In Defense Of History: The Imperative To Immortalize Professor Humphrey Nwosu
The hallowed chambers of Nigeria’s 10th Senate recently descended into a disheartening spectacle—one that laid bare the fragility of our collective memory and the perils of politicizing history. At the center of this travesty was a motion to immortalize the late Professor Humphrey Nwosu, former chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), whose stewardship of the 1993 presidential election remains an indelible chapter in Nigeria’s democratic journey. That this motion was dismissed under the flimsy guise of “procedural breaches” and spurious claims of “controversy” is not merely a legislative failure; it is an affront to the very ideals of integrity, courage, and patriotism that Prof. Nwosu embodied.
The 1993 Election: A Beacon in Nigeria’s Democratic Darkness
To dismiss Professor Nwosu’s contributions as contentious is to rewrite history with the ink of ignorance. The 1993 election, conducted under his leadership, stands as Nigeria’s most transparent electoral exercise—a feat achieved despite the suffocating grip of military dictatorship. The innovative Option A4 Open/Secret Ballot System he pioneered dismantled the machinery of electoral fraud, ensuring that the votes of both the literate and illiterate were counted without “magomago” or “wuruwuru” (phrases coined by Nwosu himself to denounce electoral malpractice). For the first time, a presidential candidate, the late MKO Abiola, triumphed in his opponent’s home state of Kano, shattering ethnic and religious binaries. This was democracy in its purest form: untainted, unyielding, and universally acknowledged as credible.
Yet, some Senators' assertion, orchestrated by some generals that Nwosu’s legacy is “controversial” betrays a troubling detachment from historical fact. As Nnedinso Ogaziechi cogently articulated in her March 2025 analysis, Humphrey Nwosu and the Undertakers of History, the recent autobiography of General Ibrahim Babangida, A Journey in Service, confirms what scholars have long documented: the annulment of June 12 was a military conspiracy, orchestrated by power-drunk generals, not the electoral umpire. Nwosu, in the face of tyrannical pressure, held firm to his mandate. To conflate his principled stand with the venality of those who sabotaged democracy is not only intellectually dishonest but morally reprehensible.
The Senate’s Failure: A Microcosm of Nigeria’s Political Malady
The Senate’s rejection of this motion exposes a deeper malaise: the systemic aversion to honoring excellence in a polity steeped in mediocrity. How is it conceivable that Nigeria’s legislative body, tasked with safeguarding our democratic ethos, opts to dishonor a man who personified electoral integrity? That convicted electoral offenders—university professors no less—now languish in jail for rigging, while Nwosu’s legacy is debated as though it were a partisan trifle, is a tragic irony.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe’s anguished query—“What is wrong with immortalizing Prof. Nwosu?”—echoes the frustration of millions. The answer lies not in procedural technicalities but in the Senate’s reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. By reducing Nwosu’s legacy to political fodder, the Senate perpetuates the same authoritarian hangover that plagues our democracy: the prioritization of power over principle, factionalism over fairness.
Why Immortalization Matters:A Moral Imperative
To immortalize Professor Nwosu is not merely to honor a man; it is to enshrine the values he championed. Naming the INEC headquarters after him would serve as a perpetual reminder to electoral officials that integrity is non-negotiable. In a nation where monuments are hastily erected for politicians of dubious virtue, denying Nwosu his due reeks of hypocrisy.
Critics may argue that historical figures are often judged by time, not legislative fiat. Yet, as Euripides noted, “Time will explain it all. He is a babbler, and speaks even when not asked.” Time has already vindicated Nwosu. His election remains the gold standard, his methodology a blueprint for credible polls. What remains is for Nigeria’s leaders to summon the courage to align rhetoric with action.
Conclusion: A Call to Rescue History from Undertakers
The 10th Senate’s decision is a temporary setback, not a final verdict. Professor Nwosu’s legacy—rooted in the unassailable truths of June 12—transcends political machinations. To those who would diminish his contributions, I pose this question: If we cannot honor a man who defied a military junta to deliver a free election, whom then do we deem worthy of remembrance?
