different elections in the Fourth Republic. But with the 2015 general
elections around the corner, and even in midst of efforts in the National
Assembly to amend electoral laws, recent events show that the opposition
is already positioning a fore excuse for another failure. This problem is
rooted on the long-standing scape-goating of the different chairmen of the
Nigerian electoral body and its officials. Even though such excuse is
genuine, it masks an inner foolishness for the opposition not to have
recognized that expecting a commission fully controlled by a partisan
executive arm of the government to produce free and fair elections is no
different from perceiving a stench as an aroma. The case of Maurice Iwu,
the chairman of Independent National Election Commission (INEC) in the
controversial elections of 2007 is still fresh in our memory. In the eyes
of the opposition, Professor Maurice Iwu was the problem and the problem
was Professor Iwu. President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan obliged and swiftly
replaced Iwu with Attahiru Jega, another radical professor, then generally
hailed as the Election Messiah. Yet, after 2011 elections, we are back to
square one. According to Muhammadu Buhari of CPC, the main opponent of
President Jonathan in the 2011 elections, What happened in this year’s
elections eclipsed all the other elections in the depth and scope of
forgery and rigging. Initially there were high hopes that after 2003 and
2007 a semblance of electoral propriety would be witnessed. The new
chairman of INEC, Professor Jega, was touted as competent and a man of
integrity. He has proved neither. (As quoted in Vanguard Newspaper,
December 28, 2011) For the national chairman of the then frontline
opposition party, Action Congress of Nigeria, Bisi Akande: The intention
of the INEC was to have it right, but what you see is total manipulation
particularly by the security agencies and the lower level of INEC staff
because the PDP induced people with plenty of money. They managed to use
money to manipulate the INEC officials at the lower level of the
commission and they used them to intimidate and to falsify the results of
the election. (As quoted in Daily Sun, April 15, 2011) To cap it all,
after the 2014 Anambra governorship election, widely seen as the pretest
of Nigeria’s general elections of 2015, the opposition (including PDP in
this case) also accused the INEC of colluding with security agents to rig
the elections in favor of the state ruling APGA. The PDP candidate, Tony
Nwonye, had this to say: Since the history of elections, I have always
known of a conspiracy by incumbents, but this one by Peter Obi is
monumental. I have never seen an election where the security agent and the
INEC collude to subdue other political parties. (As quoted in Daily Post,
November 17, 2013) This sweeping rebuke of INEC by the political elites is
a rude awakening. The inmost gist is that the problem has gone nowhere
despite the replacement of a distinguished professor with another. It
apparently explains why a broad spectrum of observers has continued to
ridicule the degree of the mass ignorance. A maverick senator, Arthur
Nzeribe, jumpstarted the debate by arguing that the serial attempts to
focus solely on the perceived individual abilities of the chairman rather
than the nucleus of the problem was height of hypocrisy (This Day, January
26, 2009). An unbiased umpire, the Rev. Fr. Mathew Kukah followed by
cautioning that the mere replacement of Maurice Iwu, the individual, would
not always guarantee free and fair elections in the future—noting that,
“the very fact that we say we are looking for a person of integrity does
not mean that anybody that gets there would not become a crook” (As quoted
in Sunday Guardian, March 29, 2009). And Professor Okon Uya, a former
chairman of National Electoral Commission, would later place the matter
exactly how and where it belongs: There is no gainsaying that a leader
with deep sense of independence and fairness is desirable for the headship
of the electoral commission, but the success of any election is far beyond
the ability of a single individual (Daily Sun, February 28, 2011). Unless
it is enmeshed in sheer amnesia, these incisive viewpoints were sufficient
to have provoked the opposition to think otherwise. After all, virtually
all heads of Nigeria’s electoral commission in history have been men
with outstanding pedigrees before appointment. That is, even if the
president is to appoint a given chairman that is most credible, who
checkmates him or her to ensure that the real goals and objectives of the
electoral commission are being fulfilled? Other than the national
chairman, who are the other electoral officers at the national and zonal
levels, in the states, local governments, wards, and in the polling
booths? How credible, how efficient, and how independent are these
electoral officers? Who are the contractors and other personnel vested
with the responsibility of providing the logistics for the elections? How
independent and neutral are the security agents and Judiciary in the
process of these Nigerian elections? A review of the last Electoral
Reform Committee (ERC) suggests that some of these questions might have
been hovering in the minds of its members when they recommended among
other things the following: a) the National Judicial Council should
appoint the chairman b) the commission should include members of
independent organizations, such as the Labor Union or the News-Media.
