Connect with us

Opinion

Fraudulent elections: In whose interest?

Published

on

oyo

Nigerian electronic voting debate intensifies as analyst argues technology cannot guarantee free and fair elections without moral reform

“Men at some times are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings… ” – Cassius to Brutus in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Advertisement

Also read: Barcelona President Joan Laporta Resigns Ahead of March 15 Elections

I dare to say that it is not the absence of laws that has denied Nigeria free and fair elections. We have a surfeit of laws that should have guaranteed that we always have credible elections.

In other words, the fault is not in the absence of laws – or the inadequacy of laws – it is in us the people that implement the laws.

The fault, dear compatriots, is not in our laws but in ourselves that we have been unable to organise free and fair elections!

Advertisement

What have we not tried? Cardreaders gulped billions of Naira, but it failed us, and we discarded them.

Perhaps, it is better to say we were the ones that failed card-readers! What works fantastically well in other places fails woefully here.

The fault is not in the system or technology – it is us, its users and manipulators. Billions of Naira went down the drains with the card readers.

Advertisement

We shifted to BVAS. Billions of Naira again went into its procurement.

We were told, just as we had been told with card-readers – that BVAS was the magic wand that would give us credible elections.

Again, BVAS failed us! Or, better still, we failed BVAS – just like we failed its elder brother called card-readers. Billions of Naira again went down the drains.

Advertisement

Lest I forget, there was iRev! Did it work here?

Now we are being told that
electronically-transmitted election results are the panacea to election irregularities in this country.

Once elections are electronically-transmitted, Eureka! This is another lie from the pit of hell!

Advertisement

Will election results electronically transmit themselves or it is human beings that will still transmit the results? Will electronic gadgets operate by themselves or will people still operate them? Are we going to manufacture or mint new and fresh people to man the gadgets or the same Nigerians that you and I know too well are those that will still man and operate the gadgets? Are we, like the Dangote refinery, going to India to import people who will man the electronic gadgets and manage our elections for us?

We are adept at telling ourselves lies, like the proverbial ostrich that hides only its head in the sand while its rump remains exposed.

We run away from our problems and chase shadows. No amount of gadgets will give us free and fair elections. We will only end up wasting billions of Naira again.

Advertisement

Every election cycle, some people smile their way to the bank while Nigerians eager to have free and fair elections gnash their teeth and bemoan their circumstance.

No gadgets will deliver credible elections to Nigerians.

Only Nigerians can deliver credible elections unto themselves. Unfortunately, Nigerians, as I perceive them today, are not wired to deliver credible elections to themselves.

Advertisement

The protests and placard-carrying by those yelling for electronically-transmitted election results are mere roadshows and election campaign gambits.

It is just another charade of those who leave the substance to chase shadows. If and after the 2027 elections are transmitted electronically and nothing has changed, you will say I said so!

Is it not Nigeria? This same Nigeria that we all know like the back of our hands? The integrity of elections – or the absence of it – is directly proportional to the integrity or absence of it in many stakeholders involved in the electoral process.

Advertisement

Electoral laws, important as they are, are not the only factors responsible for, or contributing to the success of elections. Equally important – in fact, more important – are the roles played and the actions taken by politicians, the voters themselves, the election umpire, the security agencies, and, wait for it, the judges who adjudicate in election disputes.

For instance, can electronically-transmitted election results prevent judges from entering the same kind of judgment they delivered in Kogi state (involving Yahaya Bello) or in Imo state (involving Hope Uzodinma)?

Like a woman lacking in good character who bemoans what she describes as her ill-luck in choosing a good husband, Nigerians, having lost all morals, complain about the inadequacy of laws! Yet, the best election ever conducted in this country was the simplest – and, possibly, the cheapest!

Advertisement

The Option A4 that produced the June 12, 1993 presidential election between MKO Abiola and Bashir Tofa was conducted with voters simply queuing in front of the poster of their preferred candidate.

And Nigerians as well as the international community agreed that the election was not only free and fair – and the freest and fairest ever in Nigeria – but also credible by all international standards.

