15 Apr 2008 |
|
One of the disciples of Jesus that fascinates me is Peter. Peter had the canny ability to stir up controversy but often it led to important learning points for the rest of the disciples. It was peter that once asked Jesus to opine on how many times a man should forgive his offender. In framing his question he was crafty enough to include a hint on what he expected or perhaps wished could be the answer. Hear him in Mathew 18:21…’ Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Apparently Peter thought seven times was enough; at least that could work out to once in a day for the seven days in a week! But surprisingly Jesus said unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven! Whao! Peter was stunned. He got more than what he bargained for. He lost his voice. The silence that befall the crowd enabled Jesus to preach a long sermon on forgiveness, divorce and the commandments. When Peter finally found his voice again, he could only ask ‘Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?’ But this is not the first time Jesus would give such a hard answer to an everyday question. The other day he told the disciples in Luke 6:29…‘unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also’ The fainthearted among them lamented that if these were the rules to go by, then it was impossible for any man to be saved. It appears to me that Nigerian Christians do not understand the import of these golden rules. The outrage that erupted after Iwu slapped them in the face in April 2007, exposed the shallowness of their walk with the Lord. Instead of turning the other cheek, they began to call for the man’s head. Iwu must be a better Christian than most of us! In the midst of the hullabaloo, the man in the eye of the storm remained adamant insisting that given the opportunity (which he obviously believed he deserves by virtue of his knowledge of the Bible) he could reel out the second slap. He could not understand why Nigerians, at least the Christians among them, failed to accept that he has not exhausted seventy times seven (490) times recommended by Jesus, to warrant his (Iwu’s) crucifixion. So the opportunity came recently in Kogi State, where the Appeal court had ordered a re-run of the election that produced Idris as Governor at the whims of Iwu rather than the electorate. While the opposition was rejoicing at the chance to reclaim their mandate, Iwu was busy cerebrating the rare privilege ever extended to a Nigerian dead or alive to fulfill the Biblical injunction. Those who heard the PDP candidate boasting of his ability to win the election ten times again and again, and still had the guts to contest that election with the hope of winning, either did not trust Iwu’s claim to be a Christian bent on fulfilling Christ’s injunction in Luke 6:29 or they were just being naïve. As far as Iwu was concerned, one bad slap deserves another to match and the rest is history. Idris is back to Lugard Hall(or is it House they call it?). I hear that Audu has vowed to go back to the tribunal and this is what prompted me to write this article. Just how many times should we recycle complaints of rigging, ballot stuffing, ballot snatching, vote allocation, and outright falsification of results by INEC to the tribunals? If what happened in Kogi is a pointer of what is to come, regarding the pending petitions at the various tribunals, then I foresee a viscous cycle in which the tribunals would keep annulling the elections and INEC repeating the same feat after every round of re-run. The whole process would then become an exercise in futility. Faced with a scenario like this, one is compelled to opine that the thinking that the Judiciary is last hope of the common man needs an overhaul. In a situation where electoral victory is denied the people, and the hope of redress via the judiciary becomes dimmed by the fact that the usurper is called upon to repeat his acts again and again, the people might resort to violence. If I continue along this line of thought it would be logical (though it may sound sarcastic) to suggest that Kenyans are more politically advanced than Nigerians. They have passed through that stage of seeking redress in the courts, knowing its futility and thus opted for the next option which is the violence that erupted after the disputed elections in that country. I pray that Nigerians should not develop their political intelligence to the Kenyan level. But if my prayer is to be answered then something must be done to correct our electoral system to ensure we get it right at the balloting stage without recourse to the tribunals. One of the things Yar’Adua’s Electoral Reform Committee must address is the level of culpability of the electoral umpire in electoral fraud and the commensurate sanctions for the principal(s). It makes no sense of justice if a Court of competent jurisdiction indicts INEC of electoral fraud and on the weight of this, annuls the election, but does not take a step further to sanction the erring body and or its principals. Electoral fraud is a worst form of corruption than money laundering for which some governors are under trial. The Electoral Reform Committee should recommend stiff penalties for both the INEC as a body and the principals in their personal capacity in the event of proven violation of the Electoral Act or other laws of the land in the conduct of their duties. If we had such a system on ground, a character like Iwu that took the shine out of the electoral process, should be somewhere between prison cell and the iron door. This would have prevented this him from bestriding the annals of our beloved nation with a fake brave face bereft of the rudimentary elements of integrity. Iwu does know the difference between the silence in a graveyard and the tranquillity of a serene garden and thus misconstrues one for the other simply because both are proliferated with flowers. The silence from the public whose mandate was snatched in April 2007 in a brazen display of machiavellianism by this Iwu, was pretentiously equated with approval of the ignominious role of usurpation and distortion he played in the whole process. To add salt to injury this fellow, who in other climes should burry his face in shame and would have resigned long ago, had the audacity to tell Nigerians that his (s)election was more free and fair than the famed June 12, election of 1993. Not done yet with mischievous audacity, Iwu capitalised on Nigerian’s short memory to claim that some precarious forces outside his domain or control threatened to scuttle the election against which he gallantly prevailed and thus, deserved not just commendation but also some reverence and perhaps a reward. What else than the assumption that Nigerians are too daft to recognise the architect of the confusion brewed in the run up to the elections, could have encouraged him to make such childish excuse for his dismal performance? Some of us cannot be tricked into forgetting so soon that the confusion generated in the run-up to the election was deliberately engineered by Iwu at the whims of the then dictator that hired him. The activities of INEC under the leadership of Iwu ran contrary to the spirit and letter of the Electoral Act. Many a commentator had cause to warn Iwu to face the business of preparation for the election instead of concentrating his energy on fighting opposition candidates as he was doing then; but like a foolish dog that could not heed the whistle of its owner, Iwu turned a deaf ear only to turn round and blame the dismal conduct of the election on some mysterious persons who did not want the election to hold. So it was not surprising to hear this same Iwu come out to claim vindication after the lopsided judgment of the Appeal Court on the petitions brought before it by Buhari and Atiku. This was one action that singularly confirmed the dearth of integrity in the soul of Iwu. The claim of vindication was akin to a hunter claiming gallantry for discovering a dead lion! This hunter knows he could not face a live lion, did not kill a lion, but wants the village to crown him hero for a feat he did not achieve. There must be some good mix of mediocrity and hypocrisy at work in the soul of this man! As things stand, for a man like Iwu, I would not recommend Jesus’ injunction to forgive him 490 times, or to turn the other cheek, rather I would ask that they tie a milestone to his neck and throw him into the Atlantic ocean, after all this is what the same Jesus recommended for anyone who would offend even little children. Like one of my respected Pastors once stated in a sermon, it is the same God that created Sugarcane that also created bitter leaf.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.