How can Jega or anyone for that matter rationally justify the following: (1) none of the southeastern states got 1,000 new PUs out of the 12 that did;
(2) Zamfara that, according to data from INEC, purportedly has almost the same number of new and extant eligible voters as Enugu state, was given 1,000 new polling units, 167 less than what was proposed for the whole of southeastern states;
(3) Katsina, Kano, Niger, Kaduna and Zamfara states and Abuja each got more polling units than the entire southeast;
(4) four states in the southeast have 25 times more newly registered voters than the federal capital territory, still Abuja was allocated more new polling units than all of them put together;
(5) the disparity of 8 to 1 in the new allocations between the northwest and the southeast, respectively, conflicts with the differential growth in population of eligible voters for the two areas.
From the foregoing, there is clear evidence of unwarranted disproportionate allotment of PUs on two levels in favour of the north. One, the north received over 12,000 new units or facilities for additional 6,000,000 voters more than the south; two, of all the six geopolitical zones, the southeast, whose inhabitants constitute one of the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria, got the lowest number of PUs.
No amount of “explanations” and arrogant self-righteous exculpating shibboleths by Prof. Jega can justify INEC’s deliberate unfairness in this matter.
It seems that INEC is perpetuating the myth that northern Nigeria is more populous than the south. Census in Nigeria has always been manipulated and doctored to favour the north right from the colonial period to the present. The notion that northern Nigeria is more populated than the south cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.
For example, it is well known that coastal and forested regions of the world tend to be more populated than arid and semi-arid areas. Now, unlike the south, northern Nigeria is predominantly an arid environment where human settlements are concentrated only in several cities. In addition, remote sensing data, including Google satellite maps, reveal that most parts of the north are thinly populated.
Hence, government policies and programmes premised on the alleged numerical superiority of the north vis-a-vis southern Nigeria merely sustain longstanding and unjust political and fiscal advantages of the former.
Festus Odimegwu, former chairman of the Nigerian Population Commission (NPC), was unequivocal on this issue. He stated that the census figures in operation were gravely flawed, and promised that NPC under his watch would ensure a more accurate head count next time around.
Of course, fair-minded northerners knew Odimegwu was right, but would not speak out publicly for fear of reprisals from the vociferous, incendiary, northern hegemonists who were afraid that, given Odimegwu’s antecedents as a successful former Managing Director of Nigerian Breweries Plc, he would expose and eventually eliminate the sleight of hand methods used in manipulating census results to favour the north.
Unfortunately, some well-educated northerners still accept Maitama Sule’s antediluvian theory that the Hausa-Fulani are divinely invested with leadership qualities unmatched by Nigerians from other parts of the country. Obdurate insistence on monopolising power at the centre for selfish reasons compels core members of the Northern ruling elite to oppose any measure that might blow into smithereens the contrived numerical superiority of the north over the south.
Therefore, appropriate measures to reduce the overarching influence of population on the distribution of geo-political and economic resources, especially devolution of fiscal powers and resource control, to the major culture-areas or ethnic nationalities that constitute Nigeria, will reduce the urge to manipulate census figures to favour a particular part of the country.
As a political scientist who ought to be sensitive to the fragility of geo-ethnic relations and distribution of political power in an underdeveloped democratic setting like ours, Prof. Jega should have taken into consideration all relevant empirical data before allocating new polling units to ensure fairness to all parts of the country.
For example, in its latest audit of voters register nationwide, INEC discovered far more cases of double registration of voters in the north than in the south. In fact, the northwest was the most fraudulent in this regard, especially Zamfara state. To be more specific, INEC registered slightly over 2,000,000 voters for the 2011 elections in Zamfara. But in the clean-up exercise referred to above, it discovered that 1,100,000 of those voters were fraudulent, the result of double registration. This implies that about 914,886 were genuine, although the possibility that fictitious names might be included in that very number is high.
A quick look at the result of the 2011 presidential elections released by INEC shows that 927,219 voted, mostly for Muhammadu Buhari, flag bearer of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC).
Now, if we assume that the number of genuinely registered voters in Zamfara state was 914,886, and INEC declared 927,219 valid votes after the elections, it means a turnout of over 100%! Clearly, something is seriously wrong here.
By trying to defend the manifestly absurd, the INEC chair displayed a high degree of insensitivity unbecoming of a public official charged with one of the most important components of our wobbly experiment with democracy.
As already indicated, his attempt to justify the electoral marginalisation of the south, particularly the southeast, is consistent with the vengeful attitude of successive federal governments, both military and civilian, to the Igbo, which can be traced to the defeat of Biafra during the civil war.
Even so, we recommend that INEC should pay more attention to the sanitisation of voters register across the country and put in place creative measures to ensure free fair and free elections in 2015 instead of embarking on a venture that questions its neutrality and impartiality in the electoral process.
Another shibboleth I wish to address is from one of Africa’s greatest playwrights, Prof. Wole Soyinka. Criticising a man of Soyinka’s stature and reputation is not easy, not in the least because of the enormous prestige associated with his name and his pronouncements. Moreover, because disciples of a master tend to be more intolerant than the master himself, it is very likely that Soyinkaians would be eager to throw intellectual bombs at anyone who dares challenge whatever the master says.
Yet, as a student of philosophy, particularly of logic and critical thinking, I know it is extremely important not to allow the prestige factor of a VIP to blunt one’s critical acumen in appraising what he or she says, because that way one would be in a better position to detect fallacies committed by the person in question. Absolutely, no one is above mistakes, given that humans are fundamentally fallible beings.
Sometimes I admire Prof. Soyinka’s critical interventions on national issues, although occasionally his comments seem too hasty and patronising. In a recent statement captioned “The wages of impunity,” Soyinka strongly recommended that the federal government should take seriously the claims of Stephen Davis, an Australian negotiator, concerning sponsors of the dreadful Islamic sect, Boko Haram.
No comments:
Post a Comment