Way to True Sportsmanship


If the hype of British tabloids is to be believed, I was one of the estimated one billion TV viewers in 160 countries that watched the English FA Cup final last Saturday between Chelsea and Manchester United at Wembley Stadium. Although not a Manchester United fan, I was a little bit disappointed that Chelsea won. I was disappointed partly because as a lover of beauty and skill, I did not want Chelsea’s power and directness to vanquish Manchester United’s attractive attacking playing style. I was equally disappointed partly because I, like most Arsenal fans, always wished that Chelsea got a heavy spanking whenever they are playing irrespective of whether their defeat would in any way affect the fortunes of Arsenal. I believe I started wishing Chelsea lost every match since Jose Mourinho took over the team and turned Arsenal’s traditional “wife”, as we describe a weaker side in this part of the world, into a formidable and unbeatable machine for my darling team. Despite people like me, Chelsea always managed to grind out victory after victory even when they play very badly. They did that again on Saturday although the match lacked the expected thrills and chills of an FA Cup final between the two best teams in England.Nonetheless, the FA Cup final was a fitting way to bring to an end the 2006/2007football session in England. For it has been a long session of excitement and disappointment, of victories and defeats, of injuries and good health, of fair play and foul, of improvisation and organisation, of tactical brilliance and sheer incompetence, and of youth and experience. Although football is a game, its conduct is akin to war, perhaps because it has become a huge global business driven by men with big ego. And as in war, everything appears fair on and off the football pitch as long as victory is achieved. That is why some players would dive and roll on the ground at the slightest touch. That is why some others would wrestle and push and box and slap and tackle viciously. That is equally why coaches would shout and jump and kick and curse and punch and wail. The beauty of this game is that there is no lasting personal enmity between the players or the coaches or the teams, despite the anger and bitterness and tension and contestations and rivalry on the field of play. After the victory and defeat at the end of a match, after the emergence of the winner and the loser at the end of the session, every team returns to the drawing board to plan for the next match or strategise for the next session. The winner would want to consolidate and the loser would want to win next time. That is why almost every team in the Premiership, particularly the tops ones, are already planning for next session, identifying players to be acquired to strengthen their squad. In a way politics could be likened to a football tournament, with elections akin to a soccer match. It is particularly so in Nigeria where participants in the political game would do anything to win at the polls. That was why there was intimidation and violence and bribery and ballot stuffing and disappearance of ballot boxes in the just concluded elections. It is similar to all the bad tackles and diving and playacting on the football field. Just as there are incompetent or inexperienced referees who would not penalise a violent tackle or disallow an offside goal or who could easily be conned by a diving striker or intimidated by a star player; there are also incompetent and corrupt electoral officials who may either be blind to the snatching of ballot boxes or close their eyes to ballot stuffing. However no matter the irregularities on the field of play in a football match, neither players nor coaches nor club owners call for the cancellation of a concluded match. All they do is take cases of irregularities to the FA whose disciplinary panel thereafter sanctions players, coaches and teams in accordance with its rules and in proportion to the offences committed. Participants in our political game are yet to adopt this the way they have borrowed from the violence and cheating during the run of play. That is why opposition elements would call for the cancellation of the elections, the formation of an interim government and the conduct of fresh polls. At the end of a meeting in Abuja Tuesday last week, opposition parties including the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the Action Congress (AC) resolved that none of those who won in the April 14 and 21 elections should be sworn in on May 29. They rather demanded the formation of an interim government which would be given “reasonable time” to organise fresh elections. Spokesman of the opposition, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite (Was he a candidate in the elections?) said, “There will be no inauguration anywhere in Nigeria with the overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud, loss of lives and complicity by electoral and employed “ad-hoc” officials.”It is curious that opposition parties supposedly fighting for democracy do not have faith in democratic processes. The constitution and electoral law are very clear on how those who are dissatisfied with the outcome of any election could seek redress. Election tribunals are part of the electoral process. It is strange that those who say they are better qualified to manage the affairs of this country do not believe in the very institutions put in place to make democracy work. The judiciary is one such institution and despite its problems and shortcomings, it has by and large stabilised the nation’s democracy in the last eight years. After the 2003 polls for instance, the election tribunals reversed some results, the notable one being the victory of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State where Dr. Chris Ngige lost the governorship to Dr. Peter Obi of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA). The judiciary also voided the impeachment of Governors Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo), Obi and Joshua Dariye (Plateau). In the multiple legal battles between President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice president Atiku Abubakar, the latter won many of the cases including the declaration of his seat vacant and his disqualification to contest the presidential elections.If the judiciary has been courageous in dispensing justice without fear or favour, why are the opposition parties shy of taking their cases to the election tribunals? If the April 14 and 21 polls were worse than the 2003 elections as the opposition parties have collectively argued, isn’t that an indication there are likely to be more reversals at the tribunals particularly since the opposition claim they have “overwhelming documentation of electoral fraud”? Shouldn’t they go and overwhelm the tribunals with such documentation rather than call for interim government? Isn’t the very idea of interim government in the circumstance extra-constitutional and therefore akin to a coup? Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution says “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.” How will the credible citizens that would constitute this interim government be formed and who will be the appointing authority? How will that government have constitutional legitimacy to “within a reasonable time” organise a free and fair election for the country in the light of the above constitutional provision? Have the opposition parties forgotten a similar interim government we had not too long ago and its outcome?Fraudulent as the elections may be, there is no way forward in an interim government of whatever kind. Let all those who are aggrieved go to the tribunals and prove their case. Those who cannot should immediately begin to plan for the elections of 2011. That is the way to true sportsmanship.