The re-run of Ekiti State governorship election, as ordered by the Election Petition Appeal Tribunal, takes place later this month. Given the history of events leading to the coming elections, it cannot be too early to volunteer some guidelines.
To describe such an effort as a note of warning will not only be distasteful and seemingly partisan but also alarming. For the purpose of this unsolicited guideline, INEC, (the Independent National Electoral Commission) stands for Maurice Iwu, its almighty chairman.

The man makes it so because, for some unknown reasons, Maurice Iwu just can’t lie or keep out of controversy in any election. Admittedly, such controversy in some cases, might have been woven round him but as a man occupying a historically sensitive public position, he should learn not to be cheaply trapped.
The moment INEC conducts any election exercise, Maurice Iwu dominates all arrangements if not the debates. Instead of remaining the umpire, he carelessly strays to become the issue in such elections especially after the results, which even if credible (all results cannot be wrong or false) he (Maurice Iwu) would have stained with his openly combative posture against even legitimate pre-election complaints.

This, perhaps explains why the INEC chairman unnecessarily runs into public criticisms or, as some would say, notoriety. For example, Maurice Iwu is only four years in office and so far, he is known all over the world. For good reasons? Not exactly because almost one third (if not more) of the results of the elections he conducted in 2007 have been nullified by law courts. An unenviable record in the history of elections in Nigeria dating back to over seventy years.
As Maurice Iwu engages critics on his performance as INEC boss, he unconsciously becomes intolerably provocative with clearly partisan statesments which are better made by PDP stalwarts, who, anyway have more at stake. All these despite world-wide condemnation of the 2007 elections.
In contrast, Ghana’s Chief Electoral Commissioner is barely known to ordinary Ghanaians, largely because of the man’s integrity, complete disinterestedness on whoever candidate or whichever political party controls the central government.
Accordingly, unlike Nigeria’s Maurice (four years in office with only one general election) Ghana’s Chief Electoral Commissioner (what’s his name) had been in the saddle for at least sixteen years during which he conducted at least four general elections which recorded two ruling parties voted out of office one after the other at least twice, usually at the end of mandatory two terms of four years each.

Throughout these electoral feats (by African standard that is) in or outside Ghana, nobody is familiar with the name of the Chief Electoral Commissioner. In Nigeria, he would have been all over the place beating his chest in self-glorification. The Ghanaian example set by the unknown Chief Electoral Commissioner is real democracy in action, such as we shouted ourselves hoarse in admiration of our West African neighbours but also in great expectations here in Nigeria.
On his own part, Umar Yar’Adua (Nigeria’s president) is not directly a candidate organising the election to rig himself into office in the Ekiti State governorship re-run race. That was the extenuating circumstances(s) which deservedly earned him some public sympathy at the end of the controversial 2007 elections which brought him into office as an elected president.

He earned more sympathy when in his inaugural address, he conceded the 2007 elections were flawed, whatever that meant. Now, for the first time, the same President Yar’Adua is conducting an election in which the sincerity of his much-publicised electoral reform is being put to test.
Why are President Yar’Adua and INEC boss Maurice Iwu on trial in the Ekiti governorship re-run race? Have similar elections not been re-run in Cross River, Kogi and Bayelsa States?

The difference in the Ekiti race is that the electorate are about the fiercest and most sophisticated. This election must therefore not be rendered a mere formality as was in Bayelsa or be preceded by official sponsored violence in the vain hope of intimidating the voters.
It should also not be the case that ballot boxes will be stuffed with uncast votes in advance or that, where not possible, ballot boxes will be snatched from polling booths only to re-surface later after the fraudulent and criminal practices. Such bitter experiences which partly led to the nullification of the 2007 race in Ekiti State have induced in the votes such determination to protect their votes from the pulling booths to the counting centres. To say only INEC and especially security agents like mobile police operatives will operate at such decisive and sensitive stages of the elections is to incur people’s anger.

For the purpose of Ekiti re-run election, President Yar’Adua and INEC boss Maurice Iwu must also implement a non-controversial aspect of the so-called electoral reforms. What can be unlawful if today, right now, both these men clarify beyond any reasonable doubt, the difference between a voting booth and a voting centre? What can be unlawful to commence counting of votes at every polling booth so that every party agent will have a mutually signed result of votes at every polling booth all of which will then be reconciled at the counting centres?

Any strange or false figures or the possibility of such fraudulent development will be instantly detected and the perpetrator(s) will be handed over to the police.
In such a situation, only a potential election rigger stands to lose. Otherwise, everybody stands to gain. The declared winner will be seen by everybody to have won fairly while the loser will also be sportsman – like enough to concede defeat and congratulate the victor.

For an acceptable result against any possible rigging in the coming Ekiti governorship re-run, President Yar’Adua and INEC boss must discard the faux pas committed by the Supreme Court in its majority ruling in General Mohammadu Buhari’s petition against the election of Yar’Adua.
Unlike the 2007 elections in which ballot papers, even as admitted by INEC were not serialised and yet were ratified by the Supreme Court, contesting political parties in the Ekiti re-run must insist on serialised ballot papers as the only valid votes. Such a fair measure will in fact go some way in assuaging critics of INEC chairman, Maurice Iwu. Or what does he lose by ensuring only serialised ballot papers are used as valid votes?

In fact, not only must he adhere to the mandatory aspects of conducting an election. Maurice Iwu must make a public official announcement to that effect and he would have been seen to provide level ground for all contestants while his (Maurice Iwu’s) image would have improved.
Why can’t Maurice Iwu envy the world-wide respect the Ghanaian Chief Electoral Officer enjoys not only within his country but throughout the world. Better still, Nigeria should enlist the consultancy of the Ghanaian Chief Electoral Officer to assist if, as it is becoming increasingly clear, we cannot, on our own, organise an acceptable election exercise? Afer all, such Ghanaian assistance can be routed through ECOWAS if not African Union.
Accordingly, there seem to be four candidates for the Ekiti governorship re-run namely Kayode Fayemi and Segun Oni for the government House with Umaru Yar’Adua and Maurice Iwu also have their integrity at stake.

INEC’s Maurice Iwu even has more at stake especially now that even his major beneficiaries, within a month somersaulted to abandon him (Iwu) and (to) fix his exit for next year. He could not have been luckier than the opportunity Ekiti governorship re-run provides him to re-shape himself among the critical public.
If before now Maurice Iwu was incurring public criticisms to save his job, most unfortunately, he now has no job to save beyond next year. Why then should he not take advantage of every opportunity before then to assume a better image?

Maurice Iwu’s task is not as uphill as he may assume. His Ghanaian counterpart for the past sixteen years never made himself the issue in any election. Iwu runs into problems largely for defending concocted PDP election victories under the guise of defending his (Iwu’s) official performance.
It is ill-advised for a supposed umpire in an election to be unconsciously partisan with statesments like (a) opposition parties are not serious (b) opposition parties are not organised and most stupid of all (c) rigging or no rigging, PDP would still have won.
An INEC chairman is not appointed to defend any party’s victory or if INEC could be making such statements, what would be left for the PDP to claim in defending its victory in an election?

To be fair to Maurice Iwu, he, as INEC chairman has a thankless job but no more thankless than his Ghanaian counterpart.
As much as the stakes are high in the Ekiti election to make it attract national attention, the impression must not be wrongly created that only the victory of Action Congress candidate or the defeat of PDP candidate will make the result acceptable as free and fair.
Instead, the demand is that the voting preference of Ekiti electorate must be seen by all Nigerians to be reflected in the result. Whichever party is going to win or be defeated in this election must be seen by observers to have been duly elected or defeated in the civilised acceptable manner, far removed from the charade of 2007.

That is why Umaru Yar’Adua and Maurice Iwu are on trial.