Anambra State, Electoral Reform and 2011 Elections

Without any doubt, the Anambra state election wasn’t without its own drama. And considering INEC track record in organising credible elections – especially under the leadership of Prof. Maurice Iwu – anything different would probably have been seen as a “variance”.


Just two days prior to Election Day, the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission lacks the merit to conduct elections in the country. As we may know, there are only four commissioners sitting on the INEC board, instead of 13 as stipulated in the INEC Act. As a result, Justice Liman ruled that the board lacks the quorum required to conduct elections. As I write, what this ruling portends for the just concluded election is still unknown.

There were also reports of delays in the delivery of election materials across the state. It was reported that many polling stations remained closed for hours after the election was scheduled to have started because of non-availability of voting materials. Some people even reported ballot boxes stolen in some parts of the state.

Going by the scene of jubilation on the streets of Awka on Sunday, one can assume that the victory of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) gubernatorial candidate Peter Obi, is in line with desire and expectation of Anambrarians.

The jubilation on the streets of Awka is in total contrast to what we saw in Ado-Ekiti, following the re-run of Ekiti gubernatorial elections last April. The tragedy of the Ekiti elections is still very fresh in our memory. We can all remember the famous Madam Ayoka, who decided to call it quit in the mid-way into the election, and only to be threatened by her Abuja masters. The story of Ekiti election re-run cannot be complete without mentioning the naked women protests on the streets of Ado-Ekiti.

But as residents of Anambra celebrate, the question I asked some of my friends was, did Peter Obi win the election on genuine votes? Or was he just successful in “out rigging” his opponents?

Whilst there’s been no confirmation of rigging on the part of the Peter Obi, who is also the incumbent governor, I still believe it is a reasonable question to ask, considering our clamour and agitation for genuine electoral reform.

If anything, the public reaction to the APGA victory –or perhaps, PDP loss – further underlines the growing hatred for the PDP. The hatred now seems to have hit a crescendo that most people don’t really care how PDP is removed from power or prevented from seizing office. In the desperate attempt to kick PDP out by all force, anything and everything seems acceptable.

There seems to be a general consensus that the Anambra election was not “free and fair”. In fact, Peter Obi was very vocal in condemning the way and manner INEC has organised the election. However, I found that most Nigerians were willing to accept these anomalies as “inconsequential” only because PDP lost. I then wondered what would have been the case if the election was won by PDP, what the reaction of such people would have been to the election process aa a whole.

In “normal” circumstances there would have been calls for the head of Prof. Iwu. But following the loss of PDP last Saturday, no one seems to be interested. Most people seem to have taken the Anambra result as a victory over PDP. So does that mean Prof. Iwu has regained public confidence?

We cannot be ignorant of the menace and decadence suffered under the 10 year rule of PDP. However, the fact remains that most of the leaders of the opposition are one time or the other members of the PDP. I don’t know of any party in Nigeria that was created based on any set of ideology or principles. These parties were borne out of self-preservation and actualisation of personal agendas.

The obnoxious belief that PDP is the biggest problem facing our democracy will create more harm than good. The problem in our electoral system is more than just PDP, AC, or ANPP. What we need is a genuine electoral reform that will guarantee free and fair election, and deter electoral malpractices. It is not rocket science to have a free and fair election. We have had it before. The annulled June 12 election is a perfect example. It is therefore nonsensical for anyone to say no election can ever be perfect. Are they saying we should accept electoral fraud as part of our democracy, just as we’ve accepted that corruption comes with leadership?

When you talk about electoral reform, some assume it’s just about lining up to vote. Voting is just one part of the electoral process. Although, we hear about allegations of fraud in western democracies, but you can be sure that if anyone is caught engaging in electoral malpractices he/she is likely to end up in prison. It is only in Nigeria where machines for printing ballot papers are found in people’s house, and it is regarded as a joke!

As 2011 draws nearer, it is important that the electorate keep their eyes wide open when electing their leaders. The last thing we want is to replace one evil with another just because it presents itself in a different colour.

