•Professor Maurice Iwu Photo: Sun News Publishing

More Stories on This Section

The European Union (EU) which returned an unfavourable verdict on Nigeria’s 2007 general elections has been taken to task by the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Maurice Iwu, but this time in foreign shores.

At separate fora in London and Washington DC, Iwu accused the EU of fraud and mischief and insisted that the elections were free, fair and successful. According to him, his commission did not connive with anybody or group or put anybody in a disadvantaged state with a view to influencing the outcome of the elections. He said he went to London and Washington to present the official report on the elections to redress an obvious lie.

At the Central Hall, Westminster, London, last Saturday, Iwu told a critical audience of Nigerians in diaspora and the white community there that it was imperative for him to present the report to them because he did not want anybody to undermine the milestone that Nigeria has achieved by successfully transiting from one civilian government to another.

The Politics of EU observer mission
Obviously worried that Nigerians abroad and the international community were largely relying on the report of the EU election monitors in their assessment of the 2007 general elections, Iwu gave an insight into why the EU was being antagonistic to the efforts of INEC.
According to Iwu, the EU wanted to interfere unduly in the internal affairs of Nigeria, a situation which INEC rejected in their bid to ensure that they dictate the tone and direction of election process. Iwu said the EU began by approaching his commission with financial aid to the tune of 10million euros. Iwu said he politely turned down the offer, knowing full well that acceptance of such an aid would tie the commission, and indeed Nigeria, to the apron strings of the EU.

However, the EU did not give up. It increased its aid to the commission to 40million euros. But Iwu would still not be persuaded to accept the offer. Rather, he told the EU to take the aid to countries that needed them since Nigeria was rich enough to conduct its own elections without financial assistance from outside. According to him, the then president, Olusegun Obasanjo wondered why the commission was turning down such a mouth-watering offer. But Iwu said he took pains to explain the implications of accepting the offer to the president. Having being exposed to the American environment where he worked for ten years, Iwu said he knows the ugly terms and conditions that are associated with foreign aids.

However, the EU did not give up. It approached INEC again asking to be given a copy of the electronic voters register. But Iwu said he rejected the request because the voters’ register was a classified document and that releasing it to a compromised body like the EU could lead to identity theft, a development that might embarrass the commission.

But the EU was still not deterred. The next step it took was to ask INEC to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with it over the elections. However, Iwu dismissed the request and reminded EU that an MOU is usually signed between two willing parties. Iwu said INEC could not accede to the request because the EU team could not and cannot be rightly described as election monitors since the commission has a special committee that monitors elections. The EU team, Iwu said, were merely observers.

Iwu told the audience to disregard the EU report because it contained internal contradictions. First, there was a disclaimer in the report that the views expressed therein were not those of the European Union as an organisation. Second, the individual reports of the observers did not quite agree with the one that was generally sent out.

Besides, Iwu said EU had nothing original to say about the 2007 elections, having described the elections the same way and in the same words as the 2003 elections. However, Iwu said he would have been surprised if the EU report were favourable, for, according to him, if you are praised by foreigners, there is the likelihood that you may be doing something that is injurious to your people and your country. According to Iwu, the orchestrated report being peddled by EU was that of a body which wanted Nigeria to come to its knees so that it would come with various aids as an interventionist measure. Iwu said Nigerians should commend themselves that the EU design failed.

Insisting further that the EU could not have meant well, Iwu wondered why countries that do not practise democracy in the true sense of the word should be the ones that are pretending to be teaching Nigeria a lesson in democratic practice. According to him, most EU countries practise representative democracy or minority governments which do not allow the electorate to choose their leaders by themselves.

He cited the case of Britain, where Gordon Brown emerged as the Prime Minister of the country even when the British electorate did not come out through general elections to elect him. Were Nigeria to choose its president that way, the EU and the United States of America would describe the approach as undemocratic.

He also gave instance with the emergence of George Bush as the United States president in 2000. Whereas Al-Gore, the former vice-president of America, won the popular votes, having scored the highest number of votes cast at the polls, George Bush was chosen as the elected president using the electoral college approach as the final determinant.

Besides, in these countries, their electoral commissions are not saddled with as much responsibility as Nigeria’s electoral commission. For instance, in the United States, the office of the Attorney General is in charge of elections while local councils conduct elections in the United Kingdom. He dismissed the EU observers as arm-chair critics whose individual countries do not practise what they expect of Nigeria.
Iwu said his crime was that he has refused to be intimidated by the propaganda of those who did not want the elections to hold.

