By Kunle Oyatomi
Last week, I drew attention in this column to the dilemma which the electoral law appears to have placed on our collective aspiration to have a free, fair and credible election come 2011.

And since the beginning of this week, that issue has become a full-blown debate with INEC leading the discussions. First, the commission asked for more time to do a good job; and in an interactive session with political party leaders, INEC’s chairman was specific that the commission would need up to April to get a good job done.

Very strictly speaking, what Jega is asking for is at variance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The law is specific as to when the elections can hold (and it is liberal enough to give a time frame of not earlier than150 days before swearing-in of the new administration).

To be on the safe side of the law, Jega’s request cannot be granted as things stand without a breach of the law. So the law has to be altered to provide a legal framework under which INEC can operate.

The big question however is whether the National Assembly will be able and willing to do this within the shortest possible time in the next couple of weeks. If it can, good enough; but if it cannot because of the process involved in constitutional amendment, then we have to accept the inevitable; that May 29th handover date would be impossible.

And by inference, the tenure of the current administration will be extended. But the alternative to such an extension (which a lot of people apparently don’t want) is to ask INEC to proceed with its tight schedule, which is a terrible risk we will be ill-advised to take.

Jega’s statements and body language are apparently to warn that he will not accept responsibility for failure, if because of the law, he is forced into a tight corner from where a “grade A” result would be impossible to achieve. The gentleman has a point.

The ball therefore is now strictly on the politicians’ court to see through this danger and act decisively. Jega has flown a kite; He is saying that if we can get the law to allow him a lee-way to manoeuvre around the problem, he can deliver satisfactorily but outside the strict framework of the law. And, honestly speaking, there lies the problem.

The legalistic-minded people out there will have none of this kind of infraction on the law, even if the outcome of the elections were universally accepted.

The other side of this position is the national interest. Is it reasonable to bend the law just a bit in the national interest, if that would guarantee a credible, free and fair election? Especially so because the extension of time requested by INEC would still be within the handover date of May 29th.

This is not a decision that INEC can take, hence the commission is asking all stakeholders to come up with a decision. But even if a decision is taken in the national interest short of amending the constitution, we would be counting a whole hell of a lot of legal controversy.

Are we ready for this? There are no easy answers to the plethora of questions this phenomenon throws up. If for instance we say INEC should go ahead with its plan (rather suggestion) to conduct the election in April, can we justifiably say such action conforms with legality? And if, in the strictest sence of the word; it doesn’t, can we say the election is all the same credible? One can go on and on.

The problem is huge, we must be frank; and to all intent and purpose, if we must operate from the safe side, it may seem best to do the right thing straight away, which is: amend the law to lay a solid foundation for a very truely credible election.

Whatever sacrifice would be needed to get this done should be preferred to laying the basis for discord and controversy in the future, by going ahead to do anything illegal.

This is my honest opinion.

I appreciate the longing of Nigerians to have this election properly done. My sympathies go to the people who desire change, however, in a democratic environment there is only one way to go: the way of legality. So let us work as hard and as expeditiously as possible to put the entire process within the legal framework. It is the shortest and safety way to go.

This problem is resolveable and the country has the capacity to do so. What we may not be sure of is whether there is the will to get things done quickly. That is a question the political class would have to answer; for it is as much in their collective interest as it is in our national interest to get 2011 right. Failure is too bizzare to contemplate; and it stares us in the face if we fall short of doing the right thing.

The debate is now heating up for good. Everything has been jolted by the prospects of failure, and nobody will be ready to take responsibility for making 2011 fail. So, if the question of legality will abort credibility of the elections, then let’s fix the legal aspect of it before we proceed. Whatever then suffers as a consequence of that exercise could only be in the national interest.