15 Apr 2007 |
|
Notes On Nigeria's Elections The Independent National Electoral Commission put up a poor showing yesterday in its management of the first part of the 2007 elections focusing on Governorship and Houses of Assembly elections. Professor Maurice Iwu, INEC Chairman, held a press conference in Abuja even before the end of voting to admit that whatever omissions that may have been observed were inconsequential. In his view, the process was free and fair, open and transparent. "Our job is to discern the true intent of the voter", Iwu intoned. "That we promise and that we will deliver." Iwu's confidence and optimism cannot stand the test of accuracy in the light of reports from the field, it is hard to accept his view that the elections yesterday reflected "the true intent of the voter". Iwu noted for example that INEC had to cancel voting in only two local councils out of 774 councils. There were far more disturbing problems. INEC had four years to prepare for these elections; for months it insisted that it was ready. No one expected a problem-free election, but an election in which many voters were disenfranchised due to the failings of the electoral umpire cannot be said to reflect "the true intent of the voter". INEC officials arrived late in many parts of the country, with voting not taking off until late in the day. Names could not be located on the voters register; in many polling stations, the wrong register was presented; in Lagos voters had to walk long distances before they could find their names, many names could not be traced. Photographs of many candidates were missing on the ballot paper. The INEC Chairman places the blame at the doorstep of the candidates, claiming that they refused to submit their photographs when they were asked to do so. It is Iwu's word against that of the candidates who allege that INEC officials misplaced their passport photographs. Party logos were even omitted from the ballot papers in many instances. In the Amuwo area of Lagos, there was no voting even as at 2.47 pm, because the PDP logo was missing on the ballot papers. In Abesan Estate in Lagos, INEC officials did not arrive until about 12 noon, that is four hours behind schedule. In Oyo state, the logo of the Action Congress was missing on the ballot papers. I watched the INEC Chairman make light of all these problems. He even talked about "beer-drinkers" , then he quickly corrected himself, and advised all Nigerians to start celebrating and eat snacks. I don't know anyone who is celebrating or eating snacks as prescribed. There are candidates in the election whose names were wrongly spelt, and many of them may go to court to allege that they were deliberately excluded. In the South East, it can in fact be said that there was no election at all. In Enugu, voting did not start until 2 pm. In Anambra state, INEC officials were said to have shown up in many polling stations without voting materials. They and the police were more interested in telling polling agents, representing other political parties, "to co-operate with the PDP". Can Professor Iwu defend this obvious partisanship on the part of his own officials? In Adamawa state, the name of the Action Congress candidate who had been disqualified was on the ballot paper. In Imo, Senator Ifeanyi Araraume's name was included in the ballot paper as a candidate of the PDP, even when the PDP had publicly disowned him and expelled him from the party. Iwu's response was: "What the PDP does in their private business is their business. The Supreme Court is supreme. Anything that emanates from the courts we will obey." The ugliness of the politics of Araraume's expulsion by the PDP is well-known and it is indeed condemnable, but there are more sides to the crisis in Imo state. It is nice to hear Iwu promote the supremacy of the Supreme Court, but INEC is known for its double-speak, it respects the courts only when it is convenient for it to do so. Only two days ago, the same INEC had said that Araraume could not stand for election because there is no legal provision for independent candidacy. So, is Araraume now a candidate of the Supreme Court? Should Araraume win the Gubernatorial election in Imo state, a long season of crisis would have been inaugurated in that state, a creation of both the PDP and INEC. Was Iwu covering up a problem of communication between INEC headquarters and the branch in Imo state? Or is there a mischief afoot? There was, in the early hours of yesterday, the expression of much enthusiasm about how the elections were relatively peaceful. By evening, there had been enough violence to raise doubts about the integrity of electoral outcomes. In Lagos, two people lay dead in Isale Eko by 2 pm. In Bauchi, the INEC office was burnt down by irate youths. In Port Harcourt, Rivers State, two police stations were set ablaze and eight persons killed, President Obasanjo says this was not politically motivated, but on election day, what else could be more politically motivated? In Ogun state, the President's home state, there was an outbreak of violence in Abeokuta South Local Government; in Sagamu and Ifo areas of the state, hoodlums made way with ballot boxes. The theft of ballot boxes was a key feature of yesterday's elections. Iwu says this happened in "extremely isolated cases" , that it took INEC by surprise and that this may not affect the integrity of the process. But how? We are