Missing the mark on Mark’s election

By Silas Ode

When beggars die there are no comets seen, the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.  These William Shakespeare’s words capture the essence of journalism. When small man falls, it hardly makes news but when a big man crashes it makes headlines. So it was on Saturday February 23rd 2008 when the Benue State Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Makurdi declared the election of the President of the Senate, Senator David Mark, inconclusive after cancelling the results of the April 21 election in two local governments and ordering a re-run.

And because many are interested in the fall of the big man, only a few bothered to read the judgment that voided his election. Not many are interested in the fact that the judgment was predicated on falsification of the results announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Because Mark is a big man who we all expected to fall, we closed our eyes to the fact that INEC had earlier interdicted its staff, Mrs. Carol Okpe, for ignoble roles she allegedly played in the saga. Some had even gone to the extent of suggesting that Mark was merely using the allegation to witch-hunt Abubakar.

For others, Mark’s offence is that he is an Obasanjo’s man. Since it has become fashionable to demolish and demonise all that is Obasanjo, so people like Mark must fall. However, the liberty with which we hold opinions cannot be extended to facts.

To begin with, it is on record that prior to the commencement of hearing in the petition filed by Abubakar, he applied to the tribunal for an order to inspect the documents used by INEC for the conduct of election in the senatorial district. This order was granted. When he served INEC with the court’s order, he also demanded to make photocopies of the documents which included results sheets. It is also on record that he was allowed to take the documents away to enable him make copies of the ones he intended to tender at the tribunal. INEC’s staff in charge of photocopying in a statement he voluntarily made to the police testified to the fact that Abubakar and his lawyers took possession of INEC documents and kept them for one week on the pretext of photocopying. This was not denied even by Abubakar himself in his statement to the police but because Mark, the big man must fall at all costs, nobody has found his keeping INEC results sheets in his custody for one week objectionable not to talk of condemning such an act.

The INEC staff who followed Abubakar’s men to business centre where the photocopies were made, Julius Hirnyam, told the police that he was not able to monitor the photocopying because Abubakar’s men divided themselves into various groups even as each group with different INEC’s documents went to different places to make the copies.

He said: “As the photocopies were going on at various business centres, I used to patrol from one centre to make sure the documents did not miss. It is difficult for me to know what happened to the documents while I move from one business centre to the other.

“It is possible for someone to have tampered with the documents due to the way they were distributed among the three business centres.”

Mr. Salihu Shuaibu, the electoral officer in charge of Okpokwu Local Government Area stated in his testimony to the police that the election materials stayed one week with Abubakar’s men and without the presence of any INEC staff. He said, “The documents were taking for photocopying on the 23rd May 2007 and later returned for certification on 1st June 2007. Both the original and the photocopies were returned the same day.”

The staff also testified that they did not bother to check whether the court order brought by Abubakar was for mere inspection or photocopying.

In his statement, INEC’s administrative secretary in Benue State, Alhaji Lawal Jari, said that after discovering that election materials had been falsified, he promptly reported the incident the state’s Resident Electoral Commission.

In his statement to the police, he said, “It is the petitioner that had access to the original copies of the forms EC8A1 before the said forms were tendered and the additional entries in the said forms are in favour of the petitioner’s case.

“I immediately reported the falsification to the Resident Electoral Commission who is the Chie Officer of the commission in Benue State.”

The commission staff stated that after the documents were brought back from the photocopying centres, it was discovered that there had been alterations and when the results were compared with the Book copy, the alteration became obvious.

Also, the forms EC8A1 frontloaded by Young Alhaji in his petition was clearly at variance with the results he tendered in evidence before the panel. It is on record that what he tendered in evidence were the doctored versions of the form EC8A1 series.

With these overwhelming confessions and evidence, it is indeed strange that many people still believe that the allegation that election materials tendered before the tribunal were falsified was not made out.

Strangest perhaps was the finding by the tribunal that it was Mark who stood to benefit from the forgery. The tribunal also curiously found as a fact that the result forms which were altered indicated over voting and wrongful allocation of votes, which were in line with the allegations of the petitioner in his petition.

Naturally, a panel of judges appointed to determine the validity of an election should have given the issue of alteration of INEC’s result sheets the seriousness it deserved.

Alas this was not to be. Without allowing the party who alleged the alteration to prove same, it concluded from the panel’s analysis that Mark stood to benefit from the alterations, simply because the results of the alteration tallied with the pleadings of the petitioner.

These are indeed strange times. It did not occur to the tribunal that the results sheets were altered to bring them in line with the pleadings. The allegations that there were over voting would not have been sustainable if Abubakar and his men had not altered the results of the election.

Why would the man who wants the court to declare him the winner of an election engage in shady deal? Does he deserve to be elected into the National Assembly? People are not interested in these questions because we all wanted the big Mark to fall.At least, INEC did not interdict its legal officer, Mrs. Carol Okpe, for nothing.

Those who think that the latest criminal act will be glossed over should have a rethink. In the camp of Young Alhaji, electoral malfeasance is a norm. But the falsification of INEC forms EC8A1 series will not be buried the way Doni Roberts, ANPP agent, tore the result sheet of Okpokwu local government and nothing has since happened. On this falsification, justice must be done and seen to be done.

Ode, a public analyst, lives in Makurdi, Benue State.