Please let Iwu Go!

It appears clear that a powerful public relations campaign to persuade Nigerians that Professor Maurice Iwu was not the problem with the discredited April 2007 elections is unfolding. The argument is simple and it goes thus-“Nigerians always complain about elections, so it is nothing new that Nigerians have complained about the 2007 elections; the problem with the 2007 election was institutional (and perhaps Obasanjo and the political class) but not Iwu; Removing Iwu from office will not address the problem”-the unspoken conclusion behind the campaign being “leave Iwu in office!”. It is a shame really that this argument is being made at all.

Actually the arguments are not without some logic even if disingenuous, evidence of the fact that intelligent communicators are at work. As a matter of fact this columnist does not dispute the fact that the problems of the 2007 elections go beyond Maurice Iwu-indeed that point was probably first made on this page on March 21, 2007 in an article titled, “Individuals, Processes and Institutions”. Interestingly this was a month before the elections by which time it was clear that there were going to be serious problems with the approaching elections. In that article, I recounted my off-air discussions several months before the elections with some admirers of Professor Iwu on the set of ‘Patitos Gang’ in which I cautioned that while they believed so much in the professor’s integrity and personal ability, conducting elections went beyond individual attributes, to process and institutional constraints and contexts.

If I may quote from that article, “enduring societies and organizations are built not around individuals-their strengths, weaknesses, predilections, biases etc but on strong processes, systems and laws, and ultimately on strong institutions”. So the first part of the pro-Iwu argument is sound if it is amended to read, “Iwu was not the ONLY problem with the 2007 elections”. There were also leadership, political, institutional, socio-economic factors which contributed to the charade that happened in the name of elections earlier this year. But Iwu was a major part of the problems with the elections! By March 2007 when I wrote the article under reference, Iwu had disqualified all the major opponents of the man who reportedly facilitated his appointment, Andy Uba who was contesting for the Anambra governorship-Peter Obi of APGA, Nicholas Ukachukwu of ANPP and Chris Ngige of AC.

By the time I wrote that article, Professor Iwu’s INEC had introduced an unconstitutional requirement of photographs of candidates beyond just party name and symbol required by law. It was clear that this requirement was targeted at ensuring that the candidates INEC and its masters in the Presidency and PDP were determined to prevent from contesting would not be on the ballot. The principal target of this was of course Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The electoral body under Maurice Iwu had proceeded to disqualify several opposition candidates from contesting the elections, some in the face of High Court decisions to the contrary. In both the Anambra case and the arguments over the eligibility of Alhaji Atiku, it had to take judicial intervention for the rule of law and commonsense to prevail over the shameless gerrymandering of Iwu and co.

During the elections we observed with amusement Iwu’s curious conduct of elections in his home state-Imo. We all know what all these have cost the nation. Elections in several states have being set aside-Governor Idris in Kogi and Admiral Nyako in Adamawa essentially because INEC prevented their opponents from contesting the elections. The elections in Kebbi and Rivers have been faulted by the courts in ways that amount to an indictment of INEC. Indeed in the Anambra case, the court specifically criticized INEC’s behaviour. Just last week two out of the three senatorial elections in Plateau State were set aside because of issues relating to the unlawful exclusions of legally qualified candidates. Is Iwu blameless in all of that?

It is amazing really that given the international odium that the 2007 elections has brought upon Nigeria, some are prepared to have Profesor Iwu preside over other elections in this country. What will the world think of us? Have we so completely lost our values that we have no sense of shame or impropriety any more? Yes it is true that Nigerian politicians always complain about any elections they do not win, but rarely has there ever been such overwhelming consensus amongst local observers, international institutions and countries and until recently the media that any set of elections conducted in Nigeria were a fraud and charade. Indeed international observers include the EU and Commonwealth state categorically that the elections were flawed even by African standards. Don’t we realize the damning implications of these statements?

Nevertheless, we agree that removing Professor Iwu from office will not guarantee perfect elections in Nigeria. But his removal is a mandatory first step, amongst others to send a message to his successors and other Nigerians that absence of integrity in public office will be sanctioned and not rewarded. If I may return to the March article previously quoted, in which having recognized the place of processes and institutions, I recognized that there is also a strong role for the right type of individuals-“Outstanding individuals are of course required to provide leadership at particular points in time; they can provide vision and leadership around which followers can be mobilized; they can reverse a slide to organizational and societal decay”. The point here is if we are not to signal the decay and death of proper electoral behavior in Nigeria, Professor Iwu and his discredited team have to give way to outstanding Nigerians of integrity who will be willing to resign from office rather than compromise their values and principles. That by the way was what another Professor, Eme Awa did, so it is not a standard too high for Nigerians to aspire to!

Thereafter the compulsory work of electoral reform must then be carried out to address fundamental legal and institutional issues such as independence of the electoral agency, funding, capacity building, voting systems and technology, and electoral registers. It is to the credit of President Yar’adua that even though he was the principal beneficiary of the sham supervised by Iwu, he has publicly acknowledged its flaws and set up a process for remedying the situation. It is understandable perhaps (painfully) if President Yar’adua believes he should wait until the electoral challenges to his election are disposed of before firing Iwu, but fire him, he must if he is to be taken seriously in his intention to give Nigeria credible elections as he has so courageously sworn to do.