Sometime last week, I penned an article on this topic. Apart from the public comments on the post, I received several inbox messages from close friends snd associates - some im support of thr post, others totally against. A couple of long-term and highly respected friends actually took the time to call me to express their opinions regarding the post. While I deeply respect and genuinely appreciate divergent views from those I hold, it is important that I address the kernel of those who seem to think I have lost the gentility I was known for. It is important to separate the personal convictions in my post from the narrow and present issue of Fayose and Fayemi. Anyone who has been following my posts would know I openly supported Fayemi (in spite of the fact that I am a card-carrying member of the PDP. I dont like Fayoses legendary brigandary one bit (even though I love his ability to get the grassroots to worship the ground upon which he treads), and I openly criticised his choice when the President appeared to support his candidature over the others at the PDP primaries. Fayemi, on the other hand, was my candidate and I wrote a beautiful piece published in Thisday, a few days to the election, on why he should be supported for a second time. That said, the essence of my current angst is that the elite or the politically powerful should not, and must not be allowed to subjugate, demean, trample upon or steal the peoples mandate by any means or route whatsoever. Fayose may not have been qualified to contest the election, but contest, he did. Fayemi had the option to stand down in protest against the inability of the courts to make a pronunciation one way or another on his eligibility. By all means, he shouldnt have contested that election against someone he deemed ineligible. But he did contest! In law, his acceptance to contest signified his acceptance of the eligibility of his opponents, and a waiver of his right to complain after the contest. He accepted the challenge thrown in by those he believed were eligible to contest against him. You cannot go into a fight, get beaten and thereafter come and say the other party wasnt supposed to fight. Its grossly absurd. And flies in the face of reason. Secondly, by going to court AFTER an event had taken place, what relief were you going to court to ask for? That Fayose should not contest the election because of a Constitutional provision against formerly impeached public officers? What everyone should know is this: no court in the land would give an order stopping an event that has already taken place. Unless, of course, such a court wants to make a public nuisance of itself and bring upon itself public odium. Every lawyer will tell you that, in this instant, events have overtaken the relief Fayemi (represented by the E-11) seeks. Its like those days of El-Rufai and his bulldozers in Abuja. When people whose houses were marked for demolition threatened to go to court, the guy and his bulldozers simply came like a thief in the night, and flatten the structures before the dawn of day. So the essence of going to court in the morning was defeated already, and the best you would get in the courts was not an order stopping the demolition, but that giving you some conditional compensation. And knowing El-Rufai and his draconian style, itll be dark and frozen days in hell before you get such compensation. So people simply stopped going to court! It wasnt morally right but it sure wasnt legally inexpedient! By insisting on going ahead with a case like this, the plaintiffs in the Fayemi/Fayose case showed their hands; and it certainly was less-than-clean. Their ultimate intention was as hidden as a sore thumb - especially when you take into cognizance the corruption-laden judiciary we have in the country. And the fact that Fayemi was still the incumbent state governor. Thirdly, we have to also be careful how we use the Constitution. Our Constitution was not written so we could be its slaves. Rather, it was written to guide how we administer our society. In other words, it is supposed to serve we, the citizens. The framers of the Constitution never intended for it to be used to truncate tje popular wish of the people. On Ekiti, the people went to the polls and resoundingly chose the person (if not the party) they want to serve them - and we should desist from using the verb rule here; last time I checked, we were not running a monarchical system of government! All before and during the election, the electorates were instructed by all and sundry to protect their votes. Sound advice. But, wait, how do you protect your vote in this instant? How? The people of Ekiti who queued under the weather to vote in a particular candidate were not going to sit idle while the man and the party they rejected was going to steal the mandate they had so freely given to his opponent. Some of my friends have argued that, but Fayose is a thug? And I ask, so what? If Kete Ekiti say they prefer a one-eyed bandit to be their governor, how is that the business of we, the elite? How can a group of self-serving, all-knowing people decide the destiny of millions of others and force our choice on them? That will certainly be inviting trouble, as we have seen in Ekiti. Trampling on peoples rights in a free and fair election is an invitation to anarchy. Another group of friends posited that but Fayose can appeal the judgement of the lower court. Of course, he can. And by the time the case is finally disposed off at the Supreme Court, the mandate burglar would have achieved his aim: a continuous stay at the helm of power. And we also conveniently forget the inevitable reaction of people we have asked to protect their votes. Let me reiterate it here: it certainly makes no difference to me if the shoes were on the other leg. Ill write with this much conviction if the party that had gone to court to attempt to steal a mandate denied them at the polls, were the PDP. My final take is this: if we truly intend to build this nascent democracy, then peoples choices must be respected and accepted, and no one power should be allowed to abridge or short-circuit it through any instrumentality - including the judiciary.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:43:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015