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.

ONLY a properly constituted Election Petitions Tribunal can upturn any results declared by any of the aforementioned Returning Officers. Therefore, any real or imagined frauds/malpractices in that election should not be put on the table of the INEC boss simply because he is Chairman. The fault is in the electoral system which encompasses the Act, Nigerians in general and partisan politicians in particular.
The Yar’Adua/Jonathan administration’s avowed adherence to the rule of law laid bare some of the weaknesses in our electoral system which made the 2007 general elections look to some sections of the Nigerian society like a write off.

In the past, it would have been unimaginable for a sitting president to allow the upturning of governorship results in States “won” by his party. They would have passed as having been won fair and square but thanks to the rule of law stance of Yar’Adua/Jonathan. Even then, in a fledgling democracy like ours, the overturning of governorship results in three out of thirty-six States (8.3per cent), though requiring improvement, does not make nonsense of the entire exercise.

Since the colonial days, no election conducted in Nigeria has been adjudged free and fair. Even the much vaunted (annulled) June 12, 1993 election would have been subject of numerous litigations if it had been allowed to stay.  As a matter of fact, the demonstrations in the North at the time, were in support of the annulment.

In examining electoral frauds in Nigeria, we as Nigerians must address the following, among other questions:
*Why must candidates hire thugs to snatch ballot boxes?
*Are these thugs not Nigerians?

*What do security agents do when these boxes are snatched?
*Who are the sponsors of results falsification?
* Is the electoral boss expected to be in every booth and collation centre to check malpractices?

*What machinery has been put in place to detect malpractices by Resident Electoral Commissioners and other Electoral Officers?
*What statutory powers has the INEC boss to check the excesses of his subordinates?

The whole problem is systemic. There is need for a thorough overhaul of the system. The Uwais Reform report which is very much in the front burner now may have a salutary effect but will, in my opinion, not be the magic wand required to turn around the electoral fortunes of this country. Our attitude has to change.

Without being sentimental, it has to be acknowledged that despite whatever observed shortcomings in the 2007 general elections, Prof. Iwu left undeniable positive and lasting impressions in the Nigerian electoral system.

For one, it was under his chairmanship of INEC that the first ever democratic handover of power from one civilian president to another took place in a country known for election crises. The introduction of the electronic voter registration process and the establishment of the Electoral  Institute during his tenure are also unprecedented.

Again, the reasonably free and fair conduct of the last Anambra State Governorship election over which he had direct supervision showed that whatever problems associated with the 2007 elections are attributable not to him but to the whole system.

An amended Electoral Act and reforms will, hopefully give INEC financial and operational autonomy, and bestow sweeping powers on the organisation’s boss.

Prof. Jega will be expected to apply these reforms to advantage and build on Prof. Iwu’s achievements by delivering a “credible, free and fair” 2011 election, hoping to be appreciated by an inveterately fastidious Nigerian populace.

Nigerians, on their part, must learn to accept defeat, appreciate ourselves, be less sectional and rid our poor souls of materialism and corruption. That way, our democracy can grow to perfection.

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