Oyeniyi, in my view, the unfolding situation in Nigeria is one that requires elite societal members like you to strive and to be seen to strive to abide by a political cultural norm that sets boundaries for acceptable political conduct. When adhered to by a critically-sufficient size of a nation's elite/ruling class, this is how a merely normative political culture can become functional and help to foster stability, accountability and due process within a polity. A political culture is functional only if elite members of society can rise above partisan politics and other types of personal or special interests to make the national interest the ultimate deciding factor for national political matters, the ultimate measure of which way or which course of action is right or wrong for the country. Specially, adherence to a nation's political culture can prompt us to insist that political competition for political office, at any level of governance, should be played by the known and established rules and that those rules should be binding on all parties. Any group activity for which the governing rules are not consistently respected by the group members, will eventually and inevitably become inoperable. That's just the nature of human group existence.
With all due respect, in my humble view, you have not contributed constructively to the ongoing search for a solution to Nigeria's current but totally avoidable political conundrum by insinuating that the spokespersons for two political parties, namely LP and PDP, who recently voiced understandable concerns—concerns that ought to be voiced by all well-meaning Nigerians--about INEC's failure to adhere to a pre-established digital modality for direct electronic transmission of votes tallied at polling stations, were acting as sour losers. Instead of another rhetorical argument, let me just pose a few questions.
1. Does it bother you that we have seen video footages of voter suppression, here and there, through sheer intimidation and violence?
2. Does it bother you that we have seen video footages of ballot box snatching here and there?
3. Does it bother you that instead of adhering to a pre-determined election plan to have all votes cast at polling stations transmitted electronically and directly to INEC through its server, this expectation has, in a significant number of cases, been observed in the breach, and consequently, tallied-votes were manually carried from one step to the other, thereby making them vulnerable to manipulation and falsification? How does that fact inspire public confidence?
In your opinion piece, you made light of these serious matters through your assertion that "It is my understanding that INEC has come out publicly to take responsibility for the reported problems, with INEC officials admitting in a statement that `We take full responsibility for the problems and regret the distress that they have caused the candidates, political parties and the electorate.'" Having taken "full responsibility" for this political mess, what solution or remedy has INEC proffered? Taking responsibility for a grand case of election-management malpractice does not bring back the stolen votes? Does it?
You dismissed a monumental breach of faith and a monumental breach of the law on the part of INEC as "inefficiency" "that could [not] have altered the results in any significant manner." How possibly could you have reasonably arrived at such a conclusion despite a plethora of video footages and images of INEC operatives changing figures on ballot collation sheets? How many votes fell victim to such outright cases of data falsification? In the face of video footages, audio tapes, etc., of stratagems for electoral process manipulation, of violence at specific polling stations, of ballot box snatching, etc. that we have seen across the media, how did you arrive at your conclusion that, put together, all these instances of electoral malfeasance could not "have altered the results in any significant manner?"
In a country with an established and prolonged history of election rigging, ballot box snatching, and voter suppression which, from time to time, have consequently led to the election, reelection and recycling of a cast of characters that have governed, at various levels, in a manner that has, overall, kept Nigeria impoverished and underdeveloped, the national law-mandated direct transmission of votes cast at polling stations was meant to help ensure that the votes of the people would count. So, millions of Nigerians trouped out on February 25, 2023 based on the expectation that their votes would count this time—this time that votes would be electronically transmitted directly from polling stations to INEC's collation center through INEC's server. Indeed, there is no gainsaying that if we can usher in a political order whereby the people's votes count, our polity would be transformed for good because such an order would bring about accountability on the part of political office holders. Political office holders would govern with a consciousness that they owe their offices to the peoples votes, and not to political godfathers as tends to be the case at various levels of governance. Political office holders would then strive to minister onto the needs of the governed knowing that the people would vote them out if they under-perform or fail to perform at all. Democracy by the people and for the people would blossom!
If anyone lawfully wins this 2023 presidential election on the basis of a transparent and fair electoral process devoid of the kinds of deliberate and significant electoral violations that I outlined above (which you dismissively described as "inefficiencies"), for sure, we shall rejoice with that winner and also join in praying for his success in governance.
However, as I noted in a prior commentary, the outcome of a soccer game that has not been impartially refereed and be seen to have been impartially refereed, never inspires anyone's confidence.
--Are Obi and Atiku Bad Losers?
According to Reuters, the tally of votes as released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) showed Bola Tinubu, the flagbearer of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) party, leading with about 4.26 million votes, while his closest rival, Atiku Abubakar, the flagbearer of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who, as of the time of Reuters' reporting had about 3.26 million votes. Peter Obi of the Labor Party, so far, had secured 1.77 million votes.
As the media reported further, both Atiku and Obi had rejected the result, calling on the Electoral Commission to stop the process. Unconfirmed report noted that the representatives of Atiku and Obi had not only left the venue, but had also called for the process to be truncated and a new election called.
If all the above are true, one cannot but wonder why these opposition parties are rejecting the result of the elections whose processes are still ongoing.
I am not in support of any of the candidates; Tinubu, Atiku and Obi; however, I recognize their rights to the office and respect other Nigerians' rights to vote for any candidate other than my preferred candidate, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, who lost at the presidential flagbearer's primary election last year.
Are there not constitutional provisions for airing election-related grievances in the Electoral Act and why are opposition parties rejecting the result of an election whose result is still being collated at the national level?
Evidence and corroboration available to me showed that there was a lack of efficient planning, especially in critical stages of the election and in effectively informing the public in the process. The European Union observer mission confirmed this. Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, representing the Commonwealth observer mission, noted that INEC failed to upload all election results. As at 3.00PM February 27, 2023, INEC uploaded results from 66,167 polling units out of a total of 178,846 on its website.
