Governor Murtala Nyako insists his first term as Governor of Adamawa will end in 2012, not 2011 as INEC intends.
The Fourth Republic has been very strange.
Sometimes the strangeness is blunt and in the open. The honest actions of a Chris Uba or of the late Lamidi Adedibu are cases in point. Both men were honest in the sense that they never pretended to be something they were not, unlike the rest of the political class. It is funny, in a sad way. It is like the political class thinks we are stupid or maybe blind. They do things; everyone sees them do what they do; everyone knows what they are doing; they know everyone knows what they are doing; but they look us in the face and without blinking claim to be doing the opposite. Men like the late Adedibu, the late Wada Nas and the living Chris Uba were at least honest with us.
But sometimes the strangeness of the Fourth Republic appears, paradoxically, in its efforts to follow constitutionalism and rule of law.
Confused?
Well, take Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State. The Supreme Court said he was duly elected even though he was not on the ballot and consequently received ZERO votes; if you get the opportunity, read through the twisting, turning, ridiculous rhetoric the apex court used to justify this inexplicable decision.
There are those who claim Amaechi is "doing a good job" as governor. Of course every Nigerian governor can boast of people who insist they are "doing good jobs". But the thing is this: Even if he was the greatest, best governor in the history of the world, he shouldn't allowed to take such a powerful office (Nigerian governors are like local emperors) when nobody voted him into the job.
Understand that our inability as citizens to choose who should occupy political office, our sheer powerlessness to control the agenda of our government, lies at the very core of everything we view as "problems" in Nigeria. The people of Rivers State have not had the opportunity to properly elect a governor ... ever! Even if the current one was "good" (and I am not saying he is), the people will be unable to prevent the return of another "bad" governor if they continue to lack the basic ability to decide who should occupy the office.
Another weird decision of the courts, one which has relevance to Governor Nyako's complaint, was the decision to allow Governor Peter Obi of Anambra State continue to serve as governor for another three years after he should have left office in 2007.
Let me explain something, as briefly as I can. A simple internet search will provide you with tonnes of articles on the events I am about to describe.
The 2003 Anambra State gubernatorial elections were rigged. By all accounts, Peter Obi was the real winner, but the political machine led by Chris Uba, with the active cooperation of the federal government led by then-President Obasanjo, contrived to compel the electoral commission to declare a false outcome giving the office to Chris Ngige, Uba's political "godson".
Chris Uba and Chris Ngige would go on to fallout with each other, at which point Chris Uba tried to use the state command of the Nigerian Police Force to carry out a coup de tat to replace Ngige with a more loyal "godson", the Deputy-governor Okechukwu Ude. When this failed, the Uba machine plunged Anambra into more anarchy and violence than usual (the state had suffered in 1999-2003 when "godfather" Emeka Offor fell out with his "godson" Governor Chimaroke Mbadinuju). When this too failed, Uba hit upon the plan of the century -- admit the 2003 elections were rigged, so Ngige could be legally removed from office. The plan worked, the courts stripped Ngige of office, and in 2006, some three years after the 2003 Elections, Peter Obi was sworn in as Governor of Anambra State.
The Nigerian (un)democratic system is modeled loosely on the United States' system, with four year terms. When Obi was sworn into office, Ngige had already served 3 out of the 4 years of the 2003-2007 election term. But for good measure, the Chris Uba-aligned Anambra State House of Assembly impeached Governor Obi late in the 2003-2007 term, handing the governor's mansion temporarily to his deputy, Dame Virginia Etiaba.
The Fourth Republic has not been a triumph for democracy, but the situation in Anambra from 1999 to 2007 was egregious even by Fourth Republic standards. It was an embarrassment, even for a political class that seems incapable of shame. Yet, since Nigerian politicians prefer the undemocratic environment of the Fourth Republic, nothing was done to reform the situation in Anambra. If anything, the various camps simply maneuvred to be the ones to take advantage of the political anarchy.
