Israel Umoh
Actually, the stand of Ikoiwak held sway under Electoral Act, N0.6 of 2010. Under the present dispensation, INEC is endued to reject or disqualify any person who did not participate in the validly conducted or in the primary which was not duly monitored by INEC.
His position contradicted with Igini’s. All through, Igini maintains that the candidates who emerged through invalid primaries would be rejected by INEC. This, no doubt, conforms with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
As he is about to retire after more than 40 years in the public service or after attaining more than the mandatory 60 years in the service, what will he be remembered for, or to put it mildly, what will be Igini’s parting shots?
Read also: Igini’s Parting Shots (1)
Sara Blakely opines It is important to be willing to make mistakes. The worst thing that can happen is you to become memorable. Igini’s stand on issues may not be mistakes, but some of his actions and speeches would be memorable in the eye of law or from the public service prism.
One of Igini’s parting shots is turning the commission to a legal bazaar. Before he sauntered into the controversial arena, the INEC National Chairman, Mahmood Yakubu; Festus Okoye, INEC Director of Voter Education and legal experts had affirmed that INEC could reject or disqualify candidates who did not emerge through valid process. Igini joined the chorus. From one media house to another, he has been drumming into the ears of politicians to allow INEC to monitor primaries to avoid unpleasant consequences.
During his recent interview to a radio station in Uyo, he was point blank. He said “The report of the Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District APC primary as submitted to INEC headquarters in Abuja is final. It is concluded. The train has left the station. The timeline is clear. All those who are in politics should go and study the 2022 Electoral Act very well.’’
After INEC had disqualified Akpabio, he granted Arise TV interview, bringing out documents to support his stand that the APC Chairman forged the result and was not validly elected. To the Senator, he affirmed that he was ineligible for the contest having used ‘re-run’ in the primary in which he was not an aspirant in the race before. But, why did he speak like a spokesperson of the aggrieved APC members fronting some documents to buttress his assertions? Who funded the television interview? He has the moral burden to clear his name from the ‘suspicious’ matter.
Assuming that the APC wrote a letter to the commission to monitor the primaries, did the party give the state commission the mandatory 21 days’ notice to monitor all its primaries? Did APC forward a copy of the letter to the national headquarters in Abuja for information? Did the party write to the commission to monitor its ‘re-run’ primary? Did the party change some names of candidates and brought in others as winners who did not participate during the initial exercise?
But, a popular Akwa Ibom parable says if an owl shrieks in the night and in the morning a child dies, won’t the father blame the owl? This is the case between Igini and APC. Akpabio indeed the party believes, either rightly or wrongly, that Igini may be the architect of the party’s misfortune in the 2023 general elections.
In his defence, Igini has raised some fundamental issues which, according to him, APC did not observe the conduct of the primaries in line with provisions of the Act. He complained that the party’s primaries were not monitored, an allegation the party had thrown back that he deliberately refused to honour to do so in a veiled attempt to frustrate the party.
Clearly, Section 84(14) of the Act provides a window for an aggrieved aspirant to seek redress in the Federal High Court, instead of INEC or its agent going for self-help. Deploying legal gymnastics to inject jitters in the hearts of political actors does not portray him in good light as an unbiased umpire.
Marching to his exit route in the system, Igini wrote a letter to the INEC, Abuja complaining that a governorship candidate’s primary was not monitored. As the letter’s ink was still dripping, many saw it in the public bin. One had expected Igini as a public officer before he addressed the press to have distanced himself from the leaked memo. Alas! He did not. That put crayon mark on the credibility apron of the state commission as being ‘complicit’ in the matter.
Igini’s refusal to recognise Stephen Ntukekpo-led executive was unbecoming. He affirmed in one of his press interviews that since the court ruled that the status quo should remain, he did not recognize the executive until INEC Headquarters sent a letter to this effect, which was after the primaries.
Was Igini sincere in his statement? Why did he hold onto a faction of the party when judgement of the ‘doctored’ primary had been given? Are most court rulings based on morality or technicality? Would it not have been the position of the affected EXCO members to have appealed the judgement instead of him claiming that the document was forged? Was INEC not joined in the suit? When the ruling was given, was the state INEC not aware or did it expect official letter (as it was done) from Abuja Office?
On the contrary, Nigerian political parties have the same modus operandi. The state Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) conducted Ward Congresses and elected ad-hoc delegates. Did the state INEC view the process as fair in the face of avalanche of complaints? Was a level ground provided for the governorship and other party members during the exercise? Can INEC in Akwa Ibom swear in the name of Ogun, the Yoruba pantheon of gods, called the god of iron and war that the congresses were conducted in all the state electoral wards?
It is alleged that Akwa Ibom State government wants to hire him as a consultant on electoral matters. Neither government nor Igini has refuted the story. This is suggestive of the fact he might have worked very hard to please the government.
Igini’s parting shots are borne of his controversial remarks made at the point in which he is about going on retirement. His critics expected him to have made edifying and consensus-building statements to compensate for his previous controversies. From the exit room, Igini is rocking the boat the more, which is detrimental to the health thermometer of the commission.
But, one of the time-tested Akwa Ibom parables says when a respectable person in the society carries a basket of shame and parades the market square, bystanders will readily throw in refuse to compound his woes. The party must not blame one person for everything, rather it must do a self-assessment to ridding itself of self-inflicted injury. The fault may not be its star, but in its action.
Before the primaries, the party was turned to a house of commotion and public ridicule and impunity. It was a factional, disorganized, disenchanted and ‘dismembered’ house in all fronts leading to a gale of defections. Some party leaders and well-placed members sang discordant tunes, and tried to ‘hijack’ the process during the primaries to be ‘king Kung.’ What did they expect from Igini, who refused to join the party in wearing its bereaved garment?
As Igini is about quitting the commission, will his garment still remain immaculate? Signals from quarters seem to fuel this fear. Last week, some APC in the state protested at INEC Office, Uyo and later Abuja, calling for his redeployment or ‘sack’. Though the protest was unnecessary, the issues could be amicably resolved by the parties involved instead of resorting to ‘war.’ Igini could be only sacked if the President sends a letter to the National Assembly and two-third of the members pass a resolution for his removal.
Quite unexpectedly, Urhobo Community in Akwa Ibom State called for a ceasefire and undue attack on Akwa Ibom Resident Electoral Commissioner, Barr Mike Igini.
A release signed by Engr Solomon Oghenebrume and Mr Emmanuel Oyibocha Chairman and Secretary of Urhobo Community, Akwa Ibom State respectively, warned against “derogatory and diseaseful act of protest to refrain from it now and we advise the good people of Akwa Ibom State not to allow themselves to be use by desperate politicians to the detriment of peace we all enjoyed in Akwa Ibom state.’’
When did official matter become a ‘tribal issue’? Why has the issue of public interest concerning a public officer taken a tribal colouration? Was Igini appointed on the recommendation of his tribe, or is he serving the interest or playing the card of his tribe to Nigerians and Akwa Ibom people? What an aberration and absurdity of the highest order!
As Igini leaves the office, will he be seen as impartial judge? Will he be seen as a man who could not draw a line of demarcation between activism and officialdom? Will he be seen as a just electoral umpire? Should he be reckoned with as a public officer who was seen and heard? Will he be remembered as a judge and a jury in case involving a political party? Will he be venerated as electoral commissioner who was biased with some politicians and political parties? More questions, but no answers.
Concluded
