MY TAKE:INEC and the cost of fraud

The Punch of February 16, 2009

reported that the body that goes by the inflated name of the

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) “spent a whopping

N96.73bn between 2003 and 2007 on the conduct of elections, hotel

accommodation, transport, printing and other exigencies.”

According to

the newspaper, the figure came from the commission’s statement of

account. INEC spent 31 billion naira in 2003; five billion in 2004;

approximately five billion in 2005; 11.5 billion in 2006, and 44

billion in 2007.

It’s a scandal. Obviously, the

entrenchment of a democratic culture does not come cheap. But the

business of elections is just the first basic ritual of democracy.

Having failed at elections, are we puzzled that Nigeria remains a huge

disappointment?

For elections to work, the body

charged with conducting them must, at minimum, inspire confidence in

its independence and credibility. INEC and its chairman, Maurice Iwu,

inspire anxiety and well founded fear.

The commission’s greatest crime is

not spending such a profligate amount; but squandering that princely

sum while thwarting Nigerians’ democratic aspirations.

The commission has conducted three

sets of national elections beginning in 1999. Not one passed muster.

Far from taking its constitutional mandate seriously, INEC behaves as

if it’s an annex of the ruling People’s Democratic Party.

The one common denominator in the

three elections is that the ruling party always “conquered” more

states. Even when its governors were widely unpopular, the party

invariably retained the states.

This happened in Peter Odili’s Rivers

as well as Lucky Igbinedion’s Edo.

By 2003, it had dawned on

Nigerians that former President Olusegun Obasanjo was a hypocrite who

talked a good game but delivered mediocrity. He’d staked his “honour”

on a pledge to deliver uninterrupted power supply to Nigerians by the

end of 2001.

His anti-graft crusade quickly became a tool to blackmail

corrupt officials into staying loyal, or else. His failure to keep his

word exposed him as a man of little honour. Clearly, Nigerians were not

enamoured of the man.

Yet, the electoral commission

helped wangle an electoral abracadabra in which Nigerians ostensibly

rewarded a failed president with a new, enlarged mandate. The result

reflected INEC’s perverse skill in perpetuating fraud.

Iwu has come to symbolize the

commission’s incompetence and lack of shame. Historians will yet study

Iwu’s tragic place in Nigeria’s confounding, frustrating

experimentation with democracy.

Before the 2007 elections, Iwu

revealed his gift for silly theatre. He alleged that some faceless

forces were working to derail the polls. Even as the commission botched

its compilation of the voters’ register and could not justify its

bizarre plan to use electronic voting machines, Iwu astonished

Nigerians with the assurance that he was on top of everything.

On occasion, he forgot that he was

an umpire, not a PDP partisan; he lobbed insults at opposition parties

when they voiced legitimate doubts about his impartiality or mettle.

Yet, when courage was demanded,

Iwu scurried to take the low road. On the eve of the 2007 elections,

the commission alleged that a truck loaded with explosives had made a

brazen attempt to ram into INEC’s headquarters in Abuja.

This tale was

meant to lend drama to Iwu’s narrative about the existence of a

formidable antagonist bent on scuttling the polls. Alas, little has

been heard about this purported terrorist adventure.

Iwu’s been trying since to burnish

his tarnished image. A rogue faction of a student organization declared

him their “Man of the Year.” Some Catholic bishops sang his praises - a

sad day for the church and a shock to many among the flock.

Yet, Iwu’s stain can’t be wished away by misguided students or washed clean by any ecclesiastical impostors.

He was given the opportunity to

shine as a champion of democracy. Instead, he gave Nigerians nothing

short of an electoral disaster. To speak of the 2007 fiasco as

“elections” is to wince at the violence that is done to language.

INEC turned what was billed as

elections into “selections.” The ruling party was permitted to select

whatever political posts it fancied, and then the crumbs were shared

among the clan of grumbling opposition parties.

I hazard that the 2007 show of

shame must rank as one of the highest price tags for electoral impunity

anywhere. The unholy partnership of INEC and the ruling party

essentially foisted a nightmare akin to a coup d’etat. Iwu ought to

explain why the country had to waste all that money for an extravaganza

of rigging.