We need to forestall a repeat of what happened in 1999, when crooks and criminals rode on the back of the pro-democracy group-cum-political party Alliance for Democracy (AD) into public office.

And just before I go, I will like to say BIG thank you to Mr Egghead Odewale for his regular twitter and facebook updates on the Anambra election. It was citizen journalism at its best!

The Politics of "Substitution by Elimination"

Early hours of Tuesday morning, the news broke that the 2007 Action Congress Ogun state gubernatorial candidate, Chief Dipo Dina has been murdered. ‘DD-Direct’, as he’s fondly called by his political admirers, was shot through the windshield of his car near Covenant University in Otta.


Just as the nation battles to wriggle its way out of the current constitutional quagmire, created by the indiscretion of an indolently selfish president, we witnessed yet another ‘political-motivated’ killing of a humble and distinguished politician.

The gruesome murder of Dipo Dina is not the first of its kind. We have an endless list of politicians that have been sacrificed on the altar of political machinations. Sadly all of these cases remain unresolved. I recall the killing of the former Justice Minister, Chief Bola Ige. Up till now, no one has been found guilty of his murder. In fact, one of the suspects, who is a serving Senator, won his Senatorial elections while undergoing investigation in Police detention.

I would say that political-motivated killing is one of the legacies of past repressive military regimes. But unfortunately, the current political leaders have claimed this legacy as an inheritance – albeit with greater zeal! Whilst past military regimes were notorious for killing people with dissenting political views in order to strengthen their grip on power, the current politicians are now engaged in what is known as do-or-die politics. But if the sole aim of public office is to serve, why does anyone need to go the extreme of killing his/her political opponent? Why the need for this sort of desperation? Why can’t we practice politics without bitterness? What is it about this ‘do or die’ politics?

The students of the ‘do or die’ school of politics can be broadly divided into two main classes. The fundamental principle of the school remains the same, however the modus operandi of the students differ. The first class is made up of students who subscribe to the theory of ‘substitution by elimination’, as seen in the case of Dipo Dina. Their target is to substitute their opponent by eliminating him from the face of the earth. The second class consists of students who believe in doing all it takes to perpetuate themselves in power. Such people see political office as a family/birth right, even if it means they need to be permanently plugged to a ‘life support machine’ to remain in office.

But can anyone plant cassava and expect to reap cocoyam? What can we expect from an electoral system that is bereft of transparency or fair play? A system designed to reward thuggery, rigging and all forms of violence. A system designed to ensure that the incumbent perpetuates himself in office. A system that ensures that the winner take all. A system designed to disenfranchise its citizens.

As usual, the vice-president has given an order to the Inspector-General of Police, Ogbonna Onovo, and other security agencies in the country to fish out those behind the hideous murder of Dipo Dina. But as my friends will say, na today? We are sick and tired of the lip service the govt pays to security of lives and properties. The govt’s record in investigating this type of cases is appalling. And it’s not just political-motivated killings. Every year, hundreds of lives are lost to religious violence. However, none of the security agencies can categorically tell us who the perpetrators of these crimes are. So how will Dipo Dina’s case be any different? How can the VP convince Nigerians that Dipo Dina will not just be another statistical figure?



Everyday, the Nigerian media is awash with bad news. The nation has now become an extension of Hollywood box office. It is suffice to say that the suffering masses are now film watchers, waiting for the next box office hit. The media, who should be at the forefront of informing and sensitising the public, have become armchair “movie critics”. We now have newspaper editors who are paid ‘script writers’ – thanks to brown envelopes. And with the likes of Ojo Maduekwe, Michael Aondoakaa, and Dora Akunyili, the movie producers can never be short of actors/actresses.

I refer to the famous biblical verse “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46). Most of my non-Christian friends may not be familiar with the quoted bible verse; however this nine-word sentence aptly describes my feeling about the current trend of political events in Nigeria.

So if I may ask, can anything good come out of Nigeria?

On David Mark, Maurice Iwu and Electoral Reform

The continuous utterance of thoughtless remarks by the Senate President, David Mark is becoming quite worrisome.


