Tuesday 30 July 2013

2015: The Political Pilgrimages To Minna And Abeokuta — Okey Ndibe


okey_ndibes_6
  • 3
     
    Share


The starkest evidence yet of Nigeria’s despairing circumstances could be glimpsed in the fact that Minna and Abeokuta have become major destinations for a certain kind of political pilgrim.
In the last two weeks, a number of governors from the northern part of Nigeria have visited two former Nigerian rulers, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (ret.) in Minna, and former President Olusegun Obasanjo in Abeokuta. Both pilgrimages were seen, above all, as part of the tactical maneuvers for the 2015 elections.
Yet, that the governors consider Mr. Babangida and Mr. Obasanjo worthy of consultation or enlistment speaks to the bankruptcy of their – and Nigeria’s – project. Babangida and Obasanjo are alike in several vital respects. They’re big-time authors of Nigeria’s misfortune, vectors of the political, social and economic crises in which the country is mired, and eloquent examples of failed leaders.
What does it mean, then, that all political roads are leading to both men’s doors? In a few words, that Nigeria is in big, big trouble – if not altogether doomed. The voyage to the hearths of the two men is akin to trusting that a problem is the solution.
To cast both men in negative light is not to suggest, however, that anybody who came before and after them was stellar. No, Nigeria has been luckless in its leadership and, in fact, in the quality of its broader elite. But Babangida and Obasanjo found ways to intensify Nigeria’s malaise, their policies and style helping to amplify and entrench some of the most debilitating symptoms of a sick, floundering country.
Take Babangida. He became Nigeria’s military ruler in 1985, unseating the duo of Generals Muhammadu Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon that had imposed a plastic version of discipline on Nigerians. A charismatic man with a ready, gap-toothed smile, Mr. Babangida seemed the perfect corrective to Buhari’s (and Idiagbon’s) dour, cheerless mien. Before long, however, it dawned on Nigerians that real leadership demanded much more than personal charms.
It may well be the case that the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), the centerpiece of Mr. Babangida’s economic policy, was both inevitable and the perfect panacea for the country’s indolent, over-regulated economy. What was undeniable, however, is that SAP almost overnight zapped Nigeria’s fledging middle class out of existence, creating two veritable classes: the opulently wealthy and the desperately wretched.
It was a thoroughly painful adjustment, an era in which civil servants could not afford to buy decent cars and some lecturers took to driving cabs in their spare time. Through it all, Mr. Babangida preached patience, assuring us that the gains of policy awaited us at the end of the transition.
It would have been marvelous if he adopted his own counsel. The evidence, clearly, is that he did not. While Nigerians writhed in pain and did their inventive best to scrape through harsh times, their ruler was in plain view accumulating riches for himself, acquiring a hilltop mansion that would provoke an Arab oil sheik into fits of envy, and amassing a huge cache of cash. In other words, the man who asked the rest of us to accept privation for a period of time did not have the discipline – the vision and temperament – to take his own bitter pill.
babangida-pastBabangida compounded his awful statecraft when he announced an ostensible program to return Nigeria to a liberal democratic culture. Unwilling to contemplate his eventual withdrawal from power, he turned the time-table for democratic transition into an expensive, deceptive scheme. In the day, he pretended to be committed to ending military rule; at night, he and his cohorts plotted to sabotage the process – the better to perpetuate himself in office. The culmination of this charade came in Mr. Babangida’s annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.
