Ekiti as a political slave

By Levi Obijiofor

SEVEN days after the governorship election in Ekiti State, no one knows exactly what is happening. Every day, new drama scripts are released into the public domain, lending credence to the widely held view that Nigerians cannot conduct free and fair elections in their country. All the uncertainty and fear about growing insecurity generated by the unresolved governorship election in Ekiti indicate quite clearly that we may never conduct local elections that are free of rancour and animosity.

When elections are conducted in Ghana or South Africa or some little known African country, we don't hear about heightened tension or extraordinary violence or unprecedented acrimony or hysteria that seem to characterise local and national elections in Nigeria. When elections are conducted in Nigeria, the political landscape is dominated by allegations of pre-election eve rigging, daylight hijacking of ballot boxes and all those audacious acts that portray Nigeria as a nation of cowboys.

As at Wednesday this week, the tension in Ekiti was ratcheted up a notch by the unconfirmed resignation of the state resident electoral commissioner. The impression created by the atmosphere of violence and instability in Ekiti is that Nigeria has turned into a jungle fit only for depraved minds. The situation in Ekiti is an adverse commentary on the lack of political leadership in the country.

In The Guardian edition of Wednesday, 29 April 2009, the lead headline screamed: "Drama as Ekiti INEC chief quits, govt says no". The Guardian reported that the state electoral commissioner, Mrs Olusola Adebayo, communicated to President Umaru Yar'Adua her decision to quit her post. She was also said to have copied the letter to the chairperson of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Maurice Iwu. The troubling aspect of the report was not the mere resignation of the commissioner but the reason for her resignation. According to The Guardian, which paraphrased some parts of the alleged resignation letter, Mrs Adebayo decided to quit because "half-way into the exercise, the game changed and the issues that emerged were against her conscience and Christian faith".

In fact, Mrs Adebayo was reported to have stated in the resignation letter: "In accordance with the rule of law, the on-going election in Ekiti State was supposed to be the election that will enhance the image of INEC electoral process in our dear country, Nigeria and the whole black race. Unfortunately, the circumstances changed in the middle of the process; therefore, my conscience as a Christian cannot allow me to further participate in this process."

If this bombshell is confirmed, if the authenticity of the letter could be established, it would lend credence to swirling allegations that the state electoral commissioner was under enormous pressure (prior to and after the election) to manipulate the final results of the election.

It is important to caution that, in light of the speed with which events are unfolding in Ekiti, and given the potential for digital manipulation of documents in this age of new technologies, no one should be surprised if the resignation letter is soon dismissed as the handiwork of expert forgers. We have not yet heard the last word on the alleged resignation letter. True or false, the police and the federal government are not taking any chances. The government and the police took actions on Tuesday this week which suggested a deliberate attempt to halt further release of embarrassing information that might undermine the validity of the governorship election in Ekiti.

In a face-saving move, a carefully choreographed attempt to destroy public confidence in Mrs Adebayo, the federal government announced at a press conference on Tuesday that it had rejected Mrs Adebayo's purported resignation. Police Inspector-General Mike Okiro also joined in the race to discredit Mrs Adebayo when he declared that the resident electoral commissioner was now a wanted person.

The reason for declaring Mrs Adebayo wanted, Okiro said, was to enable her to come forward to explain the contents of the resignation letter. It all sounds like the police are worried about the likely consequences of allowing Mrs Adebayo to release into the public domain embarrassing information relating to the conduct of the election in Ekiti. Could it be that the federal government and the police are acting in concert to gag the resident electoral commissioner? The next few days will be eventful.

It's a very messy situation which lends credence to the perception at home and abroad that Nigeria is currently drifting like a country without political leadership. This is even more evident in newspaper headlines. If you read a handful of Nigerian newspapers on Tuesday this week, you would have felt that cataclysmic consequences (some kind of political Armageddon) were about to befall the country because of the inconclusive governorship election in Ekiti.

Newspaper headlines this week are either an accurate representation of the situation on the ground or they are gross exaggerations of a bad situation. Either way, it's a frightening scenario, validated by the major headline in the Punch online edition of Tuesday, 28 April 2009. It read: "Ekiti: Yar'Adua meets security chiefs, Mark, Bankole, others". Another grim headline in the paper of the same day presented a gory image of the outcome of the inconclusive election. It said: "136 arrested, victims' leg, arm amputated". This particular headline highlights the sordid aftermath of an unresolved election.

Other than the trading of allegations over which party sponsored the violence in Ekiti, the leadership of the People's Democratic Party and the Action Congress have been exchanging insults since last weekend. Why can't we ever get things right in Nigeria? Why can't we conduct elections that are fair and free of violence and bloodshed?

Maurice Iwu, the much reviled boss of INEC, seems to be glowing in the controversy. Photos of a grinning Iwu implied that while a section of the country was in the grip of unprecedented violence, the chief umpire of the election was relaxed and unhurried. Iwu's countenance did not seem to reflect the gravity of the situation. His sunny and oily face was visibly at odds with the mood of the nation, in particular the tense situation in Ekiti.