He told the audience that he was in a position to postpone or cancel the elections based on the pressure mounted on him. There were also a number of booby traps set for INEC. But Iwu said he surmounted all of that because he did not want enemies of the country to have their way. Iwu’s verdict is that regardless of the technical flaws, the elections complied substantially with the Electoral Act 2006 as required by law.

The presentation was well received by the audience as most of them who spoke acknowledged that they did not have sufficient information on what went on in Nigeria before forming an opinion on the outcome of the elections.

Election or anarchy
In Washington DC, Iwu’s review of the 2007 general elections became even more heated and passionate. There, he was home to many of his friends and associates, having lived and worked there for over 10 years before returning to Nigeria.

From the initial mood that prevailed at the National Press Club, venue of the presentation, it was evident that Iwu had both sympathizers and antagonists among the audience. But when the INEC chairman began to tell the story of what transpired in Nigeria during the elections, the heart of most of his would-be antagonists melted with empathy and understanding.

Iwu told the crowd that Nigeria practically went to war and returned, all in the name of elections. He said the commission was confronted with unpalatable options about the elections. The commission was under pressure to postpone the elections or cancel it after it had held. He said the commission was confronted with three differing and dangerous tendencies.

The first was made up of those who did not want the election to hold. The game plan of this group was to cause sufficient anarchy in the land. The idea was to create a very conducive atmosphere for the elections not to hold. The group’s fear was that they did not want elections to hold with Obasanjo as president. They planned to stall the entire process with the hope that an interim national government will be installed on May 29, 2007. The interim government will then conduct the elections.

But Iwu said those whose minds were working that way were ignorant of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The Constitution has no place for an interim government. Iwu pointed out that if the commission had succumbed to the pressure, it would have led to Obasanjo staying in office beyond May 29 since the Constitution requires that he remains in office until a new president is elected. Iwu said the option was dangerous and could have plunged the country into anarchy.

The second tendency, according to Iwu, was made up of some close associates of Obasanjo who were pushing for his continuation in office through the third term agenda. This group, Iwu said, was propelled by the personal gains they were making from the regime of Obasanjo.
Then there was the third group who wanted civil rule to be truncated. This group were working towards a situation that would bring back the military in governance.

Iwu said all of these tended towards confusion and anarchy. The commission therefore had to insist on holding the elections since it was the only option that could avert the looming anarchy.

Gains of the elections
INEC did not just surmount the odds to hold the elections, Iwu believes that its outcome reflects the intent of the people of Nigeria. The country has also for the first time, transited from one democratically elected government to another. Nigeria, he said, is already reaping the benefit and dividends of this milestone that the commission has recorded.

For Iwu, it is hypocritical for people to enjoy the benefits of the successful transition while condemning those who made the handover possible. He also feels scandalized that the 2007 general elections which he described as the freest and most peaceful in the history of Nigeria is being made to appear like a failed project. He said that the major objective of the official report which he has presented in Abuja, London and Washington was to set the records straight.

Unlike past chairmen of the electoral commission who melted into thin air after the elections they conducted owing largely to the barrage of condemnations that greeted such exercises, Iwu said that he was not ready to accept any form of intimidation or blackmail from any quarters. He said that Nigerians who do not wish their country well have, for too long, used ignorance as a strategy. For Iwu, this should not be allowed to continue.

Diplomatic endorsement
Largely, the presentation of the official report on the 2007 general elections was well received by Nigerians in Diaspora as well as other members of the international community. Their comments on and responses to Iwu’s presentations bordered more on sympathy and understanding than anything else.

Some of them confessed that they had prepared to attack Iwu but had to sheathe their sword after listening to the INEC chairman. They then proffered solutions that could help the electoral process next time around.
These endorsements from the audience were given fillip to by the Nigerian High Commission in London and the Embassy of Nigeria in Washington. In London, Ambassador Dozie Nwanna, the acting Nigerian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, commended Iwu for embarking on the mission of setting the records straight. He told the audience that the election conducted by Iwu was tailored to suit the circumstances of Nigeria. He sees democracy as a piece of cloth which must be cut and sown to suit the shape of the person it is meant for.

In Washington, Ambassador Usman Baraya, the Charge d’Affaires at the Nigerian Embassy in Washington equally commended Iwu for his steadfastness and belief in the electoral system. He said that the 2007 general elections have come and gone. Rather than continue to dwell in the past, Nigerians should learn from the mistakes that have been made with a view to conducting a better election in 2011.