|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Read more on
|Nigeria||Africa Politics & Human Rights| URL for this file: http://www.africafocus.org/docs07/nig0705b.php
Format for print or mobile
Nigeria: Fair and Square?
AfricaFocus Bulletin
May 14, 2007 (070514)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
Local and most foreign observers are united that the elections
were "fundamentally flawed". ... The Transition Monitoring Group, TMG, that
deployed 50,000 monitors across the country has not only
condemned the widespread irregularities variously reported about
the election it has gone further than any other group of monitors
by categorically calling for a cancellation of the results and a
rerun of the vote." - Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem (http://www.pambazuka.org)
Mr. Yar'Adua ... told the BBC on 25 April 2007 that he believes he
won the elections "fair and square." Why he chose not to use the
common "free and fair" is obvious - no honest person will describe
what transpired in the name of elections in Nigeria as "free and
fair." - Teke Ngomba (http://www.africafiles.org)
Despite such comments following Nigeria's elections last month, and
a legal challenge still pending, the new Nigerian government has
already received recognition and congratulations both from African
states and from major powers. The inauguration of the new president
is expected to take place as scheduled on May 29.
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains selected commentary on the
elections, from African commentators Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem and Tke
Ngomba, cited above, and from Human Rights Watch Nigeria
specialists Chris Albin-Lackey and Ben Rawlence.
Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains background on
the election aftermath.
For earlier AfricaFocus Bulletins on Nigeria, see
http://www.africafocus.org/country/nigeria.php
For additional reports from Human Rights Watch see
http://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=nigeri
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
What's next for Nigeria?
The whole concept of African democracy is at risk
By Chris Albin-Lackey and Ben Rawlence, published in The Guardian
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org
[Chris Albin-Lackey is Nigeria researcher and Ben Rawlence is a
consultant for Human Rights Watch. This commentary was published
in The Guardian (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk).]
May 8, 2007
Sadly the recent election, which was meant to be a step forward
towards consolidating Nigeria's tenuous democracy after decades
of abusive military rule, was not only brazenly rigged but also
exceptionally violent, resulting in at least 300 election-related
deaths. As Nigerians and the international community grapple with
the scale of the government's contempt for their basic democratic
rights, the question they should now be asking themselves with
some urgency is: "What now?"
The polls have been roundly condemned by election-monitoring
bodies. Observers from the European Union said that the whole
process was "not credible" and the report they issued on the
exercise was the most damning it had ever issued anywhere in the
world. The US-based National Democratic Institute said that the
process had "failed the Nigerian people".
The opposition in Nigeria is calling for the cancellation of the
polls and a re-run. But President Olusegun Obasanjo is holding
firm that his successor, Umaru Yar'Adua, was legitimately elected
in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nigeria's
Independent Electoral Commission has agreed to a handful of
re-runs. President Obasanjo has told aggrieved parties to go to
court, and many opposition candidates are doing just that. The
federal judiciary's recent assertions of independence provide
some comfort to those who believe the ruling party and the
electoral commission cheated them of votes. However, it is
unlikely that the largest prize of all, the presidency, could
fall to a legal challenge.
Nigeria's foreign partners must now decide how to link themselves
to an administration that lacks the legitimacy the elections were
meant to confer. They will console themselves that the new
president, Umaru Yar'Adua, seems like a decent man. Even though
Yar'Adua was the sitting governor of a state, Katsina, which saw
electoral violence and vote-rigging, he was one of the few state
governors to have avoided an indictment by Nigeria's
anti-corruption watchdog. Some governments will be tempted to
support the new Nigerian president based on the default position
that a civilian president with no mandate is better than the
alternatives: chaos or military rule.
But western and African governments alike should speak up about
the government's blatant contempt for the rights of Nigerian
citizens. They should demand immediate, serious and sustained
reforms to regain some measure of the public trust that has been
squandered not only by the gross irregularities that
characterised last month's polls, but also by the Obasanjo
administration's failure to do more to fight endemic corruption.
G8 leaders meeting in Germany next month must recognise how
Nigerian authorities have manifestly failed to deliver on the
Millennium Development Goals, designed to improve the basic
rights of people to health and education, and instead have shared
the proceeds of record oil revenues among cronies and supporters.