How could the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Congress value Ekiti so much that they are prepared to destroy the state - all in the attempt to win the governorship election at all costs, even if victory would be earned by incinerating the landscape of that state? Metaphorically, Ekiti is the potential bride whose unspeakable beauty is the subject of a do-or-die contest between two political parties. The contenders are throwing guns, machetes, amulets and lots of money up in the air, hoping to use brute force to overturn the mandate of Ekiti voters. In the ensuing confusion and stalemate, INEC, the election umpire with a history of stage-managing election results, has found questionable reasons why it cannot release the results of an election conducted nearly seven days ago.

By withholding the final result of the governorship election in Ekiti, INEC is not only fanning political iniquity, it is also positioning itself as the dark knight with the power to crown little political kings across the country. Withholding the result of the governorship election in Ekiti is a sure fire way to nourish anarchy in a volatile political environment. The explanation given by Maurice Iwu that he could not release the final result of the governorship election because violence marred voting in two wards in a local council flies in the face of basic facts.

As INEC continues to embellish the evidence, we must remind ourselves of a few facts. We will not be in the current situation if INEC had conducted a free and fair governorship election two years ago. If INEC had performed its responsibilities in an impartial manner in 2007, residents of Ekiti State will not now be watching helplessly as their lives and businesses are wrecked by thugs.

There is no guarantee now that the result of last week's governorship election, when it is finally released, would be accepted in good faith by the political contenders. Ekiti State is looking very much like the Anambra State of 2003-2007, the period when Governor Chris Ngige and his estranged godfather Chris Uba held the entire state hostage owing to their personal differences and unresolved "business" deals. Who will rescue Ekiti from the clutch of political slavemasters?

Robot  # 1 | 01.05.2009 00:36

Ekiti as a political slave By Levi Obijiofor SEVEN days after the governorship election in Ekiti State, no one knows exactly what is happening. Every day, new drama scripts are released into the public domain, lending credence to the widely held view that Nigerians cannot conduct free and fair elections in their country. All the uncertainty and fear about growing insecurity generated by the unresolved governorship election in Ekiti indicate quite clearly that we may never conduct local elections that are free of rancour and animosity. When elections are conducted in Ghana or South Africa or some little known African country, we don't hear about heightened tension or extraordinary violence or unprecedented acrimony or hysteria that seem to characterise local and national elections in Nigeria. When elections are conducted in Nigeria, the political landscape is dominated by allegations of pre-election eve rigging,...Read the full article.

emenanjo  # 2 | 01.05.2009 17:13

What do we expect from a lawless country? Infact what beats my imagination is the contradictory nature of most of the electoral Tribunals' judgements. In Kogi, Adamawa, Enugu, etc where elections were cancelled and re-runs allowed, the parties and their candidates who were beneficiaries of those electoral fraud should not have been allowed to re-contest. They ought to, as a matter of judicial declaration, been banned from re-contesting thus sending a clear warning to political parties that Nigeria would not condone such acts and to clean their ass. But what did we get? The guilty parties, using the same candidates, were asked to go for a re-run. The re-runs in Kogi, Adamawa, Enugu, Akwa Ibom etc were as stage-managed as they were in the 2007 election. So, like the Guardian in one of its editorials rightly pointed on those judgements: where lies the legal justice talkless of social justice? The people of Ekiti took a cue from the badly conducted re-runs in those states and rightly chosed to protect their votes and they are doing it in their own way. There is a limit to which a people can be pushed to a wall. If only most states in Nigeria would take a cue from Ekiti state, then the country will be able to make considerable qualitative stride. The people of Ekiti have shown that they are as educated as they are politically conscious. Political consciousness is not only a theory but a praxis. I say kudos to them and I hope that the stuggle will not be in vain. Even if it is vain, it signals and portends danger for the 2011 elections. The PDP is not a political party, but a "commercial venture".

Zuma  # 3 | 01.05.2009 17:57

I think the same thing happened one way or another in Anambra and Edo states for example and till date nothing has come out of the re-run or upturns. Small wonder that within a state, the indegenes cannot work together for the common good of all. Whether it is AC or PDP in Ekiti, does it make a difference? All the politicians are selfish in nature and outright rogues. All they are doing is substituting one set of thieves for another. I used to think that the white man created over 300 languages in Nigeria by forming one country in disunity. By a closer examination, it occurred to me that it was the nature of the man to move from one settlement to another just for a 'quarrel' over a bowl of oatmeal. 2 brothers quarrel then split to form 2 different languages. Their sons grow up together, disagree then fold up their tents and move to form a different 'kibbutz'. While this is becoming less noticeable in developed countries, it becomes more pronounced in 'developing' countries. The reason we have had all the languages we see in Africa for example. Everyone wants to be king. Working for the common good of the whole is a foreign concept. I often wonder how countries like China pulled through the influence of the British? We have the people of Ekiti fighting amongst themselves for a seed of discord planted by their own kin OBJ. It is amazing. The same plan he had for Nigeria is the same plan manifesting in his on regional 'estate'. If Ekiti is a political slave, it remains a slave to itself. They have no one else to blame but themselves.