While the above showed inefficiency, none of them showed anything like rigging, vote-buying, violence, or any significant reasons that could have altered the results in any significant manner. In other words, none of these problems justify the actions of both Atiku and Obi. None is a ground for calling for electoral cancellation or truncation. Unless Atiku and Obi are of the opinion that only they can win the election.
It is my understanding that INEC has come out publicly to take responsibility for the reported problems, with INEC officials admitting in a statement that "We take full responsibility for the problems and regret the distress that they have caused the candidates, political parties and the electorate."
Yes, opposition parties reserve the rights to accept this apology or not. They however have no rights to call for the truncation of the process. To claim such a right, opposition parties would need to provide evidence that the problem affected them in any significant way. So, I consider as irresponsible the statement credited to Dino Melaye that "the electoral process has been rigged ... and we are completely disassociating ourselves from it". We have seen this from the PDP before. Elder Orubebe was crying like a child before the global audience in 2015 at the INEC National Results Collation Center in Abuja. Similar statement by Akin Oshuntokun, Obi's campaign spokesperson, is equally unfortunate. As reported, he also said that the Labor Party "regret to say that we have lost confidence in the results being collated and announced" and "call on the INEC to ... follow its own guidelines or completely cancel the entire election."
Understandably, Melaye is a garrulous and loquacious person who cannot separate commonsense from the law, certainly Oshuntokun whose brother is a renowned professor of African History, should do better. Delayed process, technological failure, and some of the reported issues are no grounds for electoral cancellation. Except for the optics, miseducating and misleading voters by the PDP and LP are acts that run contrary to the laws.
By law, a candidate cannot claim to have won and cannot win any state just by having the highest number of votes cast. To win a presidential election in Nigeria, a candidate must not only win the overall votes, but also a certain percentage of total votes cast in a certain number of the states of the federation. So, with Tinubu leading in the ongoing process, it is not indicative of him winning the presidency until other conditions are met. Just for clarity, a candidate can win the total vote and still lose the election if such candidate fails to satisfy other conditions laid out in the laws.
Contrary to popular claim of INEC being partial to the Labor Party by not including its Logo and Names in some ballot papers, INEC excused itself by noting that the party itself was responsible for these, as it submitted its Logo without the party's name and in those ballots where there was no Labor Party's logo on the ballot papers, the party fielded no candidate. As INEC noted, the official logo of the Labor Party does not carry the name of the party, only its slogan -"Forward Ever". As agreed with all parties, it is the responsibility of parties to submit to INEC for printing on ballot papers their party logos and names as they want them printed on the ballot papers.
INEC's claims were backed up by the Head of Transparency International in Nigeria and chairman of the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), Auwal Ibrahim Musa Rafsanjani, who, speaking with the BBC, noted that "INEC announced a deadline for political parties to submit the names of all their candidates.
If a party does not provide names of candidates at the stipulated time, then the party is responsible for the omission of its logo on ballots." In addition, he noted that "INEC shouldn't have to break its rules for any party, that may lead to impunity. It could also create a legal crisis for the electoral commission. People are watching and monitoring the entire process."
To consider yet another example, videos on social media showed some parliamentary ballot papers with Labor Party logo and names of candidates missing on them and, this has been presented to Nigerians as evidence of collusion between INEC and other parties, most especially the APC/Tinubu.
The ballot papers were not misprinted or printed out of collusion with any party. Rather, Labor Party failed to submit the names of its candidates for these constituencies. Contrary to the party's claim that it obtained a court order compelling INEC to include Labor Party candidates on the ballot papers for these parliamentary elections, Labor Party failed to produce any court order and INEC was also not served with any invitation or court order, even a day before the election day. Rather than producing the court order it claimed to have, the Labor Party went on claiming that INEC's refusal was aimed at disenfranchising its voters.
By its laws, INEC has strict guidelines on putting candidates' names on ballot papers. These laws, which are all known to both parties and candidates, include to remove or omit a candidate or political party's name if the candidate or party did not conduct or participate in primary elections for the seat. Also, where a candidate or party conducted primary elections without INEC's participation and monitoring, INEC will also not print the party's or candidate's name on the ballot box.
In addition to the above, review of INEC laws showed that where parties invited INEC to monitor primaries, but the party failed to upload party flagbearer's names into INEC's online portal at the stipulated time to do so, INEC will not include the name of such candidate and the logo of such party on the ballot papers for election.
All of the above are known to parties beforehand and claims of collusion by Labor Party is not only self-serving and deceitful, but also aimed at heating up the polity and sowing confusion.
So, Oshuntokun should be bold to tell his party members and voters that the party failed them and stop heating up the polity unnecessarily.
None of the aspirants can claim not to know this and it is on this ground that I called both Atiku and Obi bad losers.
Source: https://nigeriaindepth.com/are-obi-and-atiku-bad-losers/
***************************************************************************************************
Bukola A. Oyeniyi
*****************************************************************************************************
Missouri State University
College of Humanities and Public Affairs
History Department
Room 440, Strong Hall,
901 S. National Avenue
Springfield, MO 65897
Email: oyeniyib@gmail.com
***********************************************************
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAGRd7s%3D%2BG7KbiAcAe%2BTotyiNeaMjh3gwLGJrw2rY%2BT-Cc5jrLw%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAO3oEcxGe5jk%2BmmFJ7DeUbeMKa8LNMbrvajWKET6HNrkUc9A6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment