By Chukwudi Nweje
Prof Chidi Odinkalu, a lawyer and an activist is a former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). In this interview, he dissects the challenges facing Nigeria and the hard choices the people must make at the 2023 general election. He also speaks on other national issues.
Ahead of the commencement of electioneering campaigns on September 28, 2022, you noted in a recent TV interview that the 2023 presidential election, in fact, the entire process, is not a contest between good and evil, but a selection among flawed human beings. What should Nigerians look out for then?
The idea that choice in democratic politics is not between good and evil but between imperfect human beings is not new nor is it original to me. We all, and each must decide what matters the most to each of us as adults, as citizens, and as voters and determine what our civic bottom lines are. The main point is that in 2015, most voters were so enamoured of what then candidate Muhammadu Buhari could be, so they decided they did not need to ask him any questions. The result was that Buhari became president without reading or understanding the manifesto of the All Progressives Congress (APC) or committing to it. When Buhari became president, his first act was to repudiate the platform on which he was elected. We don’t want to repeat that kind of error, and the only way to ensure that does not happen is to make sure those who want to rule the country not only come with proper credentials to back up the claims and promises they make, but they must also show that they have thought about the things that matter, otherwise, we’ll be in a worse hole than we already are. The issues that matter are not difficult to define, Nigeria is very frayed, and Buhari has put the very existence of the country at risk with his narrowness. So, we need someone who is committed to the coexistence in Nigeria.
How can the candidates demonstrate this?
We need someone who understands the entrails of insecurity and can take the decisions that matter and has a vision for what those decisions are because the next president is not going to be doing kindergarten classes on those problems. We need a president who will be at ease with retooling the armed and security services as well as offering empathy to Nigerians across the board. To be able to do this, the next president needs to have engaged his mind, and he also needs to have ideas on addressing Nigeria’s current economic mess. That means a president who will be able to get rid of the calamity that we have now while also addressing structural reforms. But above all, the next President must be someone who does not have any qualms about serving only for one term. That is the only way he is going to be able to take the decisions that matter on the first day. Citizens and voters cannot make any assumptions about any candidate. They all must face awkward questions so we can have informed answers and informed decisions and choices.
You have mentioned that the next president must make a commitment to Nigeria’s coexistence, as well as be at ease with retooling the armed and security services as well as offering empathy to Nigerians across the board. In what ways will the answers to these critical questions make a difference?
If the candidates have not thought about these questions with clear answers, then what are they doing? This is the problem we are living with now: Buhari wanted power so much, he was determined not to think about what to do with the power when he got it. So, we have had nearly eight wasted years of presidential indolence, laziness, and indifference. That is how he has succeeded in setting the country back by between two to four generations. Any future president who replicates the Buhari business model will surely be the last president of Nigeria because there will be no country left by the time the person completes his tenure.
In 2014 when he campaigned, Buhari made some of these commitments; for instance, he promised to maximize the operational use of the military to end insecurity, but what we have today is that insecurity has spread from the North-East and has enveloped the entire country. Buhari also reportedly committed to one term, but he reneged on that. How can Nigerians take the candidates for their words?
Buhari made no commitments to anyone about anything, to the best of my recollection. Even his slogan of ‘Change’ did not commit him to achieving progress. So, in pursuit of that slogan, as he understands it, he has taken the country backwards, which also is change. Now, if we truly want progress, we need to get the candidates committed to positions that we can hold them to. We cannot have candidates who don’t know the manifestoes that they are running on. That is what happened with Buhari.
The civil society is kicking against some of the names of nominees President Buhari sent to the Senate for consideration and confirmation as commissioners in the Commission, what is your take?
What I find astonishing is that the politicians who stand to win or lose because of these issues appear to be keeping studiously quiet and expecting to outsource the advocacy on this matter to the civil society. Politicians who are not prepared now to push back on the packing and rigging of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) through these nominations should not complain if they are announced as the losers. This did not start today. Buhari nominated Lauretta Onochie who was constitutionally precluded from occupying positions such as INEC national commissioner and it was the outcry from civil society that killed it. The politicians keep gaming the nomination of INEC resident electoral commissioners (RECs) from whom they would benefit. It is the same partisan backing of RECS playing out again, and it is not an issue for civil society. I expect the politicians and candidates to rise and say this will not happen. Also, the Senate caucuses of the various parties need to rise. Many of them are not coming back, so what do they have to lose?
Aside from whether these nominees are partisan or not, some observers argue that it is not wise to bring in greenhorns as commissioners at this critical hour when the elections are just six months away, what do you think?
The politicians know what they are doing. This entire thing was on the calendar from the day the RECs took their oaths in 2017. So, the only reason the Senate and the President have chosen to slow-walk these REC nominations now and, even then to also pack them with party hacks is so that they cause maximum wreckage with them. That seems quite clear. The RECs will still be very green by the time the elections take place. So, their capacity to manage interference will be minimal to non-existent. That is from the manual of election rigging.
You expressed concern that INEC is not totally independent because the president promised to guarantee a free and fair election, a promise you noted is not in his purview. Is it in any way possible that he has a role to play in ensuring this free process, after all, the security agencies that play a role in the election process are controlled by the president.
