Nigeria can’t cease to amaze the world. The international community, last week, watched top spokesmen of the president scream blue murder. They seemingly gave the impression that Cardinal John Onaiyekan had betrayed the president. The Cardinal was one of top Catholic bishops that met with the President.
“There is something fundamentally inappropriate about Cardinal John Onaiyeka granting a television interview to offer his own account and interpretation of what transpired during the private meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria and President Bola Tinubu. It is, in my view, an abuse of clerical privilege.” These were the words of Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, as soon as the world listened to the Arise TV discussion with the Cardinal on Prime Time.
Before the interview, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) had visited the president. What they told the president was not unfamiliar to us – that Nigerians are hungry, specifically, a statement to which the president retorted that hunger has been with us since he was born!
As they tried to paint the grim picture of a nation in distress in very vital sectors like the economy and security, so did the president shake his head vigorously, refusing to admit it. Perhaps, seeing him cocooned in his Aso Rock castle where he enjoys the trappings of office with his household, it is easy to reason that he would disagree with the men of God. But, what is certain is that those visitors were more in touch with the people than the President.
In the light of his avowed philosophy that all is fair in politics, many have come to believe that our president found his way into office by “grabbing, snatching and running” with the power. He owes the nation nothing. His claim to the throne is clear – emilokan (it’s my turn).
Most essentially, the bishops were passionate about the democratic institutions and credible elections. The key element in democracy, indeed, is the electoral process. Where there is a vast array of choices to make about candidates to occupy positions of authority, or about issues in the given society, democracy recommends the ballot box as a veritable means of settling the clashes of opinions. Votes are counted and the majority opinion rules the day.
The beauty of the process is that, unlike in monarchy or oligarchy, the popular ideas prevail rather than the selfish inclinations of one or a few members of the society. It is the process of election that gives the people an opportunity to express themselves on socio-political issues. This earned Democracy the sweet-sounding definition, “government of the people, by the people and for the people” courtesy of Abraham Lincoln, a former America president.
Due to this centrality of elections in a democracy, it leaves a sour taste in the mouth when there are infractions that tend to skew results against popular will. A former Nigerian president, the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, won the admiration of Nigerians when he admitted that the election that brought him to power in 2007 were flawed and promised to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to fulfill this promise.
Yar’Adua’s admission of error, even at the moment it touches him negatively, removes every doubt that, truly, there is a huge unresolved problem with the nation’s electoral process. After Yar’Adua, the nation appears to sink further in its electoral quagmire, giving the average Nigerian serious concern. The concern is anchored on the fact that this is a process that puts into position the people to manage public affairs. And that it is what makes democracy what it is.
Our elections, generally, are saddled with intimidation and, in many occasions, outright violence, all of which discourage participation by the right candidates and voter turnout. A case in point is the Osun State August 15 governorship election where it was reported that the heated campaigns consumed more than 29 lives in 73 incidents.
There are also overwhelming incidences of vote-buying and other inducements in all the elections witnessed in the very recent past. Candidates try to outclass each other in offering cash gifts and food items to voters. In the years past, candidates’ names were printed on vests and face caps as publicity gift items. Today, gift items such as rice bags and noodles packs, even expensive phones, motorbikes and solid household equipment bear party insignia and candidates’ photographs, and are distributed to win votes.
The rigging habit has permeated the grassroots and is almost becoming the norm in the country. A few months ago, political parties using the Option A4 to conduct their primaries in preparation for the 2027 general elections craftily jump-counted the lines and allotted fictitious numbers to favoured candidates. They did not mind that they were being recorded on videos that eventually got published in the social media. The world saw all that and were greatly amused. It’s not a laughable matter, though, to a true Nigerian.
In the hinterlands, most traditional rulers and town union executives climb to power not through properly conducted plebiscites but by convoluted political processes that do not reflect the will of the people. Some of the unpopular ndi eze play partiality in disputes brought before them to settle. They extort money from their subjects by imposing outrageous levies and claiming percentages on sale of every land in the community. No one builds a house in the vicinity without first paying homage to the king, compulsorily.
In partisan politics, what closely follows elections are a flurry of court cases challenging the declared winners. This creates venues for lawyers to make money. Because it has been left in the hands of the courts to decide and declare winners in an election, politicians aim at buying over the judiciary. The lure of money, to a weak judge, is obviously strong.
That is why it is necessary to save both the judge and the litigants by rearranging the focus of courts and their role in election cases. Courts should, indeed, be arbiters, rather than the deciders of winners in elections. In other words, their powers should be limited to confirmation of infringements in the conduct of the election while the electoral commission retains the power to conduct elections fairly and declare winners.
The court should stop at ordering a rerun where there are irregularities. Infractions bordering on candidates’ qualifications should be seen as pre-election matters and should not be entertained after the election. The practice where who scored the second largest votes in the election is declared winner when the highest scorer is disqualified in court does not tally with democracy. There ought to be a rerun.
To get our elections right, Nigeria needs leaders willing to embrace full scale electronic voting. The present crop of leaders averse to technology for fear that it might expose their deficiency in popularity do not seem to give hope for credible elections in the country.
Our democracy would only begin to make meaning the very day we apply technology in the conduct of elections, just because of the precision it offers. On a Candid Note, Nigeria can afford it. The masses must rise for it, if only to put paid to altercations that follow elections. Endless amendments of the Electoral Law would no longer be necessary.
Meanwhile, the president’s attack dogs can bark at Cardinal Onaiyekan for speaking truth to power. They should, however, read history to find out that not even Idi Amin of Uganda could scare the men of God. Whatever, the priest of the Most High sinned not against the Emperor, except we are told that speaking the truth to the president constitutes a sin? When they finish, the Cardinal would be ready for their confessional because they are the sinners.
Dr. Odu can be reached through [email protected] or SMS 07016722929.