talking here of actual votes cast which disappeared into thin air! In the early hours of the day, an INEC truck carrying election materials was waylaid by robbers between Ondo and Lagos. This was the fourth INEC truck that would be ambushed and robbed. There were reports of violence also in Oyo, Delta, Kano, Ekiti and Osun states. But I agree that this was even relatively mild considering the pessimistic expectations of election pundits. Fear was a major restraining factor. Many voters did not leave their homes early; they were not interested in violence, they just wanted to vote. Besides, there was heavy security on the streets. The Federal Government had sent many soldiers and police men onto the streets. The soldiers looked very stern and determined. But historically, not much violence usually occurs on election day. The thing to worry about is violence before the election, and as Nigerians voted yesterday, they had behind them stories of assassinations and other forms of violence with so many bodies in the cemetery, victims of political violence. Violence after the elections may also be critical. With the many complaints of irregularities and the anger of various stakeholders, the Federal Government may need to keep the soldiers on stand by for much longer. Which is ironic: to have a civilian to civilian transition, Nigeria had to hold military guns to the heads of voters. In many parts of Lagos, soldiers mounted barricades and wore battle-gears. In Oyo and Ekiti states, there was heavy security presence. Yesterday, there was a battle for Nigeria, not democracy. The security agencies may have helped to reduce the scale of violence, but considering the fact that the violence was foreseeable, it would be difficult to give them a pass mark. The good news is the passion of the people for democracy; their desire for change. Unfortunately as Nigerians voted, they did so against the background of many unresolved issues in their lives: on election day, there was no power supply in many parts of the country; the voter on the queue was an angry man weighed down by the burden of unemployment, and limited opportunities, the streets were empty but the emptiness highlighted the dirtiness of Lagos streets, even as young boys later took over the available space to play football. By 3 pm, when voting was supposed to have ended, many Nigerians were either still waiting for INEC officials or looking for their names on the voters register. In at least two instances, the people resorted to self-help and did not allow voting to end as directed, because they insisted on voting. Rigging has been reported. It is doubtful if the votes will be counted, and if the announced results will reflect the people's intention. In the run up to the elections, the situation in the country was really fluid. There was no political party that could be identified as a possible clear, majority winner in the elections. In many key states, it was obvious that the elections could go in any direction. If the results indicate any landslide victory for any political party, that would be strange indeed, and we should be looking forward to many battles in the election tribunals. The Electoral Commission Chairman says he hopes both voters and candidates would have learnt some lessons from yesterday's exercise. "Nigerians must learn to be disciplined. Later on people will take us seriously and hopefully by 2011, people will know that we mean business." Iwu sounded patronizing; he under-estimated the political enlightenment of the Nigerian voter. It is INEC that has some lessons to learn. Many of the administrative problems that arose yesterday could have been avoided. INEC was advised, and it was required by law to display the voters register, and the ballot paper, early enough for corrections to be made. It did not do so until a day or two to the elections, and since this coincided with the public holidays, there was no way aggrieved voters whose names were missing could lodge complaints. Political candidates also had no chance whatsoever to double check their names on the ballot paper. Many of the elections may have to be repeated. Yesterday, so much damage was caused; we held elections which would produce too many angry people, and deepen political divisions. A strong case must be made again for staggered elections. Holding two very important elections in one day, and four elections in one week, resulting in panic and shut down, expands the scope of the damage that is caused by the inefficiency of the state. It also reduces the opportunity for learning and making amends. Most of the ad hoc officials that were recruited by INEC sounded confused; they could not even differentiate one material from the other properly. Professor Iwu was back on NTA Television, Nigeria Decides Programme by 6 p.m yesterday, but he bluntly refused to accept any blame for the observed shortcomings in the elections. He insisted that the elections were "open, free and fair" even if he suggested that he welcomes open discussions of the elections. "We have done well in this election" , said Iwu. "And nobody should take our success away from us...the process so far has been wonderful". Both international and local observers must be alarmed. Democracy appears to be a difficult and complex thing for the Nigerian state to manage. This is instructive for next week's elections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.