Chris Uba was ultimately upstaged in 2007 by his older brother. Nnamdi "Andy" Uba was a devoted lieutenant of President Olusegun Obasanjo; the Americans had caught him laundering money on behalf of his boss, but the incident was hushed up (by both the Nigerian and American authorities). Obasanjo, his bid for a Third Term blocked, had declared the 2007 Elections were "do or die"; with the help of Nuhu Ribadu, he strong-armed various political machines into helping him fill as many political positions with his loyalists as possible. None were more loyal to him than Andy Uba, and in due course the 2007 Anambra State Elections were rigged to place Andy Uba in the Anambra Governor's mansion.
As a sidenote, Andy had his kid brother Chris jailed. The younger Uba had been looking forward to being the local kingpin of Anambra State while his older brother remained as the family's representative in Abuja. When big brother Andy showed up to push him to a subordinate position in the local hierarchy, Chris rebelled ... so his brother jailed him. It is interesting that Chris broke almost every criminal statute in the Nigerian law book, but remained free; pissing off his older brother, on the other hand, well, that got him some brief jail time, didn't it? Emphasis on "brief"; Chris was out in time to intervene in the 2010 Anambra State gubernatorial elections and to destabilize the state branch of the PDP ahead of the 2011 polls.
Which brings me to the point.
The 2007 Elections marked the end of the Obasanjo II administration, and with Mr. "Do or Die" gone, the Tribunals, Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court felt free to throw sand into his garri, as a Nigerian idiom goes. Obasanjo, with the assistance of several political machines (and the EFCC and INEC bosses Nuhu Ribadu and Maurice Iwu) had manipulated several of the contests to place loyalists in office; I suppose the plan was for Obasanjo to continue to wield power over Nigeria behind the scenes, like Deng Xiaopping. It didn't quite work out that way. For one thing, the late former President Umaru Yar'Adua moved to establish his independence from his erstwhile godfather (the wars between godfathers and godsons has been a recurring them of the Fourth Republic; Obasanjo himself had declared war on the most powerful of his own godfathers, then-Vice-President Atiku Abubakar)
In any case, the Courts began to annul and overturn quite a few rigged contests. On the one hand, it is great to see the judiciary act against electoral rigging. On the other hand, I don't think rule of law triumphed per se, because the Courts seemed to be fishing around for ridiculous of reasons for annulling specific results, and then following this up by imposing some ridiculous remedies.
The reasoning for making Rotimi Amaechi governor makes a mockery of any concept of democracy. But it pales in comparison to the frightening reasoning used to annul the election of Andy Uba, and restore Peter Obi.
The Courts said Peter Obi was entitled to 4 years as governor. Since Ngige had taken up 3 of the 4 years of the 2003-2007 term, the Courts restored Peter Obi to the governor's mansion to serve another 3 years, so he could complete the 4 he deserved.
Here is the thing ....
The fixed 4-year term was not created for the benefit of politicians, nor was it created as a reward to politicians for winning electoral contests. The fixed term was created for we the people, the citizenry. It represents our right to use our votes to choose leaders every four years. By giving Obi an extra 3 years beyond 2007, the Courts created a 7-year gap between one chance for the citizens' to decide who occupies public office, and their next opportunity to do so.
The 2003 Elections in Anambra (and the rest of Nigeria) were rigged, and Peter Obi was denied his proper mandate. The unelected Ngige went on to enjoy 3 of the 4 years that should have been Peter Obi's first term.
I do not dispute these facts.
But the Courts could (and should) simply have ruled that the one year Obi spent as governor between 2006 and 2007 did not count as his first term for the purposes of the application of the constitutional provisions for term limits. In plain words, the Supreme Court should have said Peter Obi could (in theory) run and win the 2007 election, and still remain eligible to run again in 2010.
Peter Obi's rights would have been upheld; the remedy would even be to his benefit if he had gone on to two full terms, de facto 9 years in office.
But the citizens' right to choose their leaders every four years would also have been upheld.