No card readers. No BVAS. No iRev. No electronically-transmitted results.

Advertisement

The simplicity of that election must have saved the country billions of Naira.

That election ought to have taught us useful lessons.

Nigerians generally were tired of ruinous military rule and desperately wanted an escape route out of it.

Advertisement

A return to democracy, civil or civilian rule was seen as the most viable option.

But 26/27 years down the road, have the civilians creditably discharged themselves? If a referendum or opinion poll is conducted today, will you be surprised if a large number of Nigerians are despondent about civilian rule?

MKO Abiola had a message, which resonated with the people.

Advertisement

Farewell to poverty! And his roadmap to achieving it at the earliest possible time – he gave himself six months in the first instance – appeared credible to the people.

Since 1999, what can anyone point at as the message of our successive leaders that has fired the imagination and stoked the nationalistic fervour of the people?

Abiola’s larger-than-life personality was also something else. He nearly won a pan-Nigeria mandate; only in the south-east did he badly trail his opponent.

Advertisement

Governmental failure since 1999 has led to political apathy, such that a preponderance of Nigerians do not care whether there are elections or not – not to talk of them being free and fair! With the weaponization of poverty, many of those who still go out to vote do so to collect the peanuts that politicians dole out to buy votes.

Now, will electronically-transmitted results stop vote-selling and vote-buying? Will electronically-transmitted results ensure internal democracy in the political parties? Will electronically-transmitted results put an end to the godfather/godson syndrome, the like of which has made Rivers state ungovernable in the past few years?

Before anyone will say that I am against electronically-transmitted election results, let me say categorically that I am not! What I am only saying is that, that, in itself, will not deliver credible or guarantee free and fair elections.

Advertisement

The problems bedevilling credible elections here precede the actual casting, counting, recording of votes and announcement of election results.

Most, if not all, of the political parties lack internal democracy. So, godfathers, instead of party members, decide who stands for election.

From that very foundation, free choice is impaired.

Advertisement

The best candidates are seldom presented to the electorate. Whatever choice made afterwards by the voters is, therefore, stunted right from the word “go.”

And whether or not we electronically-transmit results, voters do not have the last say on election matters. The courts and judges do!

In a 1787 letter, Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the United States of America, was quoted as saying: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Advertisement

While we can interpret that statement to mean a strong advocacy for freedom of speech – and it sure is – I can also recoin it thus: Were I to choose between an electoral process full of morals without laws and that full of laws without morals, I will not hesitate a moment to choose the former.

On a trip to Germany in 1994 at the invitation of the German government, my guide, a university professor, told me the percentage of Germans who would willingly do the right thing without anyone compelling them was between 85 and 87 percent.

Yet, she said they were still trying to do some catching up with the Scandinavian countries where the same percentage hovered around 97 percent.

Advertisement

Whaaoh! She waited for me to catch my breath before adding that the vagrant 3 percent was usually accounted for largely by immigrants! Racism? Not quite! Reality that we are well familiar with!

Elections run seamlessly in some countries. Not the bloody battles that we witness here. And at a fraction of the humongous costs we incur here. But what should anyone expect?

Terrorism and banditry, kidnapping and ransom-taking, criminal activities and politics are the most lucrative businesses around here these days. There is no consequence for bad behaviour.

Advertisement

Everyone wants quick and easy money.

The prayers that receive the loudest “Amen” or “Amin” in places of worship are those that decree little work but big rewards!

Be those in power or the ones angling to replace them, what kind of examples are we giving the younger generations with the kind of leaders we parade?

Advertisement

Clean elections cannot but be a rarity in climes such as ours whether or not we electronically transmit more than election results!

Also read: Husain criticises Aregbesola’s take on 2023 elections

Interestingly, it is, ultimately, a lose-lose situation for both the beneficiaries of fraudulent elections and its victims!

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Parliamentary oversight or coordinated smear? The unprocedural attack on NNPCL’s Dr. Mumuni Dagazau

Published

on

Parliamentary

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

This provision empowers each chamber of the National Assembly to order investigations into any matter within its legislative competence, as well as the conduct of any person, authority, ministry, or government department entrusted with executing laws or administering public funds.