The elections represented a big step backwards in the
government's ostensible efforts to match economic reform with
democratic openness and respect for basic rights. Reversing this
trend and improving the human rights of Nigeria's 140m citizens
can only start with a marked improvement in governance. Nigeria's
western partners should not be idle bystanders. Instead they
should be willing to condition non-humanitarian aid and security
cooperation on clear evidence of reform, including the impartial
investigation and prosecution of politicians suspected of
subsidising recent election violence and committing serious
electoral malpractice.
The government should bring criminal charges against ministers,
governors and other officials implicated, and introduce
legislation to strip governors of their immunity from
prosecution, which has become an invitation to loot. Lastly,
reforms should be put in place to make the country's electoral
commission transparent and truly independent.
As Africa's most populated and second-richest country, Nigeria is
a regional powerhouse that serves as a model for the continent.
African nations have been largely silent on the shambles that was
the election. Indeed, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa was
the first to congratulate Yar'Adua on his victory. Others
followed, including Liberia's president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf,
who congratulated Yar'Adua on "his landslide victory". If
Nigeria's recent democratic failure passes without consequences
from the international community, then the very idea of democracy
in Africa is at serious risk.
Chastise not thy friend
Teke Ngomba
May 4, 2007
[Excerpts only. Teke Ngomba is a journalism graduate from the
University of Buea in Cameroon and presently studying journalism at
the University of Amsterdam. He worked in South Africa in 2004, and
has published extensively in Cameroon, South Africa, and on the
web. The full version of this article, including references, was
published by AfricaFiles (http://www.africafiles.org).]
In 2005, the journal, International Affairs, published an article
by James Barber titled 'The New South Africa's Foreign Policy:
Principles and Practice.' In the article, worth quoting at length
here, James Barber (2005:1083-1084) recounts, among others that:
'When Mandela came to power, Nigeria was under an authoritarian
military regime led by General Sani Abacha. A protest campaign by
the Ogoni people, who claimed that their land had been ruined by
the oil industry, was broken by the regime and the leaders were
arraigned before the military tribunal. They were found guilty of
plotting a coup and attacking chiefs and ordered to be executed.
Mandela, who saw the process as an infringement of human rights,
attempted to restrain the Nigerians through diplomacy, including
visits to Nigeria by Mbeki and Archbishop Tutu. At this point, in
November 1996, Mandela attended his first Commonwealth Conference
in New Zealand. On arrival, when questioned about Nigeria, he
said he was sanguine about the situation.'
'However, next day, news came that the executions had taken
place. Furious and humiliated, Mandela called for action.
Following his lead, the conference suspended Nigeria from the
Commonwealth, but Mandela wanted more, including diplomatic
isolation and economic sanctions and pointed the way by
withdrawing the South African High Commissioner.'
Mandela's efforts, James Barber notes regrettably, 'produced
nothing. The West continued to buy oil, and the African states
had no appetite for confrontation. ...Even at home, Mandela gained
little support. After it was pointed out that Nigeria had given
substantial financial support to the ANC's electoral chest, the
government started back-pedaling. '
According to Barber, 'Mbeki told Parliament that South Africa
must act not alone but in concert. He asserted that in Nigeria's
case, understanding was preferable to confrontation. Then, he
accused the West of manipulating Mandela and trying to expose him
to ridicule ' In saying these, 'Mbeki', James Barber argues,
'succeeded in moving attention away from the abuse of human
rights in Nigeria to criticism of the West.'
That was in 1996. Fast-forward to 2007 and we are faced once
more, with another official South African reaction to an issue
that concerns Nigeria and borders on human rights- the 2007
presidential elections in Nigeria.
Mbeki Congratulates Nigeria's Yar'Adua
If there is anything Nigerians agree on after the April 2007
parliamentary and presidential elections, it is that the
elections were remarkably flawed. Both the Independent National
Electoral Commission, INEC, outgoing President, Olusegun
Obasanjo, contenders of the presidential elections and election
observers, all agree that there were irregularities in the
historic elections. ...
In an interview granted the BBC shortly after the proclamation of
the contested results, President Obasanjo for example,
acknowledged the irregularities during the elections and said
'but in the magnitude they happened, they could not have made the
elections null and void.' ...
