New Articles

Submit Articles

About Us


Politics & Govt




Iwu: Changing Perceptions & Presidential Absolution before His Crucifixion.

By: Franklin Otorofani, Esq.
 Published April 27th, 2010

"The missing link is that our electoral law says at the end of voting, elections results must be announced at the polling unit. Most of the polling units handle not more than 500 voters, there are very few above that and everybody contesting election is supposed to have an agent at every polling unit.

"We also have observers and our law says at the end of the election, the result must be declared in each of these units, but it is always a problem declaring the result at the unit level because of conflicts. In most cases they take the results, at the end of the voting to the local government headquarters for collation and it is in that process that people think there are wrong-doings.

"That has been the problem in Nigeria and that is why we insist that if you cannot declare the results at that polling unit, we cancel it, all results must be declared at the polling unit and that is what happened in Anambra and Edo."

“If people have a perception that a body cannot do what is right, even if they do what is right, people find it difficult to believe. The story of INEC comes with the feeling that it cannot conduct credible elections in Nigeria."

"I am convinced that the present INEC can conduct free and credible elections.” ---Ag President Goodluck Jonathan

In theory, democracy is the rule of the majority. In practice, however, it’s actually the rule of the minority by the minority and for the minority!

Many would be taken aback by this radical characterization of democracy having been conned all along to a contrary definition by the guardians of democracy. But far from it being a government of the people by the people and for the people, democracy is an organized, systemic fraud carefully crafted in the secret chambers of its priesthood and deployed by minority elites to legitimize their rule over the majority. And this they achieve by actually using the majority to periodically service the system through their votes. The periodic involvement and participation of the masses of the people during elections is meant to create the illusion of their empowerment and to perpetuate the notion that the government owes its existence to them. It sure feels good to think that a government exists at your mercy, doesn’t it? But it is nothing more than psychological conditioning and they’re prepared to go to great lengths to perpetuate that fraud. That is why politicians spend huge amounts of money to plead with the people to come out and vote for them on their own terms in order to legitimize their rule. But voting is no more than rubber-stamping the choices already made by the elites.

For all its appeal to the people, democracy is an elite game in which the masses are a little more than political fodders or, if you like, mere statistical objects. Therefore, the notion of people empowerment and sovereignty of the electorate usually touted by the high priests of democracy is a smokescreen designed to massage the fragile egos of the electorate and lull them into a false sense of importance and political empowerment. The notion of people’s political empowerment and sovereignty is only skin deep and superficial at best, existing more in the world of fantasia than in reality.

The minority elites will always have, not only their say, but their way as well, and lord it over the majority. And that is largely due to the fact that they alone understand the infinite complexity of the system which they created in the first place and manipulate to their advantage using the people. And the masses are too caught up in their daily existential grind that they barely have the time to study the system and comprehend its complexities. In fact, it would take a four-year degree program to understand modern day electoral, representative democracy in all its ramifications. Every now and then the people are herded to the polls to cast their votes on complex social, economic and political issues they barely understand. The electorate is thus used as guinea pigs in the laboratories of politics.  And parliamentary representation is used to reinforce this paradigm to complete the systematized mass deception.

And that’s why it matters little whether or not people come out to vote—a winner must emerge nonetheless even with a single or few vote(s). Yes a single or few vote(s) can win an election and put a candidate in the governor’s lodge of a state or the presidential mansion of a nation as the case may be. We just witnessed such scenario play itself out in the Anambra state election where an incumbent governor was returned to office with total vote count of mere 97,000 in a densely populated state as Anambra, with millions of potential voters who didn’t bother to show up at the polls, or if they did, were summarily disenfranchised altogether. What difference would it have made anyway? Pretty little! Only a fraction of that number put Governor Peter Obi back in power in the name of the entire state population. It doesn’t matter. Thus by some curious alchemy, a distinct minority rule is instantly transformed into majority rule. That is democracy in action! And as in Anambra state so was it in the US in 2000. GW Bush defeated Al-Gore with just about 500 votes in the state of Florida out of a population of nearly 300 million Americans. It doesn’t matter. Those 500 votes were enough to put him in the White House on behalf of hundreds of millions of Americans majority of whom actually voted for Al-Gore on the record! That’s right. Al-Gore had the popular majority votes, but by the quaint, outmoded system of Electoral College in the US presidential election, a loser was transformed into a winner and the winner became the loser. That too is democracy in action!


And it gets even more interesting: A vocal minority with deep pockets brandishing a combination of tools consisting of media monopoly, threats and intimidation could easily substitute public interests with its own private interests by manipulating public opinion and forcing the government to do its bidding in the name of the majority. And that’s reason why, for instance, lobbyists and special interests groups in the United States spend billions of dollars in Capitol Hill lobbying lawmakers and media campaigns to hijack democracy and frame debates on issues to their advantage. The lobbying industry in the United States is one of the biggest multi-billion dollar industries in the nation with thousands of firms and hundreds of thousands of employers and operatives—all dedicated to swaying governmental policies and legislations their own way leaving the ordinary voter in the lurch and take whatever is thrown at him/her. That is the systemic fraud dressed up as “the government of the people by the people and for the people!” ala, President Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, few elites make democracy work for them by corrupt means in the name of the notoriously indifferent, ignorant, pliant and silent majority. Nigerian democracy, though young, is by no means immune to these inherent vulnerabilities as a vocal few with the right combination of media monopoly, threats, and intimidation can, and has in fact, been hijacking issues and framing them to suit their selfish ends. When for instance, the NLC and ASSU threatened to shut the country down with protests and demonstrations if the current chairman of INEC is reappointed for a second term, they’re hijacking our democracy to serve their own political interests by purporting to represent the silent majority who did not vote them into office in the first place. I read the NLC president, Mr. Omar mouthing the claim that the “Nigerian people have rejected” Iwu and had mandated it to “shut down” the nation if Iwu was reappointed at the expiration of his term in June.

The last time I checked only NLC members voted Omar into office the same way NBA members voted their president into office and the same way every other professional body or trade union organization voted its leader into office and Nigerians in general had nothing to do with his position and therefore does not represent them. Yet he came out purporting to have been “mandated” by Nigerians to demand the removal of Iwu. Suppose the president of another organization comes out purporting to have been “mandated” by Nigerians to demand the retention of Iwu, what then happens to Omar’s purported mandate?

Never mind, that is part of the fraud called democracy where demagogues ride on the back of the people to prosecute their private agenda and leave them in the lurch afterwards. Pray, how do you purport to represent a people who did not ask you to represent them? How do you purport to act on behalf of a people who did not ask you to act on their behalf in the first place? It’s like a counsel jumping up before a judge in a courtroom purporting to represent a client in a matter before the court whose brief he did not get in the first place. Such a counsel is nothing but an impostor and the criminal laws of our nation have a place for his likes. It shouldn’t be any less so in our public affairs for those who purport to act on behalf of the people illegally without their consent. They’re political marauders seeking political advantages by false pretences. And you know what gave him away? He and his band of detractors would never mention Tinubu’s State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) in Lagos state, which conducted local government elections under his very nose that returned all the AC chairmen to power with no other party winning even a council’s seat! Omar sees and hears no evil in Tinubu’s Lagos!

The Real Question

It’s hardly news that Nigeria suffers from chronic electoral maladies that need to be fixed, and fixed now before our young democracy is derailed yet again. That is the urgent task at hand. But why should the question be whether Iwu should be re-appointed for a second term or not instead of the question as to why and how did our electoral system come to be so prone to malfunction and easy manipulation by political desperadoes in every election since the nation attained her independence, and what should be done to fix it permanently? Put another way, why is the focus on Iwu rather than on electoral reform? Except someone wants to equate Maurice Iwu with Nigeria’s electoral system I’m at a loss to see the connection. A wrong question cannot produce a right answer. Or can it?

Nigeria has been asking the wrong question all along and its answer has always been the removal of INEC personnel after each and every election. And because it is the wrong answer, the problem endures allowing the malignant tumor to spread unchallenged to other otherwise healthy organs of our body politic. Every physician would tell you that a wrong diagnosis for a terminal disease is actually a prescription for death. This time around Nigeria must be prepared to ask the right question and get it right. And that means she must not allow herself to be distracted or intimidated by special interests bent on imposing the same old solution on her that has never and will never work. A correct diagnosis does not come cheap nor does it deal with superficial symptoms either. By always taking the path of least resistance in firing INEC heads, Nigeria has in fact been merely kicking the can along the road rather than permanently addressing the problem.

What can we do to fix our recurrent electoral malfunction? That’s the question that ought to engage the minds of serious individuals who genuinely seek to fix the system rather than taking cheap shots at one man. The notion that once Iwu is removed all our electoral woes would vanish into thin air or even minimized at all, is pathetic. It’s the product of shallow, unthinking minds. With due respect to the apostles of the Iwu-Must-Go gospel, voodoo thinking is not going to fix our electoral problems. Only well thought out reforms will cut it. And unless I’m missing something somewhere, nowhere in the entire Justice Uwais Panel recommendations was it stated that the removal of Iwu is a condition precedent for free and fair elections in Nigeria. The eminent panelists knew better than to reduce the problems to individuals.

Systemic Failures

And come to think of it, how possible is it for an endemically corrupt nation like Nigeria to conduct a credible election in all the states of the federation and Abuja, and the presidency in one fell swoop? That is too much of a job for a single agency in a country with chronic infrastructural deficiencies and bristling with politicians with private mini-armies. Nigeria lacks the resources to take it all in one fell swoop. Not even the Americans with millennial experience in democracy and advanced infrastructures conduct elections into state and national offices in one fell swoop. Nigeria has got to do a fundamental rethink and consider switching to staggered elections over several years not over days or weeks.

Nigeria is experiencing monumental systemic failures not necessarily personnel failures. And systemic failures require robust systemic overhaul. The Americans did that after the 2000 Bush/Gore election fiasco rather than making scapegoats of electoral umpires. That is how a responsible and thoughtful nation reacts to systemic failures not by fire brigade methods. And that’s a position that is in accord with commonsense and rational thinking that many Nigerians are gradually coming to grips with. It’s no surprise, therefore, that there has of late been a remarkable groundswell of public support for Maurice Iwu, which had been missing from the table all along. And this is coming from individuals, groups and organizations (both home and abroad), who have made the decision that it is time to raise their voices and be heard loud and clear regarding the state of affairs of our nation. Never again would they remain silent and allow others to hijack their mandates and speak in their names behind them.

The anti-Iwu campaign had generated so much heat in the polity that the Ag President had to weigh in himself to dispel the notion that INEC cannot be entrusted with the forthcoming elections in 2011. The line, "I am convinced that the present INEC can conduct free and credible elections,” sounds to me as a ringing endorsement of Iwu and INEC for the forthcoming elections. This is the biggest endorsement that Iwu and his supporters can get from anywhere in the world. But it doesn’t in anyway belittle the emerging groundswell of public support for Iwu from ordinary Nigerians. If anything, Jonathan’s endorsement draws its strength and lifelines from the show of support demonstrated by ordinary Nigerians who seem to understand the issues involved better than the professional imposters and agitators. Jonathan’s declaration is a shot in their arms.

If democracy is a participatory system of government that it is where every citizen has a say in the conduct of our national affairs, this should be a welcome development. That the citizens of our great nation are weighing in on a matter that touches their lives in a fundamental way cannot but be welcome. The matter of electoral integrity of our democratic system is so germane to the welfare and wellbeing of our people that it should not be left to a vocal few to determine for the rest of us the way to go, because every citizen is entitled to one vote and one vote only, and no more. Every vote counts and every voice must count too. Yet too often we find that the voices of a vocal minority has been dominating the scene and drowning out every other voice and this has erroneously been taken to represent the majority opinion. In other words, the silence of the majority has been taken as acquiescence. That is the myth and misrepresentation that these individuals, groups and organizations now rising up in defense of Iwu seek to destroy—that their silence should and must not be taken as acquiescence in the virulent Iwu-Must-Go campaign. They’ve shown by their actions that they have no part whatsoever in the misguided campaign and have rejected out of hand any notion that Iwu is responsible for our electoral maladies. And in so doing they’ve demonstrated a superior and more sophisticated understanding of the issues at stake.   


Yet the Jonathan endorsement has a special place because of the weight it carries. Folks, I must confess that the clear and pointed presidential absolution of Iwu and INEC made my day! That was all I had been waiting for in the past four years since 2007, for an official statement of absolution of the chairman of INEC concerning the outcomes of the 2007 general elections even amid the din of the anti-Iwu lynch mob and their press collaborators. And who better to deliver it than the Ag President Jonathan, himself? The presidential endorsement of Iwu sends a clear message to the detractors that official actions will not be predicated on perceptions and the loud shrieks of lynch mobs in our midst but on factual and rational basis. That is how a respected nation conducts business not on hysteria.

This declaration is, therefore, not only a direct refutation of the accusations leveled against Iwu by his detractors but a serious rebuke of those who are baying for Iwu’s blood to back off. It has completely vindicated many of us who have been at the vanguard of defending INEC and its helmsman all along. At a personal level, it feels good to be vindicated for standing up for the truth when everyone else was ducking for cover. How I wish many who are now clamoring for Iwu’s retention at this rather late hour had joined me back then to defend Iwu. If they had done so the narrative would have changed and the damage done to Iwu and INEC might have been mitigated.

When good people keep silent evil takes hold and that’s the case with Iwu. A public officer who is not in a position to respond in kind to the barrage of clearly sponsored, vitriolic media attacks pointedly directed at him should be able to count on people of goodwill to rise up to his defense to counter his vicious attackers and defend our institutions. That’s what I had set out to do from the outset even though I couldn’t tell Iwu from Adam. It made no difference to me. He had to be defended on principle and I wasn’t going to allow lazy candidates who refused to sell their programs to the electorate during the campaigns turn around to blame their defeats on Iwu and INEC. I hold that truth is a divine element. It’s like a gourd on the sea that cannot be diced, twisted, or suppressed forever. The gourd will always pop out from the deep and take its rightful place on top of the sea!

Judged against the backdrop of previous transitions and regardless of any opinions to the contrary peddled by naysayers, the 2007 transition was a watershed in the annals of Nigerian transitions deserving of national celebration, its imperfections notwithstanding. It matters not if bad electoral losers uncharitably brand it “the worst transition ever!” so long as the relevant institutions have validated the transition as credible and to a lesser extent, the international community has likewise accepted its outcomes. Whether we like it or not Nigeria is now an established democracy with eleven unbroken years and still going strong. And her democracy doesn’t have to be perfect to claim that title because none is. And it makes no difference either whether democracy has achieved its promise of delivering its dividends to the people. That is a different matter altogether that can be addressed at local, state, and federal levels. Even so we know for a fact that there are individual states that have made a difference in this democratic dispensation, including Tinubu’s Lagos state. The other missing pieces will fall into place as it matures because democracy is not a finished product but a maturing process with no end to its maturity and its perfection.

When a nation achieves a milestone as it did in 2007, it shouldn’t fight shy of according it due recognition and get muddied up with the negative agenda of bad losers bent on elevating the imperfections of the elections into an unwarranted national distraction. Were the elections perfect? I’ll be the first to say no, they weren’t and I do not know of “perfect” elections anywhere in the globe. Do we as a nation need to fix the several flaws discovered during and after the elections? Yes, of course and that’s what INEC and the government are about, and we’ve seen the early results of those efforts in Edo, Anambra, and Abuja elections. Must we then condemn wholesale the entire elections and their results because of certain irregularities? Never, and I repeat, never! That might be losers’ past time but not the nation’s. That would be tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water.

If we condemn the entire elections, what happens to those whose elections were free and fair and upheld as such by the judiciary? What happens to their electoral mandates? Wouldn’t it be unfair to tar their deserved victories with charcoal? And whose victories do we condemn and whose do we commend? Is it AC, ANPP, PPA, PDP, or APGA’s victories that we should commend or condemn? It gets a whole lot trickier if we go down that road because the results might not be pretty for the naysayers. Wholesale condemnation of elections is like a person suffering from a finger infection committing suicide because the finger infection has brought shame to his body! Only a certified lunatic would resort to such a drastic action, and the last time I checked Nigeria is not a nation of lunatics even though we may have our own issues like every other nation on earth. But we must not allow electoral losers to goad us into committing acts of lunacy.

Would the nation condemn wholesale the outcome of general elections in which only two governorships, out of thirty six, and a handful of parliamentary results were upturned by the courts and tribunals leaving the rest, including the presidential validated? I don’t think so, because the nation cannot cut its nose to spite her face. Going by the loud cries about electoral malpractices alleged by the defeated candidates during the elections one would have thought that they would easily overturn the elections of majority of the governors and the president. But alas, they couldn’t prove their cases in court except in two cases of Edo and Ondo states. Given this abysmal failures and unflattering reality therefore, it was time for the Federal Government to come out with an authoritative declaration about the validity of the results of the 2007 general elections in order to lay the ghost of the elections permanently to rest. What Jonathan did in passing a presidential vote of confidence on INEC is therefore a step in the right direction. It has served to rehabilitate the man and restore his honor and integrity both of which had suffered untold harm in the hands of those laboring under the yoke of BLS.

The Crucifix

Yet I’m not so naïve as to think that the presidential endorsement of Iwu would automatically save his job. That may not have been its intendment. On the contrary it might actually have been designed to provide a soft landing for Iwu. This is election time and the Ag President might be compelled by other weighty political considerations to quietly ease out the INEC chairman and some of his subordinate commissioners in the pending review promised by the Ag President. He has, in fact, dropped the hint to that effect while not being specific. While I have campaigned and will continue to vigorously campaign for the retention of Iwu for a second term for obvious reasons, not the least of which is his wealth of experience and reform agenda, which as has been acknowledged by Jonathan himself, has produced positive results in Edo, Anambra and Abuja elections under his watch, pragmatic political calculations and the need for fresh blood might work against Iwu’s retention. Sometimes in politics the best is not always good enough to meet political exigencies of the times. In fact, more often than not, the best is usually sacrificed for the second or third best. That’s just the name of the game. And that’s why more often than not voters wind up putting second or third rate candidates in office only to regret their choices down the road. For instance, didn’t Americans choose GW Bush over Al-Gore in 2000 and re-elected him over John Kerry in 2004? And didn’t they regret having Bush at the White House and couldn’t wait to throw him out? And didn’t Anambra voters just re-elect Peter Obi over world renowned economist and former CBN Governo, Professor Charles Solubo, credited with revolutionizing Nigeria’s banking industry, which his second- rate replacement by vindictive President Yar’Adua, is currently destroying? That’s political realism. It’s a zero sum game that’s full of cold political calculations but oftentimes devoid of rationality. Jonathan has put his finger right on its head: it’s all about perceptions and in politics perceptions could be stronger than realities.

And so might it be with Iwu. In that eventuality, he will no doubt be missed. However, he should take consolation in the fact that his selfless service to his fatherland has not gone unnoticed by his fellow citizens who have come out voluntarily to openly demonstrate their support for him. And he should hold his head high with the clear successes recorded in the last three elections, which have been duly acknowledged at the highest quarters of national leadership.

But make no mistake about this: The demonization of our electoral umpires will not end with Iwu whether or not he’s eventually replaced. The fate that befell Iwu equally befell all of his predecessors-office, namely, Abel Guobadia, Dagogo Jack, Henry Nwosu, Ovie Whisky, Eme Awa, all the way back to the First Republic. And the fate that befell Iwu will equally befall whosoever chooses to replace him because no electoral reform will reform the Bad-Loser-Syndrome (BLS) in Nigeria. The pertinent question to be raised, however, is this: Has the removal from office of all the previous INEC chairmen improved our electoral outings in subsequent elections? The answer is a resounding no. And if we have not achieved anything with merely tinkering with INEC personnel, what makes us think that mere removal of Iwu would fix our electoral problems this time around? Only a dumb people do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. It’s time to think smarter and deeper about our problem as a people that is affecting institutional performance. The problem is not so much about people in office as it is about people out of office. Nigerian public officials are largely corrupt and ineffective because Nigerians want and demand short cuts to getting whatever it is they want and proceed to induce public officials with financial gratifications to do their biddings, which has since become a culture in our public life. When they get government contracts, they execute them poorly and bribe their way through to get them certified. Our motorists deliberately flout traffic laws and break every rule in the books hoping to bribe their way through at the police check points. Nigerian parents do all in their powers to bribe university officials to obtain admissions for their children and wards through the back door. Our students in turn go to school and refuse to learn hoping to get examination ‘expos’ and pass exams on the cheap. And our politicians refuse to sell themselves to the electorate hoping to get some INEC staffers to doctor electoral results and the police to look the other way while they’re perpetrating electoral crimes. You would be surprised that in Nigeria electoral candidates of all parties not just the ruling parties plan more on rigging their way to power than on actually campaigning and selling their programs for the people’s votes. And when they’re out rigged all hell is let loose and INEC becomes their poster child for condemning the results of the elections.

It’s all about we as a people and the values we stand for and no one should single out Maurice Iwu to atone for our national sins.  It takes two to tangle and we cannot absolve the giver of bribes and hang the taker alone. That is not in our laws and no one should reinvent the wheel and rewrite our laws through the back door. If INEC failed, it was Nigeria as whole that failed as a nation, including, I might add, the hypocritical master riggers who were themselves prominent PDP operatives only awhile ago now howling at Iwu from rooftops while posing as angels. They are Nigeria’s problem, not Iwu, and it is our job to expose them for who and what they are—wolves in sheep clothing. It should not come to the reader as a surprise, therefore, that many of the same people are finding their ways back to the PDP after condemning the party for years. You could say, they’re going back home to their natural environment and all the noise about rigging will evaporate into thin air once they settle into their usual roles in the ruling party.  


Ag President Jonathan has, by the statement credited to him above, touched on the fundamental problem of the psychological orientation of Nigerian politicians. Jonathan psycho-analysis reveals that for the most part rigging exists essentially in the minds of bad losers and it is not altogether real, at least not to the extent the bad losers have made it out to be.  At the risk of repetition, I urge the reader to read Jonathan again:

“If people have a perception that a body cannot do what is right, even if they do what is right, people find it difficult to believe. The story of INEC comes with the feeling that it cannot conduct credible elections in Nigeria.”

If you didn’t know it, that statement is psycho-analytic. Jonathan has laid bare the problem with the Nigerian people. The question then is who are the people that “have a perception that a body cannot do what’s right”? The answer is of course, bad electoral losers and their hordes of supporters which include sections of the Nigerian press. That being the case one would strongly urge the Ag President to do what’s right by not sacrificing a good man to please those who see nothing good in the system. Such a move would be counterproductive and injurious to our national aspirations. We cannot continue to sacrifice our best on the altar of political expediencies. By virtue of his professional accomplishments and laurels garnered at home and abroad, Iwu is, undoubtedly, one of Nigeria’s best brains and very few can measure up to his professional accomplishments in his field of pharmacology. Our nation must be proud of her intellectual and professional assets and eschew anything that would bring them to public ridicule save for proven cases of wrongdoings. And Jonathan, who is on the verge of undoing the harm done to our nation by President Yar’Adua in removing star performers like Ribadu and el-Rufai and haunting them in exile cannot be seen to perpetuate the same evil on our nation.

Sometimes a leader has to show the way and that’s why he’s a leader in the first place. Jonathan has demonstrated courage by his statement on INEC. However, we don’t know if it was a political statement or a genuinely felt conviction. If he’s truly “convinced that the present INEC can conduct free and credible elections,” it is time to act out his conviction, because those words carry the full weight and authority of the presidency and could not have been uttered just for the fun of it or as a mere political ploy to hoodwink some people into a false sense of security.

Having made a solemn pledge to do away with business-as-usual of his boss, Jonathan must send a clear message that our best performers in office will no longer be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency to satisfy the morbid cravings of the vocal few. A leader must not be seen to contradict himself by passing a vote of confidence on a public official one day and then turn around to crucify him the next day. What message does that send to Nigerians and the international community? Approbating and reprobating at the same time is not a desirable attribute of leadership.

Final Remarks

Jonathan owes his previous and present positions to the results of the presidential elections, which have been upheld by the two highest courts in the land. That is both factual and legal vindication of Iwu and INEC. Our government must demonstrate respect for our judicial institutions by respecting their verdicts. That is the real meaning of the rule of law. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be accepted as fact that the 2007 elections were on the whole credible and valid as held by the courts. Perceptions of electoral irregularities cannot supplant or override that reality. Put another way, the fate of public officers can never be based on perceptions of wrongdoing but on solid, clearly verifiable grounds otherwise good public servants would be holding offices at the mercy of lynch mobs preying on innocent victims who cannot fight back in the press.

Jonathan would be shooting himself in the foot if he gives credence to the notion peddled by electoral losers that his own election was rigged and therefore undeserving of the office he now occupies.  That is the clear message Iwu’s removal will send to Nigerians and the international community. Is Jonathan prepared to go that route and cast doubts on his electoral legitimacy, which has been resolved by the highest court in the land just to curry fleeting public favor? If he’s prepared to go so far, then he and President Yar’Adua might as well vacate their offices and go with Iwu. What is good for the goose should equally be good for the gander and vice versa. It would be unconscionable for Yar’Adua and Jonathan to continue to enjoy the fruits of the elections while throwing Iwu to the sharks as did Pontius Pilate, to be crucified, because fair is square.

God Bless our Nation.

Next: The Trial of Maurice Iwu! Watch out. You won’t want to miss it!

Franklin Otorofani, Esq. writes from the United States

Custom Search

Join Nigerian Social Network, Make Friends, Share Your Views!

Copyright © 2010 All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Contact Us | Sitemap | Link to Us | Link Directory | Ohio Newspapers | Philippine Newspapers