Day of history or histrionics 

By Levi Obijiofor 

Friday, 13 April 2007 

NIGERIA is at the threshold of making history. After nearly 47 years of political independence, after nearly 47 years of trialing military dictatorship and some elements of democracy, Nigerians of voting age will be presented tomorrow with another opportunity to vote for the continuation of the principles of democratic form of government or to invite anarchy and dictatorship of another kind. Nigeria is 24 hours away from the moment of history. The world is watching.  

Tomorrow is significant for many reasons. Over the past 14 years, Nigerians have had three national elections. With the exception of the 1993 elections which Nigerians and the international election observers adjudged to be the freest and fairest in the country's history, the last two elections of 1999 and 2003 were nothing other than a carefully contrived political burglary. How much longer shall we wobble before we find the right mix of democratic procedures that would guarantee the country hitch-free elections?  

As voters step out to deliver their verdict on the past eight years of mini despotism at federal and state levels, the significance of tomorrow's election cannot be under-estimated. If voters are allowed to vote freely tomorrow without threats or intimidation, if election officials, security officers and political parties adhere strictly to the rules, voters would have been given the chance to make decisive judgments about the shape of our future political landscape and the calibre of politicians to lead the country in the next four years. Tomorrow's elections could turn out to be a rehearsal for disaster or the beginning of free and fair elections in Nigeria.  

The next two weeks will be crucial. The future of democratic governance in Nigeria is on trial and tomorrow will mark the beginning of that trial. The most controversial of the national elections - the governorship and presidential elections -- will take place in a week's time. It is odd to use the word "controversial" when in fact the presidential election is still forthcoming. Whatever happens, the way we conduct ourselves tomorrow (in terms of personal behaviour and the extent to which we adhere to the rules), and how voters cast their votes will determine whether Nigerians shall live in peace or in crutches. It is not that Nigeria has never conducted elections before. It has! Our anxiety about this year's elections is informed by previous experiences.  

Part of the reason for the current state of fear and uncertainly is that we constantly replay in our memory banks the events that culminated in the sham we now refer to as national elections in 1999 and 2003. Perhaps there is reason for everyone to be worried in 2007. Consider this. Seventy two hours to the start of the elections, President Olusegun Obasanjo and the hierarchy of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) have defied the Supreme Court judgment and sacked the PDP governorship candidate in Imo State - Ifeanyi Araraume.  

What was Araraume's offence? He was sacked because he took the PDP to the Supreme Court where the decision of the PDP to deprive him justice was quashed by the court. For this reason, Obasanjo and other members of the national working committee of the PDP sacked Araraume and went a step further to declare that the PDP will not have a governorship candidate in Imo State. This is simply an extraordinary display of executive lawlessness and power-drunkenness! The PDP decision to expel Araraume is one more evidence that the PDP leadership and Obasanjo are determined to scuttle the elections in order to achieve whatever objectives they might have hatched. Political leaders who are entrusted with leadership responsibilities owe the nation an obligation to behave responsibly.  

Obasanjo and the PDP leaders have not behaved responsibly. They have portrayed themselves as lawless party apparatchiks. Strangely, both Obasanjo and the PDP spokesperson claim they respect court judgments. What could be farther from the truth! In the weeks leading up to the elections, Obasanjo had pledged to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner. But the sacking of Araraume has exposed the contradictions in the PDP leadership. The implication of the decision of the PDP was underlined by a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, O.C.J. Okocha. In his words, Araraume "... should have the freedom to pursue his legal rights. This exposes the depravity of our people who say they are democrats, especially the top notchers of the PDP. Whether they call it suspension or expulsion, either way, it is wrong. It has become very plain that they don't want the elections to hold."  

In 1993, Nigerian military leaders had a glorious opportunity to prove to the world that the country was capable of conducting free and fair elections. The 1993 elections took place in relative peace. For once during and after national elections, most Nigerians did not have cause to complain about interference and manipulation by political candidates and election officials. But an inexplicable case of military insanity and a compliant and duplicitous chief election umpire combined to deprive the nation of an opportunity to make history. As voters waited eagerly for the official release of the election results, Ibrahim Babangida, a military dictator, stunned Nigerians and the international community when he announced without justification that he had nullified the election results.  

In subsequent interviews with journalists, Babangida offered a dodgy explanation as to why he invalidated the elections. In an interview he granted to the BBC Hausa Service on Thursday, September 21, 2006, Babangida said he cancelled but did not annul the 1993 presidential election results. Semantic nonsense! Whether he cancelled or annulled the election results is now a moot point. Why did Babangida engage in that perfidy? Babangida told the BBC listeners that he was compelled to cancel the election owing to the "circumstances" at the time. He did not explain what those "circumstances" were. Remarkably, Babangida admitted in the same interview that the 1993 presidential election was the freest and the fairest to be conducted in the country.  

Babangida was able to tamper with the election results in 1993 because he had a willing horse in the person of Humphrey Nwosu, the chief election umpire. Fourteen years after that show of shame, and nine years after the military left the stage, Humphrey Nwosu has not been able to muster the courage to tell the nation the truth about what happened in the 1993 elections. Nwosu's world is now shrouded in silence. This is what happens to public officers who mortgage their conscience and partake in a conspiracy to frustrate the will of the people. Nwosu, a man who enjoyed academic reputation at home and abroad before his appointment as the chief election umpire, now walks about like a chicken in a new cage, fearful of his own image.  

Humphrey Nwosu's fate should serve as a lesson to the current boss of INEC, Maurice Iwu. At the moment, Iwu is prancing about the stage and dancing unashamedly to the tunes dictated by his bosses in Abuja and in Anambra State. One day, long after this month's elections would have become a distant memory, Iwu's name would become synonymous with deception. That's what Nigerians would remember him for. If he wants to avert that notorious image, Iwu must stick to the election rules. Sadly, it may be too late now for him to denounce his political allegiance.  

The challenge that faces the nation tomorrow and in the coming week is whether election officials, political candidates and political parties would be prepared and committed to play by the rules, to prevent the obnoxious practices that marred previous elections. If we get it right tomorrow, if election officials, politicians and security agents take the first correct steps to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections tomorrow, the nation would be well on the path to making history. This is our chance. It is said that opportunity knocks but once. We are lucky to have a second chance. But the stakes are high. It is either that we get it right tomorrow or we get it wrong for ever.