From David Onwuchekwa, Nnewi
A Senior lawyer and former director of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Dr Okey Chidolue from Anambra State has bared his mind on what he thinks about the February 25, 2023 presidential election which he sees as national disgrace.
He said that Nigerians had continued to complain about corrupt Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), putting National Assembly aside which in actual fact should have, according to him, taken a bigger chunk of the blame.
Dr Chidolue disclosed that it was the National Assembly which promulgated the Act that gave INEC the authority to act the way it did.
“Let the truth be told. When we Nigerians complain about corrupt and inept INEC, we forget and most often absolve our National Assembly, which is actually the Enabler-in-Chief that crafted an insidious 2022 Electoral Act that made it possible for INEC to do what they did.
“The 2022 Act, as amended, which is supposed to be a refreshing departure from our sordid past, actually gave a free pass to a president-elect by exempting him from defending his INEC mandate in court before being sworn in as Commander-in-Chief. What a travesty!!!
“In every ‘democracy’ of the world, political officeholders must ‘win’ popular vote and defend their mandate in Court, if necessary. This did not happen because INEC knowingly exploited the nauseating loopholes in the Act that allowed it to help its preferred candidate.
“INEC created a well-masked smokescreen by encouraging the masses to register and lied to them that their voting results would be uploaded in real-time from their various pooling centers. The voting public was masterfully deceived by the new-found transparency of INEC. There was an unprecedented mass voter registration but the promised transparency did not happen and INEC knew that such would not happen.
“INEC also knew that its declared President-elect would be sworn in as the Commander-in-Chief without defending his mandate in Court. And, that was why INEC Chairman, with utter impunity, told aggrieved candidates to ‘go to Court’. Which Court? A Court with public approval way below that of a motor park tout.
“Factly speaking, all the shenanigans of 2023 presidential election were brewed and bottled by the 9th National Assembly that paid little or no attention to the election timetable proposed and adopted by INEC. And, your guess is as good as mine why a National Assembly, with a retinue of legislative aids and consultants, could sign off on such a fatal timetable. Yes, INEC prepared the election timetable but the National Assembly, by and through its INEC oversight committee, did not protect the public interest that they were sworn in to protect.
“A February 25 presidential election with May 29 swearing-in date and 180 days for adjudication of disputes, well beyond the swearing-in date, was such a big red-flag that our National Assembly should not have missed.
“The simple and ideal thing would have been to peg litigation at 90 days which would have been tight but fairly reasonable. The United States Presidential System that we blindly borrowed is usually conducted the first week in November with late January swearing-in date. That gives about 60 days for litigation because a competent Presidential Election Tribunal needs only about 30 days to deliver a sound judgment.
” Alternatively, the election date could have been shifted down to November 25, 2022 to allow 180 days to complete litigation before swearing in a new Commander-in-Chief. This way, an irreparable damage of transforming a President-elect to a Commander-in-Chief while aggrieved parties are toiling in Court, would have been avoided.
“In my considered opinion, this election cycle got derailed, ab initio, by our National Assembly who dropped the ball by not challenging INEC Election timetable.
“It may have been an honest mistake but such a fatal mistake should and must be corrected to earn public confidence in future elections.