The Supreme Court resolved the question as to whether or not Atiku Abubakar could competently quiz Iwu on the conduct of the April poll. The Court allowed Maurice Iwu, INEC boss, to send in written answers to the Atiku interrogatories. These were delivered in writing to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, hearing the case.

There were twenty-seven questions which were filed pursuant to Paragraph 50 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act and Order 33 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2000. These were essentially queries on whether INEC Had commissioned the printing of the ballots for the Presidential election in South Africa and when these ballots were delivered to Nigeria for distribution to the polling booths.

Iwu had previously testified, as reported on pages 30 and 31 of the Official Report of the Election which he presented in October 2007 that INEC had arranged for additional ballot papers to be printed in South Africa. He said in the report that the ballot papers were freighted to the country on April 20, 2007, the eve of the presidential election.

In the written affidavit to the Supreme Court interrogatories, Iwu said:

“Did you award a fresh contract for printing of ballot papers for the presidential election, less than five days to the date of election?

INEC first awarded contracts for the April 14 and 21, 2007 general elections to the NSPMC. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court on the 16th day of April, 2007, a fresh contract was awarded to the same organisation for the printing of the ballot papers for the Presidential election on the 17th day of April, 2007. The letter of award is here shown to me and marked exhibit MII.

If, yes, did you not award the said contract to a company in South Africa after the company originally contracted declined on the grounds that the delivery deadline was unrealistic if the ballot must carry serial numbers, and in booklet forms with counterfeits?

As indicated in the answer to question 1 above, the commission did not award any such contract and no such discussion with any company in South Africa ever occurred.

If you deny that the contract was re-awarded to a different company less than five days to the election for reasons stated in question No. 2, what was the reason for re-awarding the printing contract less than 5 days to the date of the presidential election?

There was no re-award of the contract as alleged. The contract to the NSPMC arose as aforesaid from the need to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on the 16th day of April, 2007.

The response to these questions contained in Iwu’s affidavit is bald-face lies. There is no other way to describe them.

The facts:

(see the contemporary article in South Africa by Stephaans Brummer and Tumi Makgetla, and published in the Mail & Guardian 26/4/07)

(1) South African printer Lithotech, whose ElectionsAfrica division supplied 100-million ballot papers for the Nigerian state elections a week before the presidential and federal elections, was invited on the Tuesday before the Saturday election to reprint 40-million presidential ballot papers to include Atiku Abubakar's name. Nigeria has 61-million registered voters. Lithotech declined the offer to print within the short time-frame as air-freight availability and production time [were] not sufficient and the requirement could not be met".

(2) INEC then contacted and contracted three other South African printers -- Media24-owned Paarl Printers; Formeset, which handles large South African government orders; and Ren-form, which has ballot supply experience. These were asked by the Nigerian authorities to supply the entire requirement, to be delivered to Nigeria by no later than Friday, the day before the elections.

(3) The ballots were printed without counterfoils and serial numbers -- features usually included to establish an audit trail. Paarl Print MD Mike Ehret confirmed the print order came on Tuesday. "Sure, we were under a lot of pressure, but it was a professional experience." Ren-form manager Jean-Pierre du Sart said his company started printing on Tuesday evening and delivered locally Thursday evening. He said Ren-form had provided a "packing list" and labelled pallets to help establish an audit trail, but that serial numbers would have taken too long. "If we had put on serial numbers, I don't think the election would have taken place." Du Sart added that "it must have been a logistical nightmare to distribute ballots to even the most remote areas in Nigeria".

(4) The ballots were flown to Nigeria aboard four cargo flights. Johannesburg-based Norse Air flew a cargo of about 40 tonnes, arriving on Friday afternoon at its Nigerian destination -- only to be ordered by armed men to take it to another airport, causing a further delay. European-based MK Airlines transported about 170 tonnes on two flights on Friday, the second arriving at about 7pm in Lagos. A fourth consignment, also on Friday, was organised directly by the Nigerian government aboard a passenger plane whose seats had been removed. The Court has copies of the cargo manifests for these air shipments presented as evidence.

(5) In the days after the election there were still ballots awaiting shipment in South Africa for the INEC.

It was on this published evidence that Atiku posed these questions to Iwu. There is already a huge weight of evidence which proves the South African connection. Not only did Iwu not tell the truth, he has tried weasel out of responsibility by stating that INEC, itself, didn’t contract with the South Africans, but the Nigerian Security Printers might have done so.

In the answers to the question, Iwu said: “The commission did not award any such contract and no such discussion with any company in South Africa occurred. “There was no re-award of the contract as alleged. The contract to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company arose as aforesaid from the need to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on the 16th day of April, 2007.” Iwu said he could not provide answers to other questions relating to the printing of the ballot papers in South Africa because the contract was not awarded by INEC to any company in South Africa. He said were there to be such an award, it must have taken place between the Security Printing and Minting Company and the South African Company, a contract to which INEC was not privy.

This is clearly a farce as he formerly stated in his October 2007 the Official Report of the Election that he knew about the South African connection and that that INEC had arranged for additional ballot papers to be printed in South Africa. He can’t have it both ways. If he told the truth, however disingenuous in his affidavit, he was lying in the Official Report. If he told the truth in the Official Report he was lying in the affidavit.

Surely the Presiding Justice James OGEBE of the Court of Appeal can see through this charade. The ballot papers, with or without INEC direct complicity, were printed in South Africa; they were printed without serial numbers or counterfoils; they were printed in three working days; and only some of the presumed total of ballots ever reached Nigeria; and few arrived in time.

If this isn’t the rigging of an election (by intent or accident) it is hard to imagine another term for it.
 

Robot  # 1 | 02.02.2008 12:37

var sbtitle1889=encodeURIComponent(Maurice Iwu...Read the full article.

aguabata  # 2 | 02.02.2008 14:29

The likely scenario is that their is no contract between the south africans and INEC but rather the NSPMC subcontracted it to them, depending on the original terms of contract INEC could solely view NSPMC as their main and only contractor. I am disappointed that none of those small political parties thought of contracting one of our low budget movie producers to video most of the violence marred voting process.

overdryv  # 3 | 02.02.2008 14:33

Iwu is becoming too arrogant and daring in his contempt for Nigerians. It has become rather a big pain for me to read news on him. The way he is carrying on shows that he is not afraid of anything since he has the backing of PDP and Yar'adua. For now he remains the most shameless man in Nigeria. The money he embezzled from INEC funds has turned him into a mad man. No electoral chief ever in Nigeria had been involved in the large scale corruption and controversy Iwu is presently immersed in. But Nigeria is a veritable jungle. That is why Iwu would come forward and make a u-turn on what he said a couple of months back. He says what he likes and Nigerians can go to hell. Here is a man who would not even honor court summons. The only reason why he answered the questions put to him by Atiku is because doing otherwise would impact negatively on YAr'dua case in the tribunal. The revelations coming from him shows that Nigeria is still far from being a democracy. Obj and Iwu ran the 2007 elections like a private business. How could Obj singlehandedly approve funds for INEC? It is high time we stop deceiving ourselves that we are practicing democracy. It is more of militocracy garbed in babanriga

Enforcer  # 4 | 02.02.2008 15:10

There are sufficient publicly available documentary evidences to demonstrate that Maurice Iwu lied on oath. But we are talking about Nigerian judicial system where evidence is of little importance.

ikechiji  # 5 | 03.02.2008 05:26

Ewu Iwu may not have told the whole truth but I am yet to see evidence that he lied. He merely evasively answered poorly phrased questions by Atiku's lawyers. At no point in his response did he state that the ballot papers were not printed in South Africa. His response was that the ballot printing contract was awarded to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company not a SA firm. The NSPMC may have sub-contracted the job to SA firm(s) but that does not make his response a lie. Atiku's lawyers should have focused on INEC taking delivery of the ballot papers from whomever they awarded the contract to, how may ballot papers were delivered to INEC and when, how many ballot papers did INEC distribute and when, etc. The only way to get straight answers from Prof. Iwuruwuru is to haul him before the tribunal and have him testify with the judge able to force him to answer non-responsive questions. One would have thought that in an important case like this, Iwu would have led the evidence-in-chief for the defense to tell the world how he conducted his "successful" elections. Q: Did you award a fresh contract for printing of ballot papers for the presidential election, less than 5 days to the date of election? A: The Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (INEC) first awarded contracts for the April 14th and 21st 2007 general elections to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company. Following the judgement of the Supreme Court on the 16th day of April, 2007, a fresh contract was awarded to the same organization for the printing of the ballot papers for the Presidential Election on the 17th day of April, 2007. The letter of award is here shown to me and marked exhibit MI1. Q: If, yes, did you not award the said contract to a company in South Africa after the company originally contracted, declined on the ground that the delivery deadline was unrealistic if the ballot must carry serial numbers, and in booklet forms with counterfoils? A: As indicated in the answer to question 1 above, The Commission did not award any such contract and no such discussion with any company in South Africa ever occurred. Q: If you deny that the contract was re-awarded to a different company less than 5 days to the election for reasons stated in question N0. 2, what was the reason for re-awarding the printing contract less than 5 days to the date of the presidential election? A: There was no re-award of the contract as alleged. The contract to the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company arose as aforesaid from the need to comply with the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on the 16th day of April, 2007.

ocnus  # 6 | 03.02.2008 06:01

Ikechiji is correct. The lawyers gave Iwu a hole to slip through. That is the problem with some bigtime lawyers; they do the law properly but don't investigate or become familiar with the underlying facts, opening potential loopholes. One doesn't often get two bites of the apple so it is unclear who will ask Iwu about the failures in South Africa and the ballots left behind. It is getting so cold in London now that there are lawyers walking around with their hands in their own pockets.