That remains a defining part of Babangida’s legacy. In some ways, Nigeria is still reeling from the aftermath of that act of perfidy.
And then there’s Obasanjo. This man may well be the luckiest Nigerian, alive or dead. Born into poverty, his childhood ambition was to be a roadside mechanic. Instead, he found his way into the military, rose to be a general, and made two tours as Nigeria’s ruler – once as a military dictator, the other time as an “elected” president. His “election” in 1999 completed a script that had slight echoes of the experience of Nelson Mandela, the South Africa sage who commands near-universal admiration. Mr. Obasanjo had emerged from (Abacha’s) prison to become Nigeria’s president.
Gifted with a unique opportunity to become a true hero, Mr. Obasanjo seemed determined, instead, to surpass Mr. Babangida in all the trivial ways. He may have set up two anti-corruption agencies, but his administration was notorious as an enabler of graft and money laundering. He exhibited a shocking propensity to dine with and empower all manner of shady characters, the exceptions being those who were reluctant to massage his imperial ego. For all the speeches he read on accountability and transparency, he ran a shop where – under his very gaze – his confidants and associates stole Nigeria blind.
As I stated, Obasanjo’s one obsession seemed to be to best Babangida in some egoistic game. He dwarfed his rival by becoming, by far, the person with the longest tenure as president. He and his coterie acquired enough riches to tower over the man from Minna and his crowd. A slave to imitation, he acquired his own hilltop mansion in Abeokuta.
Obasanjo’s gravest crime was not that he was a mediocre leader. In the end, mediocrity in a leader is forgivable. His greatest blemish was to participate, actively and fervently, in the devaluation of Nigeria and the debasement of the Presidency. How did he do so? He empowered rustics like the late Lamidi Adedibu and Chris Uba to use police contingents to sack or hijack two governors. He belittled the judiciary by ignoring judicial verdicts that went against his government. He squandered cash in the neighborhood of $10-16 billion on a scam announced as a mission to offer Nigerians “regular, uninterrupted power supply.” He looked the other way – and compelled the anti-corruption agencies to do the same – when his political friends pillaged public funds. He weakened the National Assembly by constantly meddling in its affairs, including dictating who their leaders must be.
Instead of lending himself to the goal of strengthening democratic values, Obasanjo became an apostle of do-or-die, a zestful rigger of elections. Drunk with power, he was willing to gut the Nigerian constitution in a bid to grant himself a third term in office – and a virtual life presidency. As Nigerians groaned for infrastructure and livable wages, Mr. Obasanjo mindlessly sank billions in scarce funds to bribe his way to a third term – all the while denying that he wanted to stay on. Denied his illicit third term dream, he imposed Umaru Yar’Adua, a feeble, dying man, and Goodluck Jonathan, a nondescript governor, as the PDP’s ticket – and then imposed them on Nigeria.
yaradua-jonathan
This architect of Nigeria’s misfortune appears to cherish some Nigerians’ proclamation that he was a much better “leader” than, say, President Jonathan. Such flattery proceeds from a short memory as well as a profound misreading of Obasanjo’s role in misshaping our present. Properly understood, Yar’Adua and Jonathan are part and parcel of Obasanjo’s legacy. If the current president’s performance is subpar, perhaps we should ask Obasanjo, again, why he guaranteed to us that he’d chosen the perfect team to take over from him.
In a society where leaders are held to strenuous standards, neither Babangida nor Obasanjo would be able to show his face in public. That some northern governors – and other politicians – are flocking to both men’s separate hilltop is a clear sign that Nigeria will remain a mess for a while to come.

NewsRescue

Of leaders and dealers: Soyinka Vs Clark By Olakunle Abimbola

Of leaders and dealers: Soyinka Vs Clark By Olakunle Abimbola


A community with worthy elders never comes to ruin – Yoruba proverb 
When do elders morph from leaders to dealers?
The latest foxtrot on the Rivers crisis, by the South-South Elders and Stakeholders, a group led by Pa Edwin Clark, Ijaw leader and presidential godfather, might just offer a clue.
The Clark-led elders, on July 24, told Governor Chibuike Amaechi to stop blaming President Goodluck Jonathan and Patience, his ever-meddling wife, for the contrived Rivers crisis; told the governor to shape in or shape out; told the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to kick out the governor to serve as warning to other power renegades; pooh-poohed the four northern governors that went on a solidarity visit to Amaechi as cynical meddlers; and branded Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, as an arch-hypocrite who wept more than the bereaved at the legislative banditry of the Rivers G-5, while he kept mute in earlier legislative outlawry in Oyo (where Governor Rashidi Ladoja was illegally impeached) and Soyinka’s native Ogun State (when Governor Gbenga Daniel inspired legislative lawlessness in his gubernatorial dying days).
Indeed, they practically did a pun on the famous author of The Man Died and his work: that the man died in the Nobel Laureate for his alleged quiet at constitutional outrages in Oyo and Ogun states; while jerking awake at the repeat of the same crime in their Rivers!
But, of course, Clark and his “elders”, in their release, never bothered with the rigour of reason. All they barked, conceited folks, was the language of power, boasting neither wisdom nor reason.
The whole thing was some dumb smartie’s response to the five northern governors’ “Save Democracy tour” to former President Olusegun Obasanjo (Jonathan’s estranged godfather), Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, three former soldiers ironically pitched to help save democracy under Jonathan’s reckless assault!
But again, the Clark gambit was a classic from the brilliant dullness of the Jonathan court: no tactics, no strategy, just stark power blundering and bumbling!
Even then, if the so-called elders wilfully lost a bit of their wisdom in anticipation of some power gravy, can’t their young Turks at least work hard to safeguard the integrity of their claims?
The Clark group made the fantastic claim that Soyinka kept mute during the legislative anomie in Oyo and Ogun states. But this claim is either criminal forgetfulness or plain mischief.
On the Ladoja illegal impeachment, Soyinka called for Obasanjo’s impeachment, linking the Oyo legislative crisis to his complicity – just as Jonathan’s link to the present Rivers affront is crystal clear.
“Obasanjo has acted sufficiently against the constitution to warrant his impeachment,” Soyinka declared on 20 January 2006. “There is more than enough evidence to warrant his impeachment”.
That was even a case of 18 (a simple majority) removing the governor in a 32-member legislature, which nevertheless fell short of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority: not a case of Rivers’ “simple minority” of five versus 27! AFP, with Nigerian newspapers, reported the Soyinka stand.
On the Gbenga Daniel legislative shenanigans in Ogun, where the minority G-9 overthrew the majority G-15, Soyinka was no less hard-hitting. “I wish to state, categorically, this cannot and must not be allowed to stand. I call on the citizens of the state to ensure democracy is restored. A minority” he insisted, “cannot sack a majority”.
Indeed, since Soyinka’s famous “Daani Elebo” laconic putdown, he had visited every OGD misdeed with ringing condemnation, including dismissing OGD’s as “government by billboard”.
But where was Clark’s beloved presidential godson in all of these? Feigned culpable disinterest enough to name and retain Daniel as his South West presidential campaign coordinator! For Jonathan, it was, it is and ever shall be: to win and keep power, every constitutional breach is tolerable!
All these were in the public space. They are eminently verifiable with a push of the computer keyboard. Yet, Clark and his elders made such an outlandish claim! Might these elders suffer criminal senility, just to patch up the ultra-bad case of their beloved godson?
Even if Soyinka had kept mum: does that justify the criminality in the Rivers Assembly of five (with a fake mace to boot!) trying to overthrow the will of 27, simply because of collusion from Jonathan’s Nigeria Police? That is the futility and hollow arrogance of power, while these so-called South-South elders ought to have built their case on rigour and reason. It falls flat – even in the ears of the dumb!
But Soyinka was right: if Obasanjo had been impeached for the Ladoja outrage or Jonathan seriously reprimanded for playing dumb, for electoral gain, on the OGD-inspired Ogun legislative crime, this nonsense would not have repeated itself; and the Clark “elders” would not ridicule themselves with woolly thinking to back constitutional evil.
But maybe it is good Jonathan is pushing his good luck. And maybe, if he pushes it enough, he just might be impeached to avert any future presidential rascality! Did these elders ever think of this dire possibility?
Really, it is amusing Clark of all people would doubt Soyinka’s total commitment to a Nigeria driven by equity, justice and fair play, and not arbitrary power. Indeed, when Soyinka landed in Ibadan in 1969, after his Civil War Kaduna incarceration, his first response to the war-time jingle, “To keep Nigeria One …” was a snappy riposte: “Justice must be done!”
A younger Clark was busy collaborating with the same northern forces he now wants to demonise, to willy-nilly protect his godson – a power he doesn’t even have. But that is the way of Nigeria’s power men and women of all seasons!
Soyinka comes from a diametrically opposed culture: justice men and women of all seasons. And names like Obafemi Awolowo, Tai Solarin, Ayodele Awojobi, Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana – do they ring a bell? They stand for justice and fair play and would battle anyone, no matter where he comes from, even within their own Yoruba stock, that essays impunity.
So those orchestrated merchants of vulgar abuse, who claim the Yoruba are their problems because Soyinka told Jonathan to rein in his henchmen and women in Port Harcourt, miss the point.
The Nigerian Presidency is not South-South property. Whoever occupies that post must play by the rules or face the flak of right-thinking citizens – Nigeria is a republic, after all! So it is with President Jonathan.
As for Clark’s grouse with the visiting northern governors, the late Chuba Okadigbo called it “political arithmetic”. If Jonathan, with his power delusion and certified incompetence, alienates a wide swath of the North and a good chunk of the South West, how does he hope to win a second term? Indeed, if his party is in disarray and he is, for ego, planting further insurrection in his back yard, how does his centre hold?
Elders are supposed to be wise. Clark and co must do some hard thinking, save Jonathan from self-inflicted ruin and stop playing to juvenile gallery.
Omojuwa.com