Let us not consign Nwosu to the footnotes of history. Let us, instead, immortalize him as a testament to what Nigeria can achieve when courage meets conviction. The Senate must revisit this motion, not as a partisan obligation, but as a debt owed to truth itself.
The 1993 Election: A Beacon in Nigeria’s Democratic Darkness
To dismiss Professor Nwosu’s contributions as contentious is to rewrite history with the ink of ignorance. The 1993 election, conducted under his leadership, stands as Nigeria’s most transparent electoral exercise—a feat achieved despite the suffocating grip of military dictatorship. The innovative Option A4 Open/Secret Ballot System he pioneered dismantled the machinery of electoral fraud, ensuring that the votes of both the literate and illiterate were counted without “magomago” or “wuruwuru” (phrases coined by Nwosu himself to denounce electoral malpractice). For the first time, a presidential candidate, the late MKO Abiola, triumphed in his opponent’s home state of Kano, shattering ethnic and religious binaries. This was democracy in its purest form: untainted, unyielding, and universally acknowledged as credible.
Yet, some Senators' assertion, orchestrated by some generals that Nwosu’s legacy is “controversial” betrays a troubling detachment from historical fact. As Nnedinso Ogaziechi cogently articulated in her March 2025 analysis, Humphrey Nwosu and the Undertakers of History, the recent autobiography of General Ibrahim Babangida, A Journey in Service, confirms what scholars have long documented: the annulment of June 12 was a military conspiracy, orchestrated by power-drunk generals, not the electoral umpire. Nwosu, in the face of tyrannical pressure, held firm to his mandate. To conflate his principled stand with the venality of those who sabotaged democracy is not only intellectually dishonest but morally reprehensible.
The Senate’s Failure: A Microcosm of Nigeria’s Political Malady
The Senate’s rejection of this motion exposes a deeper malaise: the systemic aversion to honoring excellence in a polity steeped in mediocrity. How is it conceivable that Nigeria’s legislative body, tasked with safeguarding our democratic ethos, opts to dishonor a man who personified electoral integrity? That convicted electoral offenders—university professors no less—now languish in jail for rigging, while Nwosu’s legacy is debated as though it were a partisan trifle, is a tragic irony.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe’s anguished query—“What is wrong with immortalizing Prof. Nwosu?”—echoes the frustration of millions. The answer lies not in procedural technicalities but in the Senate’s reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. By reducing Nwosu’s legacy to political fodder, the Senate perpetuates the same authoritarian hangover that plagues our democracy: the prioritization of power over principle, factionalism over fairness.
Why Immortalization Matters:A Moral Imperative
To immortalize Professor Nwosu is not merely to honor a man; it is to enshrine the values he championed. Naming the INEC headquarters after him would serve as a perpetual reminder to electoral officials that integrity is non-negotiable. In a nation where monuments are hastily erected for politicians of dubious virtue, denying Nwosu his due reeks of hypocrisy.
Critics may argue that historical figures are often judged by time, not legislative fiat. Yet, as Euripides noted, “Time will explain it all. He is a babbler, and speaks even when not asked.” Time has already vindicated Nwosu. His election remains the gold standard, his methodology a blueprint for credible polls. What remains is for Nigeria’s leaders to summon the courage to align rhetoric with action.
Conclusion: A Call to Rescue History from Undertakers
The 10th Senate’s decision is a temporary setback, not a final verdict. Professor Nwosu’s legacy—rooted in the unassailable truths of June 12—transcends political machinations. To those who would diminish his contributions, I pose this question: If we cannot honor a man who defied a military junta to deliver a free election, whom then do we deem worthy of remembrance?
Let us not consign Nwosu to the footnotes of history. Let us, instead, immortalize him as a testament to what Nigeria can achieve when courage meets conviction. The Senate must revisit this motion, not as a partisan obligation, but as a debt owed to truth itself.
Comments