Peter Obi's supporters could argue events on the ground are different from textbook conversations about law and constitutionality. The Uba family (and their Obasanjo Administration backers) had the Anambra State Assembly (a legislative chamber filled with Chris Uba's "godsons") impeach newly sworn in Governor Obi only months after he took office. When the High Court and Appeals Court both overturned the impeachment, the Maurice Iwu-led INEC simply barred Peter Obi from standing in the 2007 elections, most likely acting on instructions from the federal executive. Pay attention to the fact that Iwu's pretext for leaving Obi off the ballot was the same as Ibrahim Babangida's pretext for nullifying the 1993 elections -- a last-minute lawsuit filed by a co-opted politician.
The Court's decision restoring Obi to the governor's mansion for an extra three years beyond 2007 was made after the 2007 election. Peter Obi's supporters could argue that my argument in favour of the Court's freeing him to run for two terms after the 2003-2007 term was effectively moot, because he would not have been able to run in the 2007 race based on the timeline of the court's decision, and wouldn't have been able to seek a potential two terms after 2011 because once Andy Uba was sitting on the governor's chair, he was guaranteed to use its imperial powers to gift himself a second term and then hand the office over to a chosen godson who (like all godsons) would betray him, kicking off another round of crisis.
But this argument is false.
The Courts could simply have annulled the 2007 Elections in Anambra .... and ordered a rerun election, this time with Peter Obi on the ballot. If he was truly as popular as he in fact was (or rather, if APGA, which is trying to replace NCNC and NPP as the "Igbo Party was as popular as it believed itself to be), then Peter Obi could have won in 2007, with a Court ruling allowing him to run for the 2011-2015 term after the 2007-2011 term ended.
You see? The people retain their right to vote for their leaders every four years, and no harm comes to Peter Obi and his political ambitions.
But no, the Courts preferred to come up with a ridiculous rationale for giving a man who wasn't on the 2007 ballot a free ride to another 3 years in office, leaving the citizens with a 7-year gap between one chance to influence government policy and choose their own leaders, and their next chance.
Now, you might point out to me that Nigerian Elections are not even remotely democratic in any substantive sense, and accuse me of being a naive fool in suggesting the votes of the people of Anambra would have had any influence over the results declared at the end of any of these 4-yearly elections.
But if you do that, you will be missing the point.
Yes, the Elections are fraudulent. That is the issue. That is the problem. That is what we have to correct.
And the Courts are not helping.
What they have done and been doing has only emphasized and strengthened the absence of citizen participation in government. Our elections, apparently, are either decided by politicians and plutocrats without our participation .... or are decided by the Courts, equally without our participation.
Either way, we the people are spectators in our own country, divorced from policy-making, and ultimately treating our own country as if it belongs to someone else and not to us. The attitude that "government property" does not belong to us allows us to feel good about apathetically watching things decay without lifting a finger to stop it; sometimes we participate in the destruction, profiting by cannibalizing the very things that could have been, should have been a foundation for our well-being, because we think we are taking from somebody else something that they would have kept from us, rather than realize we are only hurting ourselves in the long-run.
The Courts have not made Nigeria any more democratic by giving Peter Obi and Rotimi Amaechi offices they did not earn in any election, not even in a rigged one.
Nothing has changed.
The Courts did order rerun elections in a few states, but Timpre Sylva's victory in Bayelsa State tells you all you need to know about Nigerian "democracy" -- the official result of the 2007 rerun election in Bayelsa had Sylva winning with a hilariously unbelievable 93% of the vote.
Now, if you think that the solution to that is to have the Supreme Court choose the candidate it wants, and hand the candidate the office on a platter, don't forget that the Court is creating problematic legal precedents.
Unbeknownst to most Nigerians, Andy Uba filed a lawsuit ahead of the 2010 Anambra Elections asking the Supreme Court to name him Governor of Anambra State when Peter Obi's term ended in 2010. Andy Uba's lawyers argued that their client was as much a victim of Ngige's illegal 3-year regime as Peter Obi; if Obi lost 3 years because Ngige was in office, then their clien Andy had lost 4 years because he had had to step aside, losing the 4 years he was supposed to get for winning in 2007, so the Supreme Court could compensate Obi for Obi's victory in 2003. Andy Uba's laywers felt their man should get his own 4 years beginning in 2010, after which (presumably) Anambra could start on a clean slate without having to compensate any past victors.