Do Not Truncate Democracy, Tukur Begs Rebellious PDP Governors


Bamanga Tukur
By SaharaReporters, New York
As the crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) rages on, its National Chairman, Bamanga Tukur, has said that the five governors at the hub of it are heating up the polity and urged them to desist from actions capable of truncating Nigeria's democracy.
It was his first reaction to calls by the governors that he be removed from office, to which he objected by saying that the governors did not make their comments with ‘decorum, humility and caution.’
“As Leaders whom the general public look upon as a role model, they are expected to show respect to constituted authority and the elders which includes Alhaji Dr. Bamanga Tukur who have contributed immensely to the peace progress, development and advancement of this country,” his media aide, Prince Oliver Okpala, said in a statement in Abuja today.
The  governors: Alhaji Sule Lamido of Jigawa, Governor Rabiu Kwankwanso of Kano, Aliyu Wamakko of Sokoto, Babangida Aliyu of Niger and Murtala Nyako of Adamawa States, had visited former leaders Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar to complain about the chaos in the party.
They also visited President Goodluck Jonathan on the same issue.
In all their discussions, they called for the removal of Tukur.
“It is unfortunate that these Governors are demanding Tukur’s removal when Tukur has made immense sacrifices for the peace and progress of the PDP and had extended his peculiar kind of brotherly love to all Party men and women,” the statement said.  “The Governors are hereby advised to embrace peace and desist from dramatizing the few problems within our democracy as these can send a wrong signal to Nigerians and the international community.”
Okpala described Tukur as a “true and committed democratic, patriotic Nigerian, a first-class nationalist and an elder statesman of international repute.”
An Abuja-based political analyst who read the statement this evening said he could not understand how Tukur being removed from the position of party chairman amounts to an action “capable of truncating democracy” in Nigeria.
“What does Tukur think he is?” he asked.  “In my view, removing him would rank right next to removing Jonathan from his lofty heights if PDP wants to survive as one.  But that is to assume that the PDP knows it’s left from its right.  If it did, it would not be led by the political equivalent of crash test dummies that they have imposed on the country.”
Full text of the statement:
The recent visit by some Governors from the North to the President has raised furore, although the discussions between the President and the Governors was held behind closed – doors, the Media has been awash with the news of the meeting and the issues discussed.
Media reports have it that the 4 Governors who had earlier visited former President Obansanjo and 2 former Military Heads of State demanded the removal of Alhaji Dr. Bamanga Tukur as the National Chairman of the PDP.
We do not know the veracity of this claim, suffice it to say however that, the Governors have the fundamental right to meet and discuss with each other and whomsoever they like and may also have the fundamental right to freedom of speech and to air their views on any issue of National importance.
However, in so doing one would expect them to make comments with decorum, humility and caution. As Leaders whom the general public look upon as a role model, they are expected to show respect to    constituted authority and the elders which includes Alhaji Dr. Bamanga Tukur who have contributed immensely to the peace progress, development and advancement of this country.
Much as the Constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedom, such as freedom of speech and assembly. There are Constitutional limitations to this freedom and the Leaders should show wisdom, caution, prudence and good counsel in their comments on National issues as their unguided utterances and calls can cause unnecessary political tension.
It is also important to emphasize that the PDP, as a  political platform upon which the Governors were elected have avenues and internal mechanism for resolution of conflicts and grievances, the Governors are therefore advised as Party -men to avail themselves of these avenues before seeking audience or making public utterances capable of overheating the polity.
More importantly, the PDP has a reconciliation Committee entrusted with the task of conflict resolution in the Party.
The Governors by their action and utterances have shown contempt to this committee by not deeming it necessary or worthy to take their grievances to the reconciliation Committee.
One would have expected the Governors to express their grievances privately to the Party Leadership or the reconciliation Committee instead of going public with their grievances before seeking audience with other Nigerian Leaders.
There is no doubt that the Governors peripatetic vision have contributed in no small measure to overheating the polity.
The National Chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Dr. Bamanga Tukur has tried all in his power to bring peace, tranquility and love in the PDP. His 3 cardinal policies of Reconciliation, Reformation and Rebuilding are aimed at giving all members of the Party a sense of belonging.
The National Chairman also has an open door policy and accommodation for all shades of opinion within the Party. It is unfortunate   that these Governors are demanding Tukur’s removal when Tukur has made immense sacrifices for the peace and progress of the PDP and had extended his peculiar kind of brotherly love to all Party men and women.
The Governors are hereby advised to embrace peace and desist from dramatizing the few problems within our democracy as these can send a wrong signal to Nigerians and the international Community.
The Governors as Party faithfuls and responsible citizens of this Country holding exalted positions should desist from any action that tend to overheat the polity and truncate our nascent democratic structure.
Be it known that Alhaji Bamanga Tukur is a true and committed democratic, patriotic Nigerian, a first-class Nationalist and an Elder Statesman of International repute whose cardinal aim is to protect our nascent democracy, protect the indivisibility of our Country and ensure the progress of our great Party the PDP.
Prince Oliver Okpala
Special Assistant on Media to the
National Chairman of PDP

