I would not have bothered to join issues with a certain Bolaji Aluko who, I understand, is a US-based Professor of Chemical Engineering if he had not lied about me in his feverish account of what transpired in Washington DC on December 18, 2007, when Professor Maurice Iwu, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), presented “The Official Report on the 2007 General Elections” to the American public.

Writing in THE NEWS magazine of January 14, 2008, Aluko, in the manner of a peevish school boy, chose to raise issues where none actually existed. That was why he made an issue of the fact that I was one of those who were invited to the high table to sit with Prof. Iwu.

Whatever this set-up meant to Aluko cannot really be of concern to me. But what I find revolting is the claim by Aluko that he “went up to Amanze later on to ask why he should be sitting in front with Iwu on the high table when he should be an independent reporter. He had no clear response to that, except to say ‘why not.’ ” This is a naked lie and a disgusting claim coming from an elderly man and an educated one at that.

The truth is that this Aluko did not know me before December 18. I also did not know him. And from the beginning of the event to the end, I never had any contact with him. There was absolutely no exchange between us. I do not therefore know when Aluko walked up to me to query my presence at the high table. If Aluko had done that, I would simply have referred him to Sunny Ofili whom he described as “the arranger and overall moderator of the forum.” Sunny and the others who collaborated with him to put the programme together should be the ones to know, especially since there was no prior understanding on this matter between me and the “arranger”.

Aluko complained that I should have remained as an independent reporter. Of course I remained as one, my presence at the high table notwithstanding. That was why I did not speak or make any presentation. I was there strictly as a reporter. I did not need to help Iwu and his team to push their case. They were equal to the task. Mine was to present the proceedings at the event to the reading public especially those in Nigeria. I have since accomplished that assignment as a reporter.

If only Aluko knew the facts of the matter, he would not have allowed himself to be consumed by needless speculations. He said he suspected that I had my way paid by INEC to cover the international tour. If Aluko had been dispassionate about the issue at stake, he would have known that there were other journalists from Nigeria who accompanied Iwu to London and Washington DC. Dr. Amanze Obi was not the only one. And since Aluko is not a journalist, he probably does not know that there is nothing wrong with the arrangement. Everywhere in the world, select journalists are usually invited to accompany government officials on local and foreign tours. That was what we did in the case of Iwu’s presentations in London and Washington. It is absolutely in order. So, Aluko can save himself the burden of suspicion.

As for whether I was there as a reporter or not, doubt can only exist in the minds of prejudiced elements like Aluko. This issue of whether I should have spoken or not was taken care of at Westminster, London on 15th December when Iwu made his presentation to the United Kingdom audience. There were some government officials from Nigeria who accompanied Iwu to London.

Each had a role to play at the event. The organizers of the London presentation had then sought to carve out a role for journalists from Nigeria, particularly myself. But we all came to the understanding that there was no need for that. As reporters, we should not be seen to be playing the role of people in government. That was how it was in London, and so was it in Washington DC. Since Aluko was interested in every move I made, a simple interaction with me would have saved him the agonies of speculation and hearsay.

I then wonder what Aluko set out to achieve by lying so brazenly and shamelessly about me. What manner of professor is this that will lie so unabashedly about a much younger citizen who is not in any form of contest or competition with him? To lie is essentially bad but it is much more so when an old man indulges in it.

In fact, the exasperation which Aluko displayed in his so called eyewitness account of what transpired in Washington gives him away as a pathetic product of unbridled histrionics. His emotive displays during the occasion and after say a lot about his desperate quest for sympathy and attention. He got these. But his lack of control earned him disdain. He ended up winning no convert to his side.

The problem with Aluko and a few others like him is their lack of appreciation of the fact that contraries do exist. Elections were held in Nigeria in April last year. No doubt, the outcome was greeted with a lot of condemnation. Yet, there were people who did not join the fray. Some others felt that the elections, regardless of the pitfalls, was passable. Perhaps Aluko did not know about this contrary disposition. If he did, it did not make sense to him.

It is probably because people like him have closed their mind to reason or debate that Iwu chose to embark on foreign tour to draw them out. The INEC chairman succeeded. He was able to take the matter to the doorsteps of those who are impervious to contrary views. If Aluko were truly an intellectual, he would have engaged Iwu properly and intelligently on the issues that agitated him. Rather, he chose to fly off the handle and ended up sowing confusion and sophistry.

For instance, Aluko sought to fault the 2007 elections on the basis of the number of petitions that were taken to the Election Petitions Tribunal. According to him, whereas the 2003 elections recorded 560 petitions, that of 2007 had 1250. For Aluko, what this means is that the 2007 exercise suffered innumerable lapses. But Aluko missed the linear relationship between the two and Iwu was quick to remind him that his statistics did not take into consideration the number of political parties that took part in the 2003 elections as against those that participated in 2007. If he did, he would have known that, comparatively speaking, there was less number of petitions in 2007 than there were in 2003.

Clearly, Aluko’s account of what transpired in Washington is a harvest of lies and half truths. Contrary to his claim that the Press Centre was filled with people who were deliberately planted to protect Iwu, the event was largely peopled by level-headed and open –minded people who were ready to listen to Iwu with a view to appreciating what he had to say. Those who had this disposition reasoned with Iwu at the end of the day. And they gave indications about their appreciation of the INEC chairman’s point of view when they were contributing to the discussion.

If any group of persons must be accused of coming to the venue of the event with a nefarious agenda, it must be that group of renegades led by Aluko. While the INEC chairman was making his presentation, you could discern anger and disgust in the faces of the disgruntled elements. They closed their minds to any new information. For them, Iwu was entertaining an unamused audience with his presentation. That was why Aluko went personal when he stood up to make his contribution. His delivery was clearly unfriendly.

He set out to attack. He obviously did not listen to Iwu’s presentation. If he did, he would not have gone clearly off the mark. In fact, Aluko set out to intimidate Iwu, yet he accuses the INEC chairman of boasting that no one can intimidate him out of his job. What should Iwu have said? Should he have capitulated to the antics of the Alukos of Washington DC? Should he have clasped his hands helplessly and watch benders of truth like Aluko to pretend to no end about being experts on issues they hardly understand?

Aluko and his ilk must realize that the 2007 general election has become history. But no matter what they say about it, they must give credit to the electoral commission that made it possible for Nigeria to remain on the path of democratic governance. Pouring venom on or peddling hate about the persons that midwifed the elections is most unpatriotic. It becomes even repugnant when lack of patriotism is laced with naked, undiluted lies such as Aluko feasted on. Realistic analysts have since recognised the point in Iwu’s insistence that the 2007 general elections were free, fair and credible. If Aluko unlocks his mind, he is likely to see beyond his nose.