RECENT publications in the press about administrative lapses in the independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has called to question, the public expectations ascribed to the Commission Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega.
In some recent media publications he has been portrayed in his leadership decisions as swinging from one-man-show dictatorship, totalitarianism to irredentism. Since none of these characterisations quite fit into the public image which the political science professor was acclaimed with upon his assumption of office as the chairman of INEC, it is pertinent to appraise what may have gone wrong with Professor Jega's leadership of INEC.
To assess what may have gone wrong with Jega's leadership at INEC, one may be tempted to compare him with Professor Humphrey Nwosu his academic peer who delivered what is acclaimed as the freest and fairest election in the history of Nigerian elections, and the most acceptable election to all Nigerians except former President Ibrahim Babangida and his famous three factors.
But, since Professor Nwosu is considered to be in a class of himself, it will, therefore, be appropriate to compare Professor Jega's stewardship with his immediate past predecessor Professor Maurice Iwu. To use objective criteria, four dimensions of their leadership, namely peer leadership, structural preferences, operational competence in political ambiance, as well as delivery on mandate, are reviewed.
Using these criteria, objective observers affirm that Professor Iwu had a collegiate approach to peer leadership of the Commission, carrying along national commissioners in key decisions in important national and state elections, although they also point out that despite such decisions, Iwu often sometimes had his own set goals in implementation of such decisions.
On the other hand, observers are keen to point out that while Professor Jega started out very well in a similar collegiate style as the first amongst equals, he insidiously gravitated to a totalitarian approach where he became the top dog and only allowed the other national commissioners to tag along with decisions that he had already reached with his elite circle of commissioners and aides.Some observers are of the opinion that such narrowing of the decisional space at the top management of the Commission may have led to vision tunnelling which has led to policy somersaults and questionable decisions that led to the type of decisional outcomes which have resulted in criticisms being directed at the Commission recently in the media.
For instance, some publications in the press point to situations where deputy directors are appointed as departmental heads over and above their senior directors who are then made to report to them, a very de-motivating development for career civil servants, in addition some have questioned seriously the fiasco and suspicion of Jega's decision to print run-off presidential election materials in the April general elections when ballots for the main election had not been printed, attributable to a possible sectional projection or a failure to consummate or take advantage of the institutional memory of experienced INEC top directors and experienced national commissioners.
Assessing the dimension of structural preferences, observers again return to the issue of deputy directors posted above their seniors, considering this a negation of the line of authority.
Moreover, the observers insist that the bypassing of most national commissioners in key decisional processes, has de-layered the Commission’s structures such that some aides now act with impunity ahead of some national commissioners and are often more privy to the Commission’s policy direction than many national commissioners.
In this regard, such observers insist that under Professor Iwu, national commissioners did not have to endure such denigration.
Yet, it is also pertinent to ask, how national commissioners who in most cases have had illustrious careers in different fields could have abdicated their constitutional obligations of acting as peers in decision making and allowed themselves to be subordinated, because it takes passive or inactive peers to enthrone totalitarian leaderships.
In a recent response to accusations of lopsided and ethnically biased structural decisions, a spokesperson for the Commission, blamed the skewed structure of the Commission on Professor Iwu, and the accusations on ethnic chauvinists outside the Commission, yet it does not address key points raised by the media publications; for instance, even the list of national directors published by the Commission confirmed the accusations that the whole of the South West had four directors whereas some states alone had nine.
Hence, many observers question how Oyo State, for instance, where the first university in Nigeria is located has no director, just as Ekiti State, reputed to have the highest number of elite academics, is unrepresented in this cadre bracket.
It, therefore, reinforces the claims of the media accusations which asked how Professor Jega could have perpetuated such inequities, even if he inherited it. How can Jega exhibit this type of crass insensitivity towards the feelings of other parts of this country and expect any rational human being to take him seriously for adopting same, having been in office for over two years now heading for a third year ?
How can you have a critical body like INEC structured in a manner that the whole of the South West, South East, South- South and partly Middle-Belt would be on-lookers in key decision making processes given that with the Chairman, Secretary, Directors of Logistics in charge of printing ballot papers,distribution, finance, auditor, legal, to mention but a few, coming from only one section of the country, and can consequently take valid operational key decisions without other representatives from other parts of the country?
Regarding the dimension of operational competence in political ambiance, many observers still credit Professor Jega with asserting the autonomy of the Commission by distancing himself from obvious partisanship; this dimension is one of the areas in which many point to the weakness of the professor Iwu regime. Nonetheless, there are some who now question if Professor Jega is actually non-partisan insisting that he may have a well veneered hidden agenda.
For instance, a recent publication in the press point to a regional bias in the appointment of key officials of the Commission in favour of a regional posturing for 2015. In addition, some observers point to the fact that whereas Professor Iwu followed the body language of the Olusegun Obasanjo regime which had a strong preference for command and control, with a tight control of the resources required by INEC to deliver, the Jega regime had the advantage of a laissez-faire regime under President Goodluck Jonathan whose administration has been very generous in providing the Commission with most of its required resources.
On the final dimension of delivery on mandate, the core criterion in this dimension being the delivery of publicly acceptable elections by voters, the Jega regime is also placed on a higher pedestal in this regard.
Observers have noted that although a few elections conducted by the Jega administration were controversial; in this, they point to a number of states like Edo where the voting public's confidence and trust was shaken until the size and will of voters compelled compliance by INEC.
Many observers still concede that the administration was an improvement on the Iwu regime, which was characterized by patently unreliable voters registers, clearly inflated election results and thinly disguised partisanship.
Despite these differences, such observers believe that the initial acclaim with which Professor Jega was received by the public was on the decline, particularly with his adoption of the skewed and unfair structure claimed to have been inherited but which he has also continued with, by the appointment of an assistant over substantive Directors from Rivers and Delta states, respectively, and by sending these directors from the South packing from Abuja, wherein they now find themselves being bossed by their junior from the North.
The INEC Chairman and his national commissioners need to reflect deeply and take steps urgently to correct this suspicious structure as well as other significant criticisms leveled against the Commission if they intend to restore the confidence of the public in the Commission’s ability to deliver on its mandate.
Dr. ADEYINKA JOSEPH, a public analyst, wrote from Abuja.