Monday 29 July 2013

Centenary celebration: Ezekwesili, others battle FG


Nigerians have described the ongoing year-long celebration to mark the 100th anniversary of the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorates as a misplaced priority.
According to the information on the centenary website,www.nigeriacentenary.com.ng, there are dozens of events, competitions and games which Nigerians are encouraged to participate in online as part of activities lined up for the celebration.
The events lined up for the celebration include college road shows, music competitions, comedy night shows, Miss Centenary Pageant, festivals and carnivals.
The organisers of the multi-faceted and multi-location celebration, which is expected to climax in January 2014, also asks citizens to upload “state heritage pictures,” promising them cash prizes and other goodies.
But most Nigerians following the ongoing centenary activities on the Internet say “celebrating history” is not enough to mark the nation’s journey from the amalgamation of 1914.
According to them, the feast amounts to a celebration of mediocrity. They say it is therefore unnecessary and a waste of resources. They argue that the project has no significance in the amelioration of the challenges of Nigeria’s nationhood.
Former Minister of Education, Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, frowns on what she sees as a  jamboree, which she says, has taken shine off the careful introspection, such occasion should have provided the nation with.
According to her, there is nothing special to brag about on Nigeria’s 100 years of existence as the polity is currently “suffocating all.” She adds that decisive steps need to be taken to get the nation back on track.
“How can we be celebrating 100 years of being a country that has yet to become a ‘nation’ with fanfare? I wish the President and our political leadership could redirect it to a season of frank dialogue on the future of Nigeria,” Ezekwesili says in a Twitter post.
She insists that there is a need for the Presidency to cut short the amalgamation “fanfare” for a “frank talk,” warning that failure to do so may spell doom for the country.
She adds, “Our country is currently brittle and that is not a good place to be no matter what the President or his aides say. Nigeria’s centre is not holding because the parts that make up the whole – levels, sectors, persons, persuasions, are creaky.
“If you take a credible poll across our diverse divides as a people, you will find out that this old Nigeria is suffocating all; this old Nigeria hobbles us all to less than we are. There is so much more to us than what we currently are as a people.
“We may keep pretending that we do not need to talk, but God forbid we land in a spot where we are forced to talk.”
Another Nigerian on Twitter, Bode Omotoye, says the Federal Government’s hinging of the reason for the fanfare on the unity of the country is sheer insincerity.
He notes, “One major problem with Nigeria is that we are not honest with ourselves. Things are bad but our leaders are pretending.”
Aligning herself with the thoughts of Ezekwesili, one Ego Okoro, observes that the centenary celebration is out of place.
“Don’t know if our leaders are seeing the poverty and illiteracy level in this country. As far as I am concerned, we have very little to celebrate,” Okoro notes.
An obviously furious Nigerian, Ameer Tsidi, laments, “It is saddening how these vile unconscionable beings plan to celebrate mediocrity. The nation is experiencing a total systemic failure; instead of trying to ameliorate the situation, they want to celebrate.”
Although the FG, through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, claims the celebration is a wholly private sector-driven initiative, some Nigerians insist that it will only provide another avenue for some government officials to enrich themselves.
Tunde Owoeye says, “It appears to me as another avenue to plunder the resources of this country. We have nothing to celebrate than being alive.’’
However, one Bolaji Ibukun, in a tweet, comforts Nigerians who took to Twitter to lament the state of underdevelopment as he urges them to develop a positive mental attitude.
He notes, “Let’s all as Nigerians think positively. The power of positive thinking is one thing we all need to have a more productive economy and a better Nigeria.”