Furthermore, Section 62 provides the explicit constitutional foundation for establishing specialized committees, most notably the Committee on Public Petitions, to systematically receive, review, and investigate genuine citizen grievances.

Advertisement

To ensure these powers are exercised with order, discipline, and fairness, the legislature operates under clear Standing Orders formulated pursuant to Sections 60 and 101 of the Constitution.

While derived broadly from the investigative powers in Sections 88 and 128, the specific mechanisms, rules, and mandatory steps for receiving, vetting, hearing, and acting upon public petitions are meticulously detailed within these Standing Orders.

Having established this statutory background, it is essential to emphasize a fundamental principle: the constitutional mandate to receive and investigate petitions is an instrument of public accountability, not a weapon for personal vendettas, political witch-hunts, or legislative leverage.

Advertisement

It is within this context that the recent actions of the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) must be critically examined.

Its Chairman, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere Imo, disclosed at the House Committee Downstream Week that his committee had received a petition alleging money laundering and abuse of office against the Executive Vice President of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Dr. Mumuni Dagazau.

A rigorous examination of this public disclosure reveals a glaring departure from standard parliamentary practice.

Advertisement

This entire affair bears all the hallmarks of a orchestrated campaign driven by deep-seated malice; a desperate attempt to smear the character of public officers who have steadfastly refused to cow to covert blackmail or compromise their official responsibilities.

If this petition possesses any legitimate substance, why did the Committee Chairman fail to reveal the identity of the petitioner? Going public with an unverified, anonymous document without first conducting a preliminary administrative inquiry, establishing a prima facie case, or according Dr. Dagazau his fundamental constitutional right to a fair hearing is deeply troubling.

By disclosing to the press with unbacked claims, the committee has bypassed established legislative protocol and effectively subjected an officer to a trial by media.

Advertisement

In doing so, the committee risks allowing itself to be used as a proxy for disgruntled elements seeking to undermine ongoing reforms in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.

These interested parties appear unable to accept that the NNPC Limited of today operates under an entirely different paradigm from the NNPC Limited of the past. Under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), NNPC Limited is driven by financial prudence, corporate accountability, and strict integrity.

The days when public institutions could be coerced into handing out unearned benefits are over. Those who believe they can resort to character assassination to extract personal gain or force compliance will find that their blackmail falls on deaf ears.

Advertisement

Furthermore, the backdrop against which these remarks were made renders the Chairman’s comment even more disappointing.

At a major legislative gathering such as the “House Committee Downstream Week” a platform designed specifically to evaluate the health, security, and growth of Nigeria’s energy sector; the clear expectation of stakeholders, industry experts, and the general public was a forward-looking, substantive engagement.

National interest demanded that the committee focus its spotlight on critical industry dynamics: tracking progress made in local refining capacity, addressing persistent supply and bottlenecks, tackling crude oil theft, and formulating actionable legislative solutions to lower energy costs for everyday Nigerians.

Advertisement

Instead of seizing this vital platform to offer strategic direction and policy support, Hon. Ugochinyere Ikenga chose to reduce a high-level public gathering to a arena for personal attacks and unverified slurs against an executive officer.

Diverting public focus away from pressingly urgent structural challenges in the downstream sector to launch an unprovoked, uninvestigated attack on Dr. Mumuni Dagazau represents a severe misplacement of priorities.

It undermines the very essence of parliamentary responsibility, substituting constructive legislative leadership with sensationalism and targeted distraction at a time when the nation desperately needs solutions, not political theater.

Advertisement

While Dr. Dagazau reserves all legal rights to protect his hard-earned reputation against defamatory attacks and coordinated character assassination, the leadership of the House of Representatives should be urged to step in.

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

The National Assembly must protect the dignity of the parliament by ensuring that committee oversight remains grounded in fairness, thoroughness, and due process, rather than public spectacles driven by unverified petitions.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending