…The leader of the group who acts as the spokesperson is one who insists on deep negotiations for money to be paid for their actions before they perform…
…When they surfaced to conduct a press conference in Yola recently, I knew instantly another bait had caught its prey. Someone has paid for a validation…
…How can a group validate an invalid process? To make the mischievous exercise more invalid, the conveners claimed to be heads of observer groups. No group like that exists…
…Anybody questioning the right of a party to demand a review within the context of the law must be suffering from social amnesia occasioned by greed, or fraud and/or both…
…Those who reject a review as a means of validation are indeed displaying the invalidity of their reasoning. They are simply standing naked while delivering a lecture on indecent dressing. It is total insanity to listen to such a presentation…
By Ahmad Sajoh
…You cannot strip yourself naked in public in order to teach people decent dressing – An African proverb
Recently a group of professional “election observers” were in Yola to address a press conference on why there is no need for a review of the gubernatorial elections held in the state on the 18th of March. The group, which has been parading INEC accreditation has been at this game since I knew them in 2012. Their job is to flaunt their so-called accreditation status to hold press conferences on hire basis in order to supposedly validate an election no matter who won or lost.
In most cases they are always dead wrong. I came across them in 2012 when I was serving as an aide to then Governor Murtala Nyako. Their leaders are well known to me. They normally come through someone within government circles claiming that they can sway public opinion no matter how bad the case was. The leader of the group who acts as the spokesperson is one who insists on deep negotiations for money to be paid for their actions before they perform.
So when they surfaced to conduct a press conference in Yola recently, I knew instantly another bait had caught its prey. Someone has paid for a validation. They have earned their pay and the apologists of their paymaster have got a new song to sing for him. But the truth is, you cannot validate an invalid process. To make their exercise more invalid, they claimed to be heads of observer groups. No group like that exists. They also spoke of how all went well without in any way mentioning any shortcomings.
That is seriously flawed because an observer group could have observed a few anomalies as well. Their actions proved only one thing. They were paid and they delivered.
These money collecting charlatans cannot validate anything because they are just soldiers for hire. If the Transition Monitoring Group TMG had come, we would have taken the process seriously. Why? The TMG operates independent of government. They are funded by Donor Agencies and do not seek support either from INEC or any body. They never hold separate private meetings with contestants no matter how highly placed. They do not blackmail those who refuse to give them money. They act like the conscience of the process.
Incidentally, I have contacts with most of those in the TMG. The name of the spokesperson at the Yola press conference does not even future on their list. They normally hold one press conference immediately after the elections and it is held in Abuja. They do it in a holistic manner, addressing all issues not validating an invalid process. But the ones that came to Yola to hold a press conference operates differently. They simply go to the highest bidder. Collect their money and make invalid statements that are neither here nor there. They assume the role of accusers, the accused, judges and jury all at once. For example they claimed that calling for a review of an electoral process in which there is a reasonable suspicion of non compliance with legal requirements is wrong. Who are they to say so?
This election was conducted under a legal framework. It is therefore perfectly legal and in order to question its validity within the ambit of the law.
Anybody questioning the right of a party to demand a review within the context of the law must be suffering from social amnesia occasioned by greed, or fraud and/or both. Those gullible enough to believe them should equally be examined.
A review is a necessary validation tool. So those who reject a review as a means of validation are indeed displaying the invalidity of their reasoning. They are simply standing naked while delivering a lecture on indecent dressing. It is total insanity to listen to such presentation.
To demonstrate that they were only acting a paymasters script, the so-called observers failed to show cause for the authenticity of their actions. Where are their statistical references? How many observers did they deploy in Adamawa State? What were their modes of operation? Did they have a situation room? Did they interface with INEC officials on location? Where, when and how many? How many party agents did they interface with? Going to Government House to hold private meetings with government agents does not in any way validate their actions. Rather it violates their role as independent observers. What played out in Yola is that some smart Alec’s just flew into town having realized that someone is jittery about the outcome of a review process and came up with the idea of a press conference. The birds came to pick the grains and sing for the man with the grains. The song will resonate for a few days, then the fear of the obvious continues. The imperative of a review to address concerns related to transparency of an electoral process are key to its validation. Any observer group saying something to the contrary is not an observer group. Rather it is a collector group.
Back to the issue of a review. All the money spent on the procurement of the BVAS machines would have been a huge waste if for any reason it can be by-passed and be ignored. The very essence of such a high level of automation in our electoral system is just to ensure that votes count. However, if votes can be manufactured, figures conjured and results sheets doctored, then even the concept of elections becomes valueless.
An open, honest and transparent review should be welcomed by all contestants. No one should be afraid of such an exercise. It validates and authenticates the outcome and ensures that the occupant of the office sought is legitimate. Anyone advocating for something else should be questioned. By the way, the concept of election observation is to improve the validity of the process, not to prove its validity. If it were not so, observers may have been relevant during adjudication. But they know they are not. So, for some group of meddlesome interlopers to hold a valueless press conference on the need for a review or otherwise in a disputed process is simply hubris. It is way outside their mandate. It is way beyond their call to duty. It is simply fake and self-serving.
The question on the lips of all right thinking persons is why will a supposed independent group show itself as aligned to a section in a dispute? Why visit one contestant and not the others? We must accept the fact that as respected as the state governor is, for the purpose of this electoral contest, he is simply a contestant. Pure and simple. The law accords him the same status as all other contestants.
To accord him and his party a different treatment is tantamount to an open bias. So the rendezvous with the governor and his operatives and the open fraternization with one political party as against all others renders everything said by the supposed group a total nullity. It is an unmitigated disaster for our country that a group of people could be so empaneled as an observer group with the sole aim of validating the invalid.
Someone once asked me why I am so vehemently defending the proponents of a review without looking at the arguments of those against it. My answer was simple. In any dispute there are two sides. Both sides believe they may be right. However, both sides cannot be right. Therefore, it is cowardice to claim to align with both sides.
Neutrality is a sign of cowardice. I take sides with a position I see as more correct than the other and I do so openly and boldly. I am not driven by base sentiments or emotions. I do not write or speak in anger or hate. I have grown beyond that. I am driven by my belief in what I see as right. I do not deny the other person the reason for believing he or she holds a position believed to be right. But definitely one of the two positions could be wrong. And in this argument, I believe very strongly that the figures declared in many places were manufactured.
I believe that the BVAS machines were not used in many places. I also believe that several results were doctored. And it is for these reasons that I want the provisions of the Law granting a review to be applied. No more, no less.
And as always I come in peace.