Court overrules INEC on Fresh Party’s deregistration

Court overrules INEC on Fresh Party’s deregistration

by: Eric Ikhilae

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday voided the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the Fresh Democratic Party (FDP).
Justice Gabriel Kolawole held that INEC acted unconstitutionally as it exercised its powers to deregister the party without giving it fair hearing as provided by the Constitution.
The judge also voided the provision of Section 78(7)(ii) of the Electoral Act 2011 for being inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution.
That portion of the Electoral Act allows INEC to deregister any party that did not win either National Assembly or State Assembly seat.
The judgment was on a suit by FDP challenging its last year deregistration by INEC. The party was among 28 others proscribed by the electoral body.
Justice Kolawole held that the powers to deregister parties, granted to INEC in Section 78(7)(ii) of the Electoral Act assumes quasi-judicial nature when it comes to deregistering parties, and “must not be exercised without giving the party to be deregistered a fair hearing.
“The first plaintiff (FDP) was entitled to be heard by the first defendant (INEC) before taking the decision to deregister it,” the judge held.
Justice Kolawole criticised INEC’s defence, holding that it failed to provide any shred of evidence to prove that it accorded the party fair hearing before proceeding to deregister it.
The judge, though upheld the National Assembly’s power to make laws as it relates to its enactment of the Electoral Act 2011, held that paragraph 2 subsection 7 of section 78 of the Electoral Act was inconsistent with the Constitution.
Justice Kolawole described the provision, as enacted by the National Assembly, as “a legislative mischief that must be addressed.”
He held that the country’s electoral process had not matured to the level where it could garanty free and fair election.
The judge noted that the concern of all should be how to create acredible electoral process.
He granted nine of the plaintiffs’ 10 prayers, which include that INEC breached Sections 14, 15(2) and (3) and 17 of the Constitution in excercising its powers to deregister parties.
Justice Kolawole also held that INEC, as established under Section 153 of the Constitution, could not deregister parties without recourse to sections 221-229 of the Constitution.
The judge refused to grant the plaintiffs’ prayer for N10millon cost. He asked them to see their effort as a contribution to the growth of the nation’s democratic process.
TheNation

INEC meets on APC registration on Thursday

INEC meets on APC registration on Thursday

by: Yusuf Alli

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will on Thursday make its position known on whether to register the All Progressives Congress (APC) or not.
The electoral commission said it would follow compliance with the laws instead of sentiments.
But it was learnt that INEC field officials did not see APC as a religious party, contrary to insinuations.
According to sources, INEC Chairman Prof. Attahiru Jega and all the National Commissioners will meet on Thursday.
Some of the National Commissioners who travelled abroad were being recalled yesterday, according to sources.
A source, who spoke in confidence, said: “We will lay the controversy over the registration of All Progressives Congress to rest on Thursday. But INEC management will be guided by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
“We will also stick to our target of making the political space as free and fair as possible to all stakeholders without partiality.
“We are hopeful that by Thursday, most of the National Commissioners would have been around.”
On the insinuation that the APC is a religious party, the source said: “Our officials did not find such a colouration in their assessment to brand APC a religious party.
“If we did, we would have made our position known that we cannot register the party. We screened the list of all its national officers and nothing suggested a tilt towards any religion.”
The source stressed that INEC’s decision would be informed by Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 78 of the Electoral Act.
“We have been doing final assessment of the application of the APC in line with these provisions in the Constitution and the Electoral Act,” the source said.
Section 222 of the Constitution says: “No Association by whatever name called shall function as a political party unless:
the names and addresses of its national officers are registered with the Independent National Electoral Commission;
b. the membership of the association is opened to every citizen of Nigeria irrespective of his place of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religion or ethnic grouping
c. a copy of its Constitution is registered in the principal office of INEC in such form as may be prescribed by INEC
any alteration in its registered Constitution is also registered in the principal office of INEC within 30 days of the making of such alteration
the name of the association, its symbol or logo does not contain any ethnic or religious connotation or give the appearance that the activities of the association are confined to a part only of the geographical area of Nigeria and
the headquarters of the association is situated in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
Section 78 of the Electoral Act reads: “A political association that complies with the provision of the constitution and this Act for the purposes of registration shall be registered as a political party. Provided that such application for registration as a political party shall be duly submitted to the Commission not later than six months before a general election.
“The Commission shall, on receipt of the documents in fulfillment of the conditions stipulated by the Constitution, immediately issue the applicant with a letter of acknowledgement stating that all the necessary document has been submitted to the Commission.
“If the association has not fulfilled all the conditions under the section, the Commission shall within 30 days from the receipt of its application notify the association in writing stating the reasons for non-registration.
“A political association that meets the conditions stipulated in the constitution and this Act shall be registered by the Commission as a political party within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, and if after the 30 days such association is not registered by the Commission unless the Commission informs the association to the contrary, it shall be deemed to have been registered.
“An association which, through the submission of false or misleading information pursuant to the provisions of this section, procures a certificate of registration shall have such certificate cancelled.
“An application for registration as a political party shall not be processed unless there is evidence of payment of administrative fee as may be fixed from time to time by the Commission.
“The Commission shall have power to deregister political parties on the following grounds; breach of any of the requirement for registration and for failure to win a seat in the National or State Assembly election.”
TheNation