The Courts rejected Uba's argument.
But that is not the end of it.
Remember the story that began this blog post? Governor Murtala Nyako insisting his term of office will end in 2012 and not 2011? You realize he bases his demand on that same Court decision in re: Peter Obi?
As far as Nyako is concerned, if the Courts gave Obi an extra 3 years to complete his allotted 4, then he (Nyako) deserves an extra one year to complete his four too. And waiting in the wings behind Nyako are Governors Ibrahim Idris (Kogi), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto), Segun Oni (Ekiti), Liyel Imoke (Cross River) and Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa) .... all of whom had to leave the governor's mansion for a few months while undemocratic, rigged rerun elections were prepared to return them to office. They too will one their one year compensation.
Also in line for compensation are Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole, whose case is almost exactly like Peter Obi's. The initial (rigged) results of the 2007 Edo State election declared the PDP's Oserheimen Osunbor the winner of the governor's race. A year-and-half later, the Courts overturned the announced verdict and proclaimed Oshiomhole the true victor. I guess that means he has a case for an extra 18 months compensation.
And then you have Anambra State, where Peter Obi was reelected to a second term in early 2010 .... in an election where 300,000 people voted, out of a registered electorate of over 1.8 million. All of the candidates (Obi inclusive) agreed there had been irregularities, and civil society groups were critical, but a weary Anambra populace merely shrugged its shoulders and hoped for peace. In his second and final term, Governor Obi, apparently not noticing there are too many armed groups in the country, with too many hidden and open agendas, leading to increased lawlessness in the country, declared his desire to see more armed militia in the country.
But that is besides the point.
Are we the people going to fight for the right to choose our leaders and influence our government's policy? Or are we going to leave it up to the judges of the Court to decide when and whether to adjust the outcome of our undemocratic processes?
Maybe we should amend the Constitution and do away with the expensive process of having elections, and just have the candidates submit their names to the Supreme Court. The Justices can then decide in a vote among themselves who should or shouldn't occupy political offices. Of course that means the politicians will stack the Courts with their godsons, but as long as we are not being democratic, what is the difference?
We are supposed to choose our leaders every four years. We can't keep letting our rights drift away.
The solution to the conundrum of rigged elections is to stop electoral rigging ... and if the Courts want to change the outcome of a rigged election, they need to do it within 6 months of the election, with NO term extensions for anybone.
EDIT 25/10/10: Ten days ago, on the 15th of October, 2010, the Appeal Court annulled the 2007 "victory" of the PDP's Segun Oni, naming Kayode Fayemi the true victor of the 2007 Ekiti State gubernatorial race. Governor Fayemi takes office three-and-a-half years after the 2007 elections. Will he be compensated with a 3.5 year extension of term?
nd then you have
, thus (in Andy Uba's lawyer's argument) den
givUba Supreme Court had compensated Peter Obi by giving him 3 years because Ngige's illegal 3-year regime had denied him the 4 years he was supposed to get by winning the 2003 elections, and
had denied
I choose the word "stupid" deliberately because of this article from the the newspaper Leadership http://leadershipnigeria.com/index.php/columns/views/politics/7667-the-ubas-end-of-a-dynasty
since their man had not been allowed to win the 2007 election
was still eligible to run for the office of governor in 2007 and 2010 if he ran and won the 2007 Elections, that would count as his first full term, allowing him to run for reelection in 2011 rather than be required by term-limitation to step aside.
It is eminently undemocratic.
It is also the reason Nyako and
And quite a few Obasanjo loyalists had thei
is apparently in the
was supposed You can imagine Chris' chagrin atlittle Ch ... presumably for being t
Obasanjo's kitchen cabinet
control
The 2007 Elections were only a year
The rest of the political class takes great care to pretend to be lawful, constitutional democrats, when in fact
(RIP) or from a rule-of-law or constitutional perspective.
time. The Supreme Court said Rotimi Amaechi "won" the Rivers State election, even though he wasn't on the ballot and consequently didn't win any votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment