Yakassai against Zakari: The In- laws controversy

THE technical competency of Mrs. Amina Zakari to

hold the office of chairperson of the Independent

National Electoral Commission, INEC, was not in

doubt.

Everyone would concede that five years on the job

was adequate for a periodic assignment such as

election supervision. What had been at issue was the

morality of the President appointing her to the

position of “acting chairperson” of INEC, an institution

that may supervise elections that he or his party,

may be involved in.

On Saturday, August 15, 2015, her published defence

of this morally hazardous issue exposed her

competency in the act of naturalistic discourse. Her

logic dented the public perception of her ability to

hoist the flag of an institution for which a principal

mandate is to educate Nigerians on the proper

practices of democracy and good governance (see

Section 2 of 2010 Electoral Act as Amended).

This exposition was inadvertently unshielded when

she sought to controvert the understanding of the

concept “in-law” as implied by the assertion of

respected elder statesman, Alhaji Tanko Yakassai who

declared, in regard to Mrs. Amina Zakari’s father, the

late Emir of Kazaure, that: “He (the late Emir)

married the senior sister to Buhari and he (Buhari)

started his childhood in the late emir’s house.

“The mother of this woman (Amina Zakari) was either

the first or second wife. Aside from that, Buhari

stayed with him for some time in Kazaure.I know that

the relationship is true”. Alhaji Yakassai revealed that

he knew the latter claim to be a fact because the late

Emir, a friend of his for many years, worked with him

as his Permanent Secretary before becoming an

Emir.

But controverting the claim, Mrs. Amina Zakari

averred that she knew the President personally but

that he was not her in-law.

According to her definition: “I can’t say the General

(Buhari) is my in-law. I am not married to his son. My

daughter is not married to him. That is what I

understand about being an in-law”.

Before examining the wider portents of this

statement, the authoritative definition of in-laws

should be set to rest. Most common authoritative

dictionaries define an in-law as “a relative by

marriage (or through affinity)”.

That Mrs. Zakari chose the relative by marriage,

which suits her purpose, is either indicative of

mischief or superficiality in dialectics. Portraying

indifference for the appointment, Mrs. Zakari said

that: “I did not lobby for it. I had packed all my things

out of INEC; I wanted to leave on the 30th (of June)”.

This is curious considering that Mrs. Zakari’s tenure

officially ended on July 21, 2015.

Why was she packing to leave on the day Professor

Jega’s tenure and not hers was coming to an end?

Was she given pre-knowledge that she will be ending

her own tenure prematurely for her “acting

chairman” mandate tenure? Might this flight from

INEC one month prior to the end of her actual tenure

be a mechanism, as the psychologist will suggest, to

cover perceived disappointment that Prof. Jega may

have given her coveted position to another person?

What does the date 30th June have to do with her?

If it is superficiality in democratic dialectics, it

characterises an inadequacy for the task at INEC that

belies the many eminently qualified Nigerians who

can combine the administrative acumen with a deep

grasp of the democratic values, which embody the

leadership norms that INEC must advocate for.

This deficiency is dangerous given the suspicion that

she has familial relationship with the President.

Under those circumstances, a person would be

expected to have very profound depth in the values

and philosophy that underscore the task of leading

INEC, to be able to adequately separate family

obligations from national democratic ethos.

INEC, a critical institution in the consolidation of

democracy, requires leadership from individuals with

unquestionable commitment to its fundamentals.

The ideal of election management provides citizens

the periodic opportunity to choose between

competing policies and actors who can lead the

delivery of such policies through political party

platforms. It is thus a process for holding politically

elected officers accountable for their actions.

In addition, elections help to give concrete

symbolism to the power of the people over those

they elect, which is the notional power of

sovereignty.

It is, therefore, important that the chief advocate of

elections in Nigeria must be someone with better

than a superficial grasp of the essentialism of public

discourse as a forte of democratic norms.

Given Mrs. Zakari’s expression on “in-laws”, how can

Nigerians lightly surrender the peoples’ institution

for expressing sovereignty to one who given her

affinity to the president, will be unable to provide a

platform for free public discussion, or guarantee free

opportunity of choice between competing policies

and actors in an election.

Looking back now at her five years in INEC, one

cannot find any public interview, article or body of

work, where she succinctly advocated democratic

ideals or practices to advice that she has

competencies to contradict the perception of a

superficial grasp of democratic advocacy inherent in

that office.

To leave INEC to her is to surrender our hard won

democracy at a time that it should be consolidated.

Dr. Ade Rotimi writes from lbadan.