By Bisi Lawrence
The big story of the week, so far, is the release of the lists for the candidates that emerged from the primary elections for all the political parties which are recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. There were allegations, or  suggestions, that elections as laid down by democratic processes did not really take place in several constituencies. There is a mix-up of disparate perceptions here.

In the way some people see it, there should be a list of nominees from various constituencies to a congress, at which candidates from the different constituencies would be organized to vote for each candidate of their choice. The winners would then emerge as the representatives whose names would be forwarded to INEC for the final election among the different political parties. That might be characterized indeed as the classical form of arriving at a choice in a democratic manner, which is what an election is really meant to be. And it really cannot be otherwise acceptable in elections between opposing political parties.

But in the recent or current exercise, issues have sometimes taken centre stage in what was coined as “internal” democracy. This refers to the processes of choice, or the method of choosing a representative, within a party. It turned out that it could be by selection, which may mean the outcome of a consensus without the rigours of actually conducting an election on the basis of “one-man-one-vote”, but by a direct nomination, or sponsorship – or in short, dictation – which imposes a candidate against the wishes of the membership of the constituency on them. Nothing is really strange in all that. It has been going on for years, though attended by grumblings and, sometimes, audible resentment and protests.

However, it seemed that some room had been made for the submission of a candidate in law, once it was officially made by the political party to which he belonged. But now a clarification, or amplification, has appeared with regard to the compliance of the appointment of any candidate with the constitution of the party. That comes true with the double-sided provision of the law, in the time-honoured tradition of “on the one hand….and on the other hand”   pattern. It might then all be summarized as, “While on the one hand, each political party has the last word on how its candidates are elected at the primaries, on the other hand the election must be in compliance with the constitution of the party”.

That seems a perfect recipe for law suits, and several disappointed candidates are heading for the courts already. And so it would appear that after all the headaches of a registration exercise that could have been designed to procure hypertension for the unwary, and one arm’s length away from elections that promise to be as gentle to the touch as a hot potato, Nigerians are now positioned to encounter the tide of a litigious passage that may register one of the vilest setbacks in our history. And who is to blame?

Who turned simple laws into complicated rigmaroles of loaded observances? Why, for instances, do we have to pass the nomination or election of candidates through the bottlenecks of party membership? Why must we have elections that are dependent on strangulated time-frames when we know how prone we are to contest almost every result in court processes that are left to run their course at no appointed time? One could very well begin to wonder how the time-table of INEC, already fractured by inadequate and incompetent processes of voter registration, will hold true in the face of the shortcomings that beset our disorganized arrangements.

But we must also take into account the fact that there is life – there will be life after the forthcoming elections. The membership structures of the parties have to be protected from disintegration. The truth is that our political outlook has become subjected to a woeful myopia which seems to leave the important issues of development out of focus. We ought to begin to assess the benefits, or otherwise, of having scores of political parties with dozens of them presenting no presidential candidate but are contented with declaring for a particular candidate, or candidates, from other parties.

Why couldn’t they have been enrolled into the membership of the other parties, in the first place? Can this mess be the source of our device for the procurement of the elusive “dividends of democracy”? It is an open market for “horse-trading”, not for gift-horses that one may not look in the mouth. It is a situation created to seek undue advantage through barter and unwholesome patronage; it confers little honour to the sy
stem, but rather demeans it. And, what is more, it is bound to get worse in the future if no checks are applied forthwith.

This must constitute a part of the danger that could be avoided by the adoption of a two-party system. A man once proposed it and we were all witnesses to how well it worked. This mish-mash of an election process being served before us may make us wonder, “When at last all is won, oh, how much has been lost!”

***Today marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of what has gone down in history as “Dimka’s Coup”.

Lieutenant-Colonel B.S.Dimka was one of the most glamorous young officers who ever gave a military uniform the figure of consummate pride and competence. Slight of  build and just above the average height for a soldier, he was in charge of sports for the Nigerian Army. I was also formerly in charge of all sports in Radio Nigeria. That was the circumstance in which I had met him and the common ground on which we became good friends. But we also had another common pastime – in fact, it was almost a passion: we both loved to “bend the elbow” across a table together.

On the day Dimka crashed into Nigeria’s history, I had already become the Controller of National Programmes and was in the office to collect some funds for an official trip to Ibadan. There was a slight delay at the cashier’s office. Imagine my surprise when Dimka flashed by on the way to one of the studios. What could he be doing in the Broadcasting House at that time of the morning” But even more surprising was the fact that he totally ignored me although I was sure he saw me plainly standing in the corridor, as he hurried away accompanied by two soldiers who were both armed, although he was not?

Well, the answer was simple. The lieutenant-colonel and his companions had just murdered General Murtala Mohammed down the road from the studios, and had rushed into Broadcasting House to make the traditional announcement of a coup-d’etat situation. Everyone in the broadcasting station was caught unawares. He went on to commandeer a studio crew who made it possible for him to make his broadcast to a shocked national listenership, which instantly became global. We were all virtual prisoners within our offices for several hours, while the gruesome incident played out.

It was the setting for momentous decisions and bold actions. Although there were standard guidelines for such occasions, no one actually knew how to follow such instructions correctly. For instance, while one was cautioned not to “cooperate” with the miscreants under such conditions, you were also seriously admonished to avoid any kind of confrontation with any of them. That left you smack dab in he middle of a high-wire act.

But, Glory be to Christ, we survived that day. There were several unforgettable episodes. One broadcaster was eventually executed with the coup-makers after they were rounded up. The story of  February 13, 1976, will be fully told on another day, I hope. However, today reminds me of the brave young men and women who went through those harrowing moments of chilly anxieties with me.

First is Ishola Folorunsho, the late Director of Programmes, the most glamorous broadcaster Nigeria will ever know, my mentor and my boyhood  friend. At one point on that fateful day, “Ish” cast caution to the winds and actually engaged in a prolonged confrontation with Dimka himself. I was having “kittens”. This was normally the mildest gentleman you could ever hope to meet, but on this occasion he simply lost control. I had to drag him away from the scene while an engaged Dimka ordered him locked up in his office.

Then, there was Roselyn Ogunro, the announcer on duty. She remained calm through out. I must also pay tribute to “The Three Musketeers” – who were with Rose in the announcer’s booth, waxing strong at their daily routine of forcing their unwanted attentions on the young lady. I went to rescue the poor announcer from them, telling them that the announcer’s studio was not the best arena for such shenanigans since  “coup-makers” would seek for that place to make their usual odious announcement. Thirty minutes later, that was what happened precisely.

I still do appreciate the steadfast cooperation of the members of staff. Starting with the late Eddie Fadairo and his team of the Talks Department including Boma Kalaiwo; there was also Banke Ademola in Music, O.J.Nanna and Evelyn Cookey in Operations. Today is a good day to say thank you to all of them and several others who names have not been mentioned here.

For my “Three Musketeers”, Patrick Oke, Ben Egbuna and Ron Mgbatogun, my special appreciation. At the general investigation that followed, if any of them – and not forgetting the lovely Roselyn Ogunro  –  had mentioned that I said something about the possibility of a coup to them that morning, and with my known connection with Dimka, especially if he had spoken with me upon his arrival, I would have most probably been dragged to face the firing squad. The military investigators were all on edge, and seemed angry enough to discard the luxury of fairness.

Finally, the man to whom all of us should be grateful. That was the officer who eventually came to relieve all of us from the menace of Dimka’s occupation of Broadcasting House. You know him already. That was the same man who proposed a two-party system of government for the nation when he became the President – General Badamasi Babangida.
Time out.