I’ve watched the video of Mike Igini’s interview on Channels TV. His interpretation of the Electoral Act as amended is not only disjointed but carefully woven to justify his over bloated image as both Resident Electoral Commissioner, National Spokesperson and perhaps National Chairman of INEC. Conversely, I’ve followed Barr. Festus Okoye, the official Spokesperson of INEC for years now and his position is at variance with the new postulations of Mike Igini.
Igini in recent interview has eminently proven to be ignorant of the law he claims to be interpreting. In fact, even a non lawyer should know that there’s a clear difference between being an ‘aspirant’ and being a ‘candidate’.
It is noteworthy that in every political process, there are two nomination forms to filled; one as an aspirant and the other one which is very important, as a candidate of a political party. The first nomination form filled by aspirants into a political office does not confer on the aspirant the status of a candidate. It is the second nomination form which is filled and submitted to the national secretariat of a political party for onward transmission to INEC that confers on an aspirant the status of a candidate.
Apart from the foregoing, the Electoral Act made clear provisions for substitution of candidates which igini deliberately ignored on his ignoble interview on Channels TV.
What the constitution means by not signing two nomination forms simply is that one person cannot be a candidate for two different political positions in the same election. For instance, you cannot be a Senatorial as well as a Governorship candidate at the same time in the same election year.
Ordinarily, I have enormous respect for Mike Igini as an activist. However, his unrestrained utterances especially on issues that he is expected to know better as a lawyer is quite worrisome. He speaks more than an interested party and this unguided verbosity is telling so much on his image as an unbias umpire.
Although, he seem to score some cheap points for those who purportedly seek to ‘benefit’ from his legal razzmatazz, acknowledging his pontifications amount to giving yourself fake and unfounded hope.
I hereby welcome more superior argument.
Comrade Anthony Bissong Attah writes from his farm in Etung
