IT is over two months now since Prof. Maurice Iwu left the Nigerian electoral scene with the hoopla associated with the anticipated renewal of his appointment as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. Every attention has shifted to his successor, Prof. Attahiru Jega and what he should do to conduct “free, fair and credible” elections in 2011.

The 2007 general elections in Nigeria generated a lot of furore and criticism (deserved and underserved) as a result of which calls were made for Prof. Iwu’s removal. Most of these calls came, not unexpectedly, from those who claimed (rightly or wrongly) to have been short-changed through rigging “with the connivance of INEC” in the elections, and vociferous activists who suggested that sitting at the head of the electoral body, Iwu should have done better to forestall alleged frauds in the elections. Prof. Iwu has left the stage and a fresh chapter has been opened by the appointment of Jega and replacement of the Commissioners whose terms had long elapsed.

How justified were those scathing criticisms against Prof. Iwu and could he have done things better in the circumstance he found himself? Prof. Maurice Maduakolam Iwu, a scientist with bias in Pharmacognosy and Ethnobiology was appointed a National Commissioner of INEC by President Olusegun Obasanjo in August, 2003 and, with the exit of Dr. Abel Guobadia in 2005, he was elevated to Chairman of the body. He was therefore in-charge when the 2007 general elections took place. That there were question marks in the 2007 exercise as in previous elections in Nigeria is not in doubt.

The late President Yar’Adua (the prime beneficiary of the election) acknowledged that fact and promised to effect reforms in the electoral system to ensure minimal fraud in subsequent elections. Though he set the machinery in motion, he sadly died before its actualisation. Prof. Iwu himself admitted that there were flaws but attributed such flaws to an ineffective electoral system, fraudulence of politicians and human error.

To situate Iwu’s position and plight in the proper perspective, it might be necessary to have recourse to the Electoral Act 2006. Section 28 (2) of that Act stipulates as follows: Results of all the elections shall be announced by:

*The Presiding Officer at the Polling Station;

* The Ward Returning Officer at the Ward Collation Centre,

*The Returning Officer, at the Local Government or Area Council;

* The Returning Officer at the State Constituency Collation Centre,

*The Returning Officer at the Federal Constituency Collation Centre,

*The Returning officer at the Senatorial District Collation Centre;

*The Resident Electoral Commissioner who shall be the Returning Officer at the Governorship Election;

* The Chief Electoral Commissioner who shall be the Returning Officer at the Presidential Election.

Clearly, therefore, the presiding officer at the polling station and the Returning Officer at each of the other levels, have the prerogative, without recourse to a higher level, to announce results at their levels.

Perhaps the only known restraint on the returning and other electoral officers is section 29 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act which subjects them to oaths of loyalty and neutrality and, of course, their conscience. The INEC Chairman has no direct supervisory or punitive influence on them. Even in the presidential election where, as Chief Electoral Commissioner, he is Returning Officer, he still has to depend on results forwarded to his office by the officers in the States and Abuja.

Mr. Nwachukwu, a public affairs commentator, writes from Owerri,  Imo State.