By Isah Aliyu Chiroma
Isah Aliyu Chiroma
Political actors have been changing their paradigms frequently in Nigeria, which is a setback for a democratic country. The future seems to be approaching quickly, which calls for a little more patience. After the results are tallied, an election must be lost and won, and one of the presidential candidates must be declared the winner. The next step is to follow the court’s decision about the filed petitions. Some white spots have been detected in our nation politics, which is seen as a threat to the country’s democracy. We need an effective treatment, to heal the injury, to maintain democracy and our footprints. This treatment can come in different form, but the utmost, is the court ruling.
Mr. Waripamo-owei Dudafa, the former special assistant to president Goodluck Jonathan for domestic issues, when the 2015 presidential election results have begun to be announced, remarked ” Daddy, anybody can say whatever they like but we are leaving this house on May 29. You have done your best for Nigeria and the people will appreciate your sacrifices”. At some pivotal points during the 2015 presidential election, Dudafa’s statements and other circumstances that shaped the moment, this persuaded President Goodluck Jonathan to break his silence and decide to make history by calling his rival, President Muhammadu Buhari to congratulate him, even before other state results are yet to be announced. Can the opponents of the 2023 president elect call to congratulate him on his victory? This is a big question that will create a picture to the history of our political space.
Why can’t we maintain our democracy as a developing country, which would pave the way for a new era of leadership that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. Similar to the historic presidential election of 2015, where the outgoing president conceded loss even before the victor was known, it would have been a simple move. “I asked myself: what would happen in a situation where there was already an internal and external conspiracy in his favor,” he wrote as he thought. “I told myself I had no choice but to give in because I could not bear to think of anyone dying”.
The former president’s behavior redefined our democracy in a novel way, which protects and made it succeed to the current phase that is about to be blown. Are our politicians not concern of what might be the consequences of their decision and action? What perception might the citizens have on them and what might be the end point?
The court has issued certain decisions on how to handle those difficulties in order to facilitate the transfer of power. A portion of which the LP and PDP candidates have already taken in order to submit a petition contesting the election results. Following this action, I believe it is appropriate to wait for the court’s decision as an institution that can render judgments based on what may appear to them. After the earlier INEC announcement of the president-elect, those contestants became agitated and all insisted on announcing them as the winner. Where are the exposure and experience they had in the political market over the years, then? Have they not traveled in the same direction as democracy?
According to section 75 of the 2010 electoral act, “The commission is to issue a certificate of return within 7 days to a candidate who won an elections proof of his/her win. But, in a case where a court declares another candidate the successful candidate in an election, the certificate of return should be issued to the successful candidate within 48 hours. In the failure of the INEC to do this, a certified true copy of the court order can be used to swear in the candidate. If the INEC fails to do this, the candidate may be sworn in using a certified true copy of the court order”. Then, the INEC has fulfilled its obligation to declare the winner of the presidential election held on February 25th. All that is left is for the candidate to be inaugurated and sworn in and the court to do its judgement.
On June 14, 2007, the Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the labor party as the governor of Anambra State and ordered his rival, Dr. Andy Uba, who had been sworn in as governor just two weeks earlier, to depart the Government House. Why is he now in a rush and did not demonstrate the patience that propelled him to power in Anambra? The court’s judgment made him to take the oath of office, which later appeared to be a shift in the history of our democracy. Then the tape from his talk with David Oyedepo that was leaked; that the 2023 election is a religious war and he should wade in with a message. This was not a smart move, because it puts him and communication at risk. However, regrettably, the LP spokesperson Mr. Kenneth Okonkwo said the audio is authentic. What then can he do?
However, the DSS broke the silence with the disturbing information about the interim government, which seems to be a warning to the conspirators. The citizens are still waiting for a balanced story of this remark, which has raised unmet expectations. On the NTA Good Morning Nigeria program the other day, a lawyer argued that the best course of action would be to inform the people of the problem, which the DSS did and make the plotters aware of what they are planning. Contrarily, it poses a threat to national security. Considering that the DSS focuses primarily on intelligence, and mostly they work are based on secrecy, suppose that it informs the federal government of what it has discovered. Probably, what the citizens might expect was to just get the plotters been captured and bring to justice.
The supreme court decision in this instance should be the final judgement, which I believe that, it will be the final stance. The court judgment will be based on what appears, what is been presented and what the petition and allegation consisted, and how the trial will enfold. The upcoming inauguration on 29th May is something that need to be observed, then any barrier to stop that, will be a threat to our democracy of more than two decades.
Daddy should not proceed and should instead wait for the court’s decision to protect our democracy. If it turns out to be the winner, the court will undoubtedly have to announce him. However, if it is unequivocally established that the election was free and fair, we must be OBIdient to authority and wait for another election.