While those considerations have their merits, the question remains: who
are these individuals that would work hand in hand with the
chairman—agents of the ruling party or the opposition? How will the
so-called National Judicial Council be different from judges or other
electoral agents who are always manipulated by the party in power? How
many truly independent members of the Labor Union or the News-Media are
there to recruit? How many independent NLC or pressmen are available and
can abandon their jobs to man the over 120,000 polling booths? It is true
that INEC eventually recruited members of the National Youth Service Corps
(NYSC) as Ad-hoc staff in the 2011 elections, but how can such susceptible
inexperienced staff (usually in their mid-twenties) not be easily
intimidated and influenced by powerful party agents and money bags at the
polling booths as were alleged in the pilot exercise of 2011? Another
scheme used in the 2011 elections was the deployment of highly placed
university professors as Resident Electoral Commissioners. But does the
opposition expect these university dons to be so different from most
failed politicians, who had also distinguished themselves in previous
careers before turning to politics? How do they expect that the university
recruits would not be wholly subservient to the ruling parties at the
states where their universities are located? Any honest answer to any of
these endless questions will reveal that while the INEC and its various
personnel might have role to play in the different electoral malpractices,
it smacks of crass ignorance on part of the opposition to act as if one
needs to be told that the outcomes of most national elections
(particularly 2003, 2007, and 2011 polls) were fait accompli—far
determined even before the electoral officials began their job. A former
Chief Justice of Nigeria and the chairman of the 2008 Electoral Reform
Committee (ERC), Mohammed Uwais had alluded to this irony when he remarked
that the hoopla about free and fair elections without creating the
enabling conditions was pure baloney (Nigerian Guardian, December 1,
2010). Common sense dictates that the emphasis ought to have been on
creating a truly independent electoral commission before discussing
elections. Yet, the opposition did nothing and still doing nothing serious
toward producing a reliable electoral body. To improve the system,
particularly with the current debate on electoral reform in the
legislature, the opposition parties should without further delay compel
President Goodluck Jonathan to truly support changes to the electoral
commission in two important ways: First is to create a commission composed
representatives from the ruling party and the opposition. A structure with
members drawn from the ruling parties and representatives of truly
qualified opposition parties at the different levels of government will
strengthen the needed checks and balances within the commission itself. It
has the potential to facilitate the enabling environment for effective
leadership of the commission, ensure and sustain true independence
throughout the width and breadth of the commission, and guarantee fairness
to the parties involved. To abridge the inherent partisanship, the
proposed structure can be augmented with a select few drawn from the civil
society: the Nigerian Labor Congress, NYSC, Judiciary; and the security
agents. In simple terms, the qualified political parties themselves should
submit members with clear party affiliations to the new council. The
central idea is that the different phases of the election from top
leadership to other areas, including but not limited to handling and
distribution of election materials, accreditation, supervision, voting,
collation, tabulations and declarations (or cancellations) of
results—from the national level to polling stations—must be guarded
and managed by an election team with full view and representation of
members of qualified parties. This approach can forestall the likelihood
of situations where, in absence of opposition party agents, the INEC and
its leadership connive with the ruling or favored party to manipulate
electoral outcomes. The proposal parallels the position of the main
opposition party in the 2007 election, the All Nigeria’s Peoples Party
(ANPP), where it’s National Publicity Secretary, Emmanuel Enenkwu,
canvassed for members of the different political parties to be included in
the leadership of INEC (Champion Newspaper, August 24, 2007). The
objective fact here is that true independence or neutrality is far beyond
the mere appointment of a national chairman; it is more attainable in an
environment that deters or checkmates the group or individual from acting
otherwise. Also important, the council members or the observers of
elections in the different poll stations should be recruited from the
immediate communities where their antecedents are better-known. Second,
given that most individual elections in Nigeria are already being financed
through looted funds from government treasury; similar to the
McCain-Feingold in the United States of America, without the choice for
individual contributions, Nigeria should adopt full public funding for
inter-party elections. Thank God that this proposal will not be burdened
by the number of parties as once imagined. The opposition is now gradually
evolving to the desired two-party structure after finally realizing that
multiplicity of parties was a pyrrhic victory in the first place. Even
more, in absence of a two-party structure, to frustrate political
merchants who would like to capitalize on the loopholes of the government
funding, more stringent conditions should be set for registration as well
as participation of parties in elections. Alternatively or
simultaneously, the opposition should ensure that that the proposed
Cashless Policy is fully implemented and INEC strengthened to enforce
extant laws on campaign finance. For instance, despite the fact that the
1999 Constitution and the Electoral Acts of 2002, 2006, and 2010
stipulated specific guidelines for campaign finance and attendant
penalties, neither Presidents Goodluck Jonathan, Umaru Yar’Adua, nor
President Olusegun Obasanjo before them could account for the tens of
billions of naira sunk into their respective political campaigns. Of
course, there has been some musings here and there on the issue of
excessive use of money and its source, with aggrieved parties occasionally
hollering, but none of the political parties or individuals has registered
any solid official complaint—either because of their own culpability or
the simple truth that INEC is not designed to implement the relevant
campaign laws ab initio. Not even the Nigeria’s promising news media,
known for free and sensational journalism, could charge their searchlights
when it comes to campaign finance. No one was or is authoritatively
asking: How did President Goodluck Jonathan and former Vice President
Atiku Abubakar source the funds to openly “settle†the delegates who
voted for them in the epic 2011 PDP presidential primary election? What
is the source of money Jonathan used to prosecute his cross-country
campaign while his opponents were stalled to their regional enclaves?
Conversely, how in the world did an ex-police commissioner, Nuhu Ribadu,
suddenly land the money to offset his campaign bills? Just wait… To make
matters worse, the very commission entrusted with monitoring electoral
finance is notoriously nonchalant with this important responsibility. In
fact, the current Chairman of INEC, Attahiru Jega, had to confess that
even though the Electoral Act empowers it to monitor sources and nature of
funding, the “INEC does not even have a desk that handles campaign
financing†(As quoted in Vanguard Newspaper, May 8, 2011). While this
utter negligence was enough to have provoked a guided mass action, the
Nigerian opposition seems to have coolly joined the chorus. The following
proclamation by Nuhu Ribadu, the presidential candidate of Action Congress
of Nigeria, and a former corruption czar, is an exclamation point: “I
won’t bother myself with the integrity of politicians that will fund my
campaign. I will take corrupt politician’s money for my campaign as far
as the money is not put in my pocket†(As quoted in Vanguard Newspaper,
March 20, 2011). The most annoying aspect is that some of Ribadu’s major
donors were ex-governors who were indicted for looting state treasury
under the watchful eyes of the same Ribadu. Besides, the very thought of
the opposition competing to outdo a ruling party with looted funds is not
only height of hypocrisy but also of infamy. The opposition apologists
are expected to roar back here with another excuse. They will cling on the
reigning Nigerian political value system which readily insinuates that the
opposition leaders have to find any means necessary to gain power first
before demonstrating the perceived sense of prudence. But such thinking
ought to be quashed once and for all: A simple scan of history in the
Fourth Republic profoundly reveals that the success of the opposition in
different elections across the country has never been because of superior
financial power over ruling parties. This should in no way be misconstrued
as saying that money has no role to play. None of that! In fact, money is
as important to politics as water is to fish, but there are better ways of
raising money than queuing at the domains of rogue politicians. And make
no mistake about this: The Nigerian masses may be down but they are
definitely not out. We have not yet forgotten that corrupt military
brigade that funded President Olusegun Obasanjo’s elections enjoyed
immunity while he was in power. The masses still remember that President
Umaru Yar’Adua’s disinclination to investigate clear cases of
corruption by his predecessor and some ex-governors is attributed to the
source of funds used in ushering him (Yar’Adua) to power. Ditto
President Goodluck Jonathan. But given that opposition leaders also accept
looted funds from government treasury, how and why should the masses then
view them as credible alternatives? The answer is that the whole world is
tired of what is going on. We are very tired and afraid that the power
struggles is to replace existing leaders with others whose visions would
not be different from those of their predecessors. Perhaps the
opposition could drop one final mundane excuse: President Jonathan would
not yield to pragmatic changes to INEC. Although recent events may prove
otherwise, but should the president dare toe that path, the opposition
should courageously boycott the 2015 elections, and the masses will and
should follow. This approach is so potent because, apart from the fact
that Jonathan would not like to end as an Abacha monocrat; continuing to
engage in elections with predetermined results is a mindless waste of
national resources. Further, unless you have not been following, Goodluck
Jonathan is very accommodating—probably the kindest president ever. He
is kind to the good—and probably kinder to the bad. But while the latter
have already capitalized to accomplish their sole objective of milking the
country dry, and without qualms; the former (particularly the opposition)
is caught moping—continuing to fail to take advantage of the unique
kindness to provide a viable alternative to the masses. Very daringly,
his humble look notwithstanding, President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan
is no man’s fool. This man who went to school without shoes knows very
well that even as he truly means well for the ordinary people, and should;
the leadership crisis is tipping the critical threshold for revolution,
and the political logic of resisting change no longer favors him. Jonathan
can remember vividly that blind leadership made it possible for mere
clandestine organizations to dethrone the military power. The man can also
recall that stern opposition with unity of purpose rubbished Obasanjo’s
third term ambition as well as his legacy. More poignantly, the president
is quite aware that any effort in Nigeria similar to Arab Spring will not
only doom him for life but will also gain worldwide support. Thusly, the
brother is wise enough to grasp that a change through civil opposition is
by far a safer alternative. The problem is the failure of the opposition
to read the mood of both the president and the people they are hoping to
lead. This problem is squarely a lack of a dynamic opposition party—one
that is visionary, focused, capable of differentiating itself from the
ruling party, capable of providing the desired checks and balances toward
effective national leadership; and ready, willing, and able to replace the
party in power. SKC Ogbonnia
================SKC Ogbonnia, Ph.D.
Executive ChairmanFirst Texas Energy Corporation
14133 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77079Office: 281-558-2233
Phone: 281-802-3449
CC:218-486-1600-Code:330667
Website: www.firsttexasenergy.com
…leading with integrity in the Oil & Gas sector