INEC is not a structured organisation – Fashakin


Rotimi Fashakin, National Publicity Secretary of congress for the Progressive Change (CPC), in this interaction with Evelyn Okakwu, speaks on several issues including the revised edition of the Code of Conducts for political parties released by the INEC chairman; expected roles of political parties in the conduct of free and fair elections in the country; the electoral prospects of the new merger All progressives Congress among other sundry issues.
rotimi_fashakinOn the revised code of conduct for parties Fashakin, who spoke on a sad note about the new code of conduct for political parties in the country said that although he read in the newspapers of the existence of a revised edition of INEC’s code of conduct, his party, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) was not represented at that even. He said “And even though one would have ordinarily expected that such an important document that pertains to the attitude and conduct ofparties before during and after elections would ordinarily be in the website of INEC, it was not. Therefore the CPC spokesman noted that his party has always said that INEC is not a structured organization because does not have the structured view about organizing elections for the country. In his words:” You will see a lot of volt- face, vacillations going back and forth. We are living in an electronic age where you put things at the reach of countless many where people can download and read. But, it’s really unfortunate. And besides when institutions and establishments refuse to leverage on the available technologies, then there is high tendency that they will run into problems. What does it take for INEC to have a computer scientist to help them upload that detail on the internet through their website?”
On 2015 general elections
Experience about elections in Nigeria especially those conducted under the leadership of INEC has not been very interesting and there is nothing really on ground to show that INEC has learnt anything yet. First of all, on April 2nd when the elections was to start, midway through the elections, we got announcement that the elections has been cancelled and that we will have to do it again the following week, that was on Aprill 9th 2011. While INEC had repeatedly publicized jingles that the electorates should wait after voting for their votes to be counted, the late NSA; that is National Security Adviser to the President then, the late General Andrew Azazi, came with a counter directive that electorates should vote and go home immediately after. It took the esilience, the doggedness of political parties in shooting down that order. INEC alone should have the final say as regards election. The effort to achieve a free and fair conduct within the Nigerian polity is like a mirage. If you go to Ghana, all the troops, the soldiers and all those that are to be used for elections are, as at the time of elections, under the command of the chairman of the election so that he determines what they do and where they go. And that to a great extent will determine the independence of those conducting the election, not that the President, being the Commander-In-Chief will be giving orders.
On INEC Independence and impartiality
They showcase themselves like an appendage of the presidency. But it should not be so. More so that the President is also normally a candidate in the elections or his party is also having candidates contesting in the elections. The chairman of the Commission should always ensure that the deployment of security agents to anywhere conforms to the structured plan of INEC. According to INEC there are 120,000 polling stations, although we later found out that there are 86,000 with verifiable addresses. The remaining 34,000 just existed on the computer, but did not exist in reality.
So when you have a situation like that, that even INEC’s process is also fraught with some inadequacies here and there then you know that there is a big problem. I think the problem is that because the INEC chairman was appointed by the President, he therefore sees himself as an appointee of Mr. President and must do the bidding of Mr. President. But it should not be so. People should be more interested in how posterity judges them. If you are removed by the president and your integrity is intact then so be it. Nobody should delude himself in understanding that if we don’t have people in authority that are derived directly from the ballot; those that come to authority through the votes of the people, we will have true democracy. That is a fetal lie instaed that will be the beginning of impunity. Because they know that it was not from the people that they got their authority from, which is contrary to section 14 of our constitution that sovereignty belongs to the Nigerian people and from whom the people in government derive their authority and powers”.
On parties’ role in conduct of successful elections
First of all the party plays a dominant role in the area of education and sensitization. Before the General election in 2011 we sensitized supporters adequately like the situation I mentioned to you earlier that the NSA then gave a contrary directive to that of INEC. We brought out a press statement urging our supporters to discard that directive and follow on the directive of INEC via earlier jingles. We asserted our believe in the supremacy of INEC regarding election matters, also we were able to bring out the absurdity in the conduct of the election through the petition at the tribunal. We were able to show Nigerians that we have a multilayered electoral system, which in itself is something we must watch out for. Because when a Nation has succeeded in getting its electoral system well, that nation is more than 50 per cent on the path to development. Nigeria has not reached that. This country is really on the path of impunity. That is why anybody that becomes a president in this country becomes like ‘An Averter, a thin God’. So as a political party, like in the APC constitution now, we now have executive in the poling units so that if we have executive members in polling units and then INEC now turns out to say that in that polling unit that nobody voted for a candidate, then we should be able to challenge that. In APC constitution we now have ward executives local government executives, National executives, as well as poling unit executives. Those are the ways in which political parties can go about ensuring a reduction in election rigging.
Reason for the merger APC
Also political parties have seen that if you still remain as regional parties, you will not have a head way at all which is the problem of this country. We have only one dominant party while the other ones are regional parties, but with the emergence of APC, we now have another dominant party which is part of the ingenuity of political parties. For us to be able to say ‘let’s come together and give the Nigerian people real choice’. Some people really want to vote but they will just say;‘pleasedon’t let me throw away my vote please’ then they will just go and vote for PDP because they feel PDP is big’. But if they see another party that is seriously competing with PDP, they will say look I don’t like this PDP people let me go to APC. So that is another thing that political parties can do.
On voters turn out at 2015 elections
Well voters apathy is as a result of many factors. People may become paranoid for various reasons. For instance people may say;‘why should I vote when there is only one dominant party and INEC chairman is an appointee of the President, hence INEC is ever ready to support the president’. But if we are able to make people know that there is a viable dominant party other than PDP and security is well checked to ensure the safety of these electorates; if the electorates believe that their votes will count, they will vote”.
On the activities of political thugs during elections
You see, when you have a very irresponsible political class, who are ready to bread Monsters all in a bid to grab political power; you will have this kind of problem. Ask yourself what is to problem that is stopping us from having electronic voting? Those at the top echelon of political authority know that the only thing that can sustain them in that office is rigging. Look at our old electoral system, you have 120,000 polling units, over 8000 ward collation centers, 774 local government collation centers, 37 state collation centers and finally the Abuja central office which is the final collation center.
As an Engineer, I know that one of the things you can do to help yourself in your design is to reduce control points, because control points are potential failure points. In advanced countries that have brought fidelity to their electoral process, they have from the polling units an electronic system straight up to their central office. All that will happen for rigging to accrue is that you post soldiers to this control points, to prevent agents from having access to the hall which was what happened in 2011 when we told the electorates that they should not follow the directive by NSA to the president”.
On appointment of the INEC chairman
Ideally the INEC chairman should be a judicial officer appointed by the NJC that is the National Judicial Commission. It is very immoral that the man to conduct the election, that the president will participate in, is appointed by the President”.
PeoplesDaily