Between The Senate And INEC

Last week, the Senate was reported to have advised the Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega, to “talk less and do more work” in his effort at conducting free, fair and credible elections in 2011.

The order by the Senate was a fallout of alleged comments credited to Prof. Jega by a section of the media when he hosted an EU delegation in Abuja.

Denying the allegations when he appeared before the Senate’s two committees on INEC and Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Jega explained that he was quoted out of context by the media.

Making further clarifications on the matter, Jega said he understood what his job as INEC chairman required in terms of dialogue, consultation and respect for all parties involved in making 2011 elections a success.

“I have always understood the requirement of my job as chairman of INEC to be that which requires dialogue, consultation and respect for all those we have to partner with for the success of the 2011 elections.”

While expressing concern about the report, which the Senate asked him to clarify, the INEC boss said, he only expressed concerns about conflicting reports in his presentation  to the EU delegation but that his comments were reported  out of context.

According to him,  “I want to say there is no iota of truth in those reports,” adding that, he had the greatest respect and treasured the partnership of the National Assembly in the task of Nigeria’s aspiration for  a transparent election in 2011.

In the first instance, this writer is of the view that if the Senate mainly invited the INEC boss only to berate him on an issue they read  in the newspapers, then what transpired that day was a folly.

According to reports, the Senate referred the “Jega EU matter” to the two committees for investigation after Sen. Kanti Bello (PDP-Katsina), drew the attention of his colleagues to comments in the newspapers credited to Jega which inferred that the National Assembly was in the way of INEC for its slow approach to the amendment of the 1999 Constitution.

Be that as it may, was the Senate not hasty on inviting Jega for cautioning without first requesting him to make available to it the materials he presented before the EU?

Or does Sen. Kanti Bello have so much trust and faith in the particular newspaper he read as to regard what he read and presented to the Senate as facts, because as far as this writer  is concerned, the two Senate committees which handled the matter, acted as accused, prosecution and at the same time, judge.

For example, Sen. Adego Eferakaya (PDP-Delta) , while berating Jega, was quoted as saying that, “I want to advise you as a professional colleague that, if you talk less, it will be better because this is a sensitive period.”

If I may ask, does Sen. Eferakaya, who  is also a retired professor not know that all his life, Jega’s job has been that of talking or does he need to be reminded that to be INEC boss, you do more talking to clear the air on issues concerning the conduct of elections?

Or does he need to be reminded that Jega has not only been a lecturer of immense stature but also a former president of ASUU during the dreaded Sani Abacha era?

However, since the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Previlieges and Public Petitions, Sen. Umar Hambagda, who also chaired the session has asked Jega to make available to the committees his presentation to the EU delegation, it behooves the Senate to reciprocate by making the contents public as soon as they receive it so that the perceived guilty verdict on Jega can be put in its right perspective.

King Osila