As Communications Minister, David Mark told 88 million Nigerians that “telephone is not for the poor”. When the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said on her last visit to Nigeria that the nation leaders should put their house in order and provide good leadership, Senator Mark replied

“How can somebody be sitting in the United States and be telling us how to solve serious crisis in this country? Have they got the solution to their problems? How did they find themselves in Iraq? Mrs Clinton seems to have taken her briefs from individuals or groups and other failed politicians who have an axe to grind with the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

How can you describe such a response from a Senate President? Exaggerated patriotism or symptoms of delusion?

On the recent 49th Independence anniversary, Senator Mark again exhibited his delusional tendencies by telling us that “Nigeria has achieved its full potential”. How can anyone in the face of growing poverty say that Nigeria has achieved its potential? Maybe the N1.3 trillion shared annually in salaries and allowances amongst the legislators, or the personal wealth he acquired during the Military regime are his indices for measuring a nation’s potential.

As the nation’s number three citizen, one would expect that Senator Mark would at least exhibit some level of decorum when making public statements. But based on his recent comments on the INEC Chairman and electoral reform, it seems the Senate President has become an ‘obsessive-compulsive’.

Speaking on the theme: “Legislating for an enduring electoral system in Nigeria” at the 2009 Senate Retreat, the Senate president was quoted as saying:

“Our electoral process is certainly not the worst in the world as some self-styled analysts would want us to believe and let me say further and more emphatically this time that the removal of Prof. Maurice Iwu is not the review or the reform of our electoral process. “Removal of Iwu is not synonymous with electoral reform or review. Those calling for the removal of Iwu as the first step are trivialising a very serious national issue”

It is not surprising to hear a self-styled patriot cum Senate President, say that our electoral system is not the worst in the world. How can you expect a man to criticise a system from which he has been a huge beneficiary. We need not to remind Senator Mark that it is the rot and institutionalised fraud in our electoral system that has provided him a ticket to the National Assembly. It is therefore right to say that any criticism levelled against the electoral commission will be an indictment of his (s)election as a Senator.

It has become quite common for our leaders and those purporting to be ‘patriotic’ citizens to utter such statements whenever the government is criticised for not doing the right thing. Government apologists are always quick to remind us we are not the worst after all. Meaning we should happy with what we have (!) Whether that’s meant to be a consolation I do not understand. But the question is why can’t we ever compare ourselves with the best? Why do we console ourselves by comparing ourselves with failures?

The most infuriating thing about Senator Mark’s recent statement were his comments that, “…..removal Prof Maurice Iwu is not the review or reform of our electoral process”. Yes, the review of our electoral process is more than just Maurice Iwu. After all, Maurice Iwu is only an appointee. It is also right to say that that it will be difficult to have an umpire who will be unbiased under the current electoral laws – when the President can just handpick whoever he wants as the INEC Chairman.

However, it is ludicrous for anyone to think that the imperfection of our electoral system exonerates Maurice Iwu from the electoral fraud he has directly or indirectly condoned. The legacies of Maurice Iwu are there for all to see, From Ekiti to Anambra,, Ondo to Kogi, Sokoto to Bayelsa, Cross River to Adamawa, Maurice Iwu made it a point of duty to subjugate the principles of free and fair elections. There is not gainsaying that Maurice Iwu actively colluded with the ruling party, through ‘elimination by substitution’ to deprive some candidates of their constitutional rights to participate in the elections.

For anyone then to think that Maurice Iwu himself is not a problem, that person must either be deranged or suffering from mental amnesia. The question we need to ask is, based on the resources at his disposal, as the Prof. Iwu discharged the functions of his office to the best of his ability? Let’s forget about the electoral flaws, Prof Iwu has demonstrated over and over again that he his not only incompetent but also lacking moral integrity.

When I was growing up, I used to remember a man called Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey, Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO). For me and people of my generation, the name Ovie-Whiskey was synonymous with ‘fraud’. This was because of the role Ovie-Whiskey played during the 1983 democratic elections – blatantly supporting the ruling party. But fast forward to 2009, Maurice Iwu has made Ovie-Whiskey look like an angel.

The removal of Maurice Iwu alone will not provide solution to the challenges in our electoral system. But let’s make no mistake; his ‘immediate’ sack will be a great step towards achieving a sustainable electoral reform.

President Umar Yar'Adua, the "Statesman"

On face value, it seems that the rejected Nigerian stone is now turning out to be cornerstone of Ghanaian democratic governance. A lot of has been said about Ghana’s democratic governance in the last few weeks, in terms of how it has portrayed itself as the shining beam of Africa’s democracy. This was even further reiterated during the recent visit of US President, Barack Obama to Ghana. However, out of the woodwork came the statement from the Ex-Ghanaian President Jerry Rawlings that the credit for Ghana’s electoral success should however go to Nigeria President, Umar Yar’Adua.

Ex-President Rawlings was quoted in a Ghanaian weekly newspaper saying "by the way, we claim to be the 'Gateway' but don't be surprised if Nigeria ends up as the destination, as they claim. It is important to keep in mind that it was partly Nigeria's intervention under President Yar'Adua's leadership that pulled the plug on Kuffuor and Nana Addo's intended adventure; not the Western powers, some of whom urged on the NPP's electoral fraud and theft in 2004. But for General Sarki Muktar (Yar'Adua's National Security Adviser)'s timely visit, we may very well be mourning and licking our wounds by now". According to the media report, President Yar'Adua feared that it would be catastrophic if Ghana's democratic process was disrupted and therefore initiated diplomatic moves to stem the tide.

It is common knowledge that the last December’s Presidential election in Ghana was a photo-finish. A clear winner did not emerge between the candidate of the then ruling party, Nana Addo and the opposition party's candidate, Prof. John Atta-Mills after the first ballot. This therefore resulted in a run-off that saw Prof. John Atta-Mills emerging as the winner.

A “statesman” is a leader in national or international affairs, who is a disinterested promoter of the public good. A statesman is someone who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues. If indeed President Yar’Adua intervened in the Ghanaian elections as noted by Ex-President Rawlings, then there is no doubt that he has demonstrated strong leadership and statesmanship. However, is President Yar’Adua a true statesman?

If indeed he is a statesman, then the questions we should be asking are,why is he not doing the same in his home country Nigeria? Why has he not exhibited same leadership quality in Nigeria? Or is it that he is more interested in Ghanaian internal politics than Nigeria? Is the Ghana election more important that the last Gubernatorial election re-run in Ekiti state? Is intervening in Ghana politics more important that issues in Niger Delta? Is intervening in Ghana election more important that than ensuring good democratic governance in Nigeria?

President Yar’Adua is probably not just getting his priorities right. In fact, what moral authority does he have to advise Ghana on how it conducts elections? As the Yoruba adage says “ile la ti ko eso ro de” (meaning charity begins at home). How can the President of Nigeria think that failure of Ghanaian elections will be catastrophic, but it will be acceptable for elections in Ekiti to be rigged? I guess the people of Ekiti are not within his constituency (!). How can a man who potrays himself as a statesman bully and threaten a state government for allegedly not adhering to the constitution in matters that are strictly within the prerogative of the state government? How can a man portraying himself to be a “peacemaker” endorse gross human right abuse against some of the most deprived people of the country under the guise of “military action”? How can a man portraying himself to be peacemaker preside over a government that encourages extra-judicial killings to silence public dissent?

To President Yar’Adua, I will bluntly put it that you are not a “statesman”. Whilst you might have portrayed yourself to be one in Ghana, we Nigerians can tell the Ghanaians that it’s all façade. Your government is grossly enmeshed in corruption and human right abuses. Your leadership thrives on hypocrisy. As a President, you have never practiced who you preach. Every time and again, you tell us about your respect for “rule of law”, but your action and demeanor has indicated otherwise. I’m still looking for an action taken by your government in the interest of public good. In fact your government is currently struggling to overtake its predecessor’s record on human right abuses. Your government has killed in the North, maimed in the Niger Delta and we are all waiting to see where the Joint Task Force and Operation Flush 11 will next be deployed.

It might be better for you to first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's.