I insist that it is not the place of the president to guarantee the credibility of elections under Nigerian law. He is not INEC. He is not independent either. As a matter of law and fact, the president is a party political figure in an election. So, he is self-interested. If he goes around saying he will guarantee the credibility of an election, he is saying he is not committed to his party or he is otherwise being dishonest and deliberately duplicitous. Would you believe a president who makes such a claim? But even if he were to be believable, there are good reasons not to believe him because he is expropriating the lawful and high constitutional responsibilities of the INEC. It is surprising that the INEC has not said a word about this. If the president is the person guaranteeing the credibility of the elections, then we have a duty to ask: what then does INEC exist to do? Maybe we should retrench them and transfer their role to the presidential Villa? You are asking me about the security services, right? The fact that you pose the question you do in the manner you do it makes my point for me even more clearly; that the election is endangered in its credibility and that INEC is actually unable to guarantee the credibility of the coming elections. What more do I have to say?
There have been calls for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Tribunal, however, if you look critically at some of the actions that may be deemed to constitute an electoral offence, you will agree that they already constitute punishable offences under the extant laws; why for instance is it difficult to prosecute altering of election result figures as a crime of forgery, or making a false declaration in the expression of interest form as a crime of perjury?
I hope you will forgive my saying so or the way I say it, but I frankly think this Electoral Offences Tribunal is a deliberate distraction created by INEC as a poor apology for their refusal to do their work. They mistake a tribunal for a prosecutor and an investigator. Please go back and read the report of the Justice Babalakin Commission of Inquiry into the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) which was submitted in 1985. The problem with failure to prosecute electoral offenders is not a failure of courts or tribunals, rather it is the unwillingness of investigators and Attorneys-General to prosecute people who have helped their political principals to get into power, and one million election offences tribunals will not change that. An election offences tribunal will not make the Attorneys-Generals more responsive or accountable on electoral crimes. What it will do, instead, is to create a new market of electoral corruption where people will be required to pay money to buy and sell outcomes of cases. I personally don’t see how this helps anyone. If the courts are not working, slicing, and dicing them up into new tribunals under new names with the same individuals who are crooked will not change the fact that they are not working. So, no, I see no viable future in the idea of an election offences tribunal. It is a waste of time.
You are of the view that the 2023 presidential election will be decided on the first ballot and will not go into a second as some forecast; the Labour Party and Obi-Dient enthusiasts will not agree with you, how did you arrive at your conclusion?
This thing is not a popularity contest, at least not for me. Whoever wants to espouse a different opinion obviously has a right to do so and I would defend that right. There is a lot of hope and prayer masquerading as an understanding of the landscape. I understand that. Lots of people are desperate for a more positive direction for the country and they have good justification for desiring that. I share that desire too. But I am unwilling, as much as I would like to see a different country, to substitute my desires for the variables that are evident to me. Our Nigerian elections are FPTP (First Past the Post) with the requirement of spread (that the winner should make at least 25 per cent in two-thirds of the states).
Shehu Shagari won in 1979 with 36 per cent of the votes in a field of five strong candidates (Shagari, Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Waziri Ibrahim and Aminu Kano). Now, when you look at 2023, whatever happens, one candidate will score higher than all the others. So, the requirement of a candidate having the highest votes will be met. So, the question we need to address is: does the fact that we will have at least three strong candidates in 2023 make it likely that we could end up with the leading candidate, whoever he is, less likely to make 25 per cent in at least 24 states? There is always a mathematical possibility of that happening but at this time, the odds of that would be less than very slim in my estimation. Of course, the situation is in flux, and things could change. Until they do, my assessment will remain unchanged.
The PDP was in power for 16 years from 1999 to 2015, and it made promises which were not fulfilled, then the APC seized the opportunity of those unfulfilled promises to catapult itself to power in 2015 on a promise of change, this change as you observed has been in the negative direction as we go to the polls; what is your advice to Nigerians?
I am neither qualified to advise Nigerians, nor am I able to do so. Every lawful voter is an adult. Even those who put children forward to vote are themselves adults. These decisions come with consequences. So, the only piece of advice I have is that choices and decisions have consequences. If our only considerations in voting for any person or preferring one candidate over another are sectional or narrow, then we should not complain when the consequences of our narrow mindedness come back to catch up with us. It is really that straightforward. 2023 is not a date for civic silliness; it may be the last chance for the country.
You are the chairman of the Anambra State Truth, Justice, Peace Commission, how is the task going, and what are the prospects of restoring lasting peace?
You may have noticed that there is a significant improvement in the security situation in Anambra State. I am not saying the challenge is over but Governor Chukwuma Soludo has shown resolute leadership on the subject matter and the state is making good progress and that is likely to continue. Hopefully, the forthcoming Christmas as well as electioneering seasons will pass off with minimal incidents. The work of the Truth, Justice, and Peace Commission is ongoing. I am not at liberty at this moment to go into the details for reasons I suspect you may be aware of. At the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner, relevant updates will be provided publicly.