---

By every measure, one of the most serious issues that gnaw seriously in the minds of every Nigeri...Read the full article.

---

This is a nice piece.It is now a tradition, most especially of late, to call critics of the last hopelessly flawed elections anti -OBJ.Prof. Nwosu's option A4 is the best for a country like Nigeria where corruption is entrenched in every walk of life.

---

"The use of the police, army, and other forms of security agencies by parties and private politicians during elections must be made a criminal offence and anybody found to have violated this stands to be jailed.

Proven cases of electoral misdemeanor should be punishable with the beneficiary made to forfeit his electoral mandate and banned from further participation in the process. Where the members or operatives of the electoral body are found guilty of perpetrating electoral fraud, such a person must be jailed.

Beneficiaries of electoral fraud must be made to forfeit their mandates to the challenger in the situation the challenger is free from electoral misconduct".


Peter Claver:
Spot-on. This, in a way, is the root of all electoral evils; despite the fraudulent mayhem called elections and despite the clear evidence of such coming from all strata of the judicial domain, no single individual has been found culpable/punished!

---

IN ATLANTA, IWU CARRIED THE DAY WITH HIS THESIS ON CONSTITUENCY DELIMITATION

By: WALE ODUSOTE

I have had cause to write about Maurice Iwu of INEC but I have never met him in person. Normally, I would not write about a subject or a person with whom I have never had a personal contact of some sort. But in Maurice Iwu’s case, I broke custom and wrote about him anyway because the issue at the time concerned me as much it concerned any other Nigerian out here in the Diaspora. The issue had to do with the legal challenge to Iwu’s tenure based on the notion that he lost his rights to hold high office in Nigeria because of his status as a naturalized US citizen. My main theme of my essay, which was (generously) published in the nigeriavillagesquare.com and other Blogs/Newspapers, was that the suit against Iwu held serious negative legal implications for the entire Nigerian Diaspora. If Iwu had lost, all Diasporans would have been collectively imperiled. But the man fought back and hard; and just about a few weeks ago, the verdict came down in favor and I breathed a sigh of relief – for myself, my fellow Diasporans and for our children.

Now I have cause to write about Maurice Iwu again and this time I am doing so after actually meeting him in person for the very first time. Meeting the man was not by happenstance but by design. This is how it happened. Just a few days ago, I got a mail from one Nigerian group out in Atlanta bearing the missive that Maurice Iwu is in town – in Atlanta, and would be a guest at a Symposium to discuss Diasporan input in the ongoing electoral reforms (including issues relating to constituency delimitation and Diasporan voting rights). To cut a long story short, I contacted some airlines and was able to get a re-eye booking that took me to Atlanta in time enough for me to attend the event at the Grand Hyatt in Buckhead, suburbs of Atlanta on July 15, 2008. The event started around noon and several Nigerians were present, including the Consul-General of Nigeria in Atlanta, members of NIDO-A, US-based Nigerian Journalists, etc. Presentations were made by several folks, including ones by Professor Okafor and Professor Maurice Iwu himself. There was talk that a certain Femi Ajayi was billed to be present to make a presentation but he never showed up.

Professor Okafor did talk of the pressing need for general reforms in Nigeria’s electoral regime but, by and large, he seemed to have a special passion for Diaspora voting rights. On this, he suggested many novel means and I had a feeling that he researched his subject well and the audience came out better informed on the finer points of the topic. After him, Professor Iwu proceeded with the keynote presentation of the day – mostly speaking without prepared notes which made him appear very credible and conversant with all the issues he touched on, ranging from the challenges INEC had to face, the misunderstood role of tribunals in the electoral process, constituency delimitation, affirmative action for women in politics, the need for journalistic balance in reporting Nigerian issues in international media (Blogs especially), Diaspora voting rights, etc. Professor Iwu was very clear on many things he said but one issue upon which he appeared to be most passionate was the one dealing with constituency delimitation or redistricting. His unambiguous postulate that the constituencies in the Federation of Nigeria must, as far as possible, reflect equal or proportional representation captured the imagination of all present. And it is not abstract because other democracies like the United States are known to do the same. Distinguish that from gerrymandering which carries the prospects of political disadvantage; and some people have even argued that constituency delimitation of the past was some sort of gerrymandering – in the sense that proportional representation was least considered, if at all.

After their presentations, questions and comments were allowed from us in the floor. But due to pressure of time and the sheer number of those who wanted to ask questions/make comments, not everyone was able to get a slot to make his own contribution. But those who did pretty much reflected the common and general views of those who didn’t get recognized to speak. I figured this from gauging the demeanor and expressions of many who either nodded their concurrence with points made or just vehemently shook their heads in disagreements. All in all, Nigerians were in their best elements as everyone made clear attempts to be constructive and avoid unnecessary forays into irrelevancies and personal attacks. Much to the credit of the organizers, the moderator – Udejiofor and Maurice Iwu’s engaging personality, the general atmosphere was very intellectual, serious-minded and patriotic.

The first floor speaker praised Iwu for his evident (and thankless) hard work in delivering on the 2007 transition; the second speaker marveled at the difficult conditions and inadequate institutional arrangements under which INEC had to operate and deliver on an election without which Nigeria could have lagged; the third (a young lady from Southwest Nigeria) thanked Iwu profusely but wanted to know more on what concrete steps are being taken to assure participation of women in the political process; the fourth (a US-based Nigerian journalist) who confessed that he had been critical of Iwu/INEC in the past ventured that having met Iwu for the first time and listening to him speak is now likely to get him to change his mind. He was bold and objective and he promised to expand on his thesis on electoral reforms and forward to Iwu/Reform Panel in due course. This journalist also advised Iwu to carry his message to the Nigerian people at the local levels in order to properly inform and counteract any negative stereotypes that may have been spun on Iwu/INEC.

Just like the journalist, I too was meeting Iwu for the first time and I also experienced a sort of baptism of fire – in the sense that Iwu was able to (finally) convince me of his sincerity and the hard work INEC brought to bear in Nigeria in the past year. His thesis on constituency delimitation was unassailable. Iwu is right that the last constituency delimitation by the military did not reflect the true physical distribution of population densities across Nigeria. And it seemed that minority nationalities, metropolitan areas and women may have been robbed. Some political justice and fair play beckoned – thanks to Iwu’s pioneering work in these regards. He even ventured a set aside for women – to assure that their greatest numbers possible is captured into the process. He was also right that after twelve long years, Nigeria was ripe for constituency delimitation and the Constitution even mandated as such. In this season of constitutional amendment, there couldn’t have been a better time for Iwu to bring this fundamental issue into the fore.

Finally, Maurice Iwu’s openness to suggestions and criticisms was admirable and his patriotism was ram-rod and clear. He also exuded lots of creativity and real-world smarts that Nigeria needs if we are serious about taking our democracy to the next level.

Thus, I came out of the symposium hugely enriched, better informed, and less critical of a man who has worked so hard for Nigeria but seemed to have been misunderstood by many who never took the time to go beyond the barrage of negative press that was unleashed on Nigeria’s 2007 historic transition even before the first ballots were cast. Lessons: I will rather have a Maurice Iwu running our elections for now and in the future instead of certain other umpires who either don’t declare their results or recanted on the results they declared; and I will rather now be talking of electoral reforms that make sense – like constituency redistricting and Diaspora voting rights instead of over-flogging men and women of INEC who braved odds to accomplish an all-important national assignment at a critical time in our history. And now that Iwu has vicariously overcome the burden of dual citizenship for all Diasporans, I can see a brighter future in Nigeria’s political firmament for us all – Diasporans and home-based alike.

Wale wrote in from USA