First off, there’s not yet invented a foolproof method of doing things so as to satisfy all manner of persons at the same time; what matters is that the majority of persons be satisfied. After all, in the best of democracies around the world, elections still throw up discontent and dissatisfaction. To that extent, it is not unusual that the EBF endorsement would throw up discontent and dissatisfaction. It goes with the terrain.

Having said that, let’s turn attention to one aspect of the criticism of the EBF endorsement by the discontented and dissatisfied. It goes something like this:

“Under the current NBA Constitution which provides for universal suffrage, any so-called endorsement or adoption by a regional body is useless and a waste of time, because the EBF cannot tell lawyers (even lawyers from the EBF) whom to vote in the privacy of their phones or computers. It is not like in the past when national election was by delegates.”

Before exposing the illogicality of the above statement, it’s important to state clearly here the motive for which the above statement is made. It is made by the supporters of one of the NBA aspirants who in the past had benefited from EBF endorsement. That was at the period when there was election by delegates.The statement is therefore offered to show a difference between the electoral system when this aspirants benefited from EBF endorsement and the present. It is also offered to provide a reason why the gentleman who benefited from the EBF endorsement cannot submit himself to the same body at present. It is further offered to lift the moral burden that the gentleman must no doubt carry at this moment, that he is breaking the ladder with which he climbed to national limelight and reckoning in the Nigerian Bar.

But how does that statement stand under the weight of logic? Very weak, I must say. Firstly, during the period of election by delegates, there was no rule compelling the eligible delegates to vote for the adopted/endorsed candidate(s). If there was such a rule, then there wouldn’t have been any need of an election. What this means is that every delegate still had a right to vote for a candidate of his choice regardless of the endorsement, just like every eligible lawyer under the present electoral system has a right to vote for a candidate of his choice in spite of the endorsement. Nothing has changed.

Secondly, under the election by delegates system, voting was by secret ballot, meaning that there was  no means of enforcing the endorsement (if ever there was need to do that). This is similar to the present where an eligible lawyer can vote with the privacy of his phone or computer.

Again, nothing has changed. So what is this strenuous effort to distinguish the EBF endorsement of last Saturday and the one enjoyed by the eminent bencher, Mazi Afam Osigwe? If EBF was wrong last weekend to have endorsed one of its own to run for a national post, why wasn’t the EBF wrong four years ago when it endorsed the eminent bencher, Afam Osigwe to run for the post of GS? Why are our learned friends persevering in blowing hot and cold at the same time? Even in the rule of evidence, a  man who says one thing in the morning and says another in the evening is not worthy of credit. A man should be known and counted for what he truly stands for. A man should be known for values which he holds dear. What does the eminent bencher truly stand for? What values does he hold dear?

These are questions that a voter should ask about the candidates in an election to be able to form an objective opinion shorn of sentiments and cast his vote accordingly.

 

In the final analysis, the EBF endorsement of last week went the way it ought to go; it was the coalescence of the wishes of the members of the forum to select and endorse one of its best to contest a national office of the NBA just as it did four years ago and has always done.