Mr. Yar'Adua, apparently conscious as well of the irregularities
in the elections, has chosen to introduce a new diction in
describing elections. He told the BBC on 25 April 2007 that he
believes he won the elections 'fair and square.' Why he chose not
to use the common 'free and fair' is obvious- no honest person
will describe what transpired in the name of elections in Nigeria
as 'free and fair.' ... Nigerians have, since the proclamation of
these results, been in a state of uncertainty as they await the
installation of Mr. Yar'Adua scheduled for 29 May 2007.
The remarkable silence of other African leaders to either condemn
the elections or congratulate the 'president-elect' was broken on
25 April 2007 when President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa became
the first president to officially congratulate Mr. Yar'Adua. ...
By taking the lead to congratulate Mr. Yar'Adua, President Mbeki
implanted the first seeds of external legitimization of Mr.
Yar'Adua and once more demonstrated, by not criticizing the
conduct of the polls, his soft spot for the 'chastise not thy
friend' ethos in diplomacy. ...
In 2003 in Abuja, President Mbeki clashed openly with President
Obasanjo over Nigeria's call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the
Commonwealth arguing that same year that he believes the current
crisis in Zimbabwe 'did not arise from the desperate actions of
reckless political leadership or from corruption. It arose from
genuine concern to meet the needs of the black population' and so
the best option, he maintained, was for South Africa to exercise
'quiet diplomacy' in encouraging dialogue between the Zimbabwean
government and its internal political opponents. (Barber,
2005:1093) ...
Obviously, adhering to this regrettable 'chastise not thy friend'
ethos in diplomacy is not confined only to South Africa alone or
only to Africa as a whole. China for example, is sealing its lips
to overtly condemn the Khartoum government's actions in Darfur
because of its 'friendly' ties to Sudan as a result of heavy
Chinese investment in the oil industry in Sudan.
Western countries have also historically adhered to this logic.
In Africa for example, their notorious 'friendly blind eyes' cast
on Congo's Mobutu, helped to plunge the country into chaos. ...
Most often than not, where the 'chastise not thy friend' ethos in
diplomacy has been put into use, it has often resulted in
calamitous consequences for the civilian population in places
such as Darfur and Zimbabwe, where civilians, weakened by the
governments in place, depend on external pressure from friends of
these regimes to help bring them out of the quagmire they find
themselves in...
Pan-African Postcard
Nigeria: What next after the stolen mandate?
[Excerpted. For full text see
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/301]
2007-04-27
Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem
[Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN
Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes
this article in his personal capacity as a concerned
pan-Africanist.]
What sense can one make of the 'result' of the Presidential
election in Nigeria?
Local and most foreign observers are united that the elections
were 'fundamentally flawed'. The Coalition of Domestic NGOs, CSOs
and Think Tanks, under The Transition Monitoring Group, TMG, that
deployed 50,000 monitors across the country has not only
condemned the widespread irregularities variously reported about
the election it has gone further than any other group of monitors
by categorically calling for a cancellation of the results and a
rerun of the vote.
The two leading Opposition candidates, retired General Muhammadu
Buhari (ANPP) and embattled Vice President Abubakar Atiku (AC)
and other presidential candidates (there were 24 of them!)
immediately rejected the results and have declared that a new
president cannot be sworn in on May 29 based on the result
announced on Monday because they believed the elections were
massively rigged in favour of the ruling party's and President
Obasanjo's anointed Successor, Alhaji Umar Musa Yar 'Adua.
The losing candidates have left open their options for taking on
the PDP and addressing their grievances including using the
courts, public pressure, protests and international opinion.
On its part the PDP and President Obasanjo and the Electoral
Commission have reacted not triumphantly but by conceding that
there were 'problems' (understatement indeed!)with the conduct of
the vote but they insist that the shortcomings were not
sufficient to nullify the officially declared outcome.
So far there has not been much surprise in the reaction of the
various interested parties including the sporadic violent
reactions in opposition strongholds where voters felt that the
declared result was not in accordance with their wishes. They
burnt down houses, offices and other property belonging to
members of the ruling party or suspected electoral officers or
members of the public just caught up on the wrong side. Soon
after the security forces move in and some calmness is restored.
It is almost like the authorities were planning for a short
period during which the frustrated voters can vent their spleen.
So what next? How long will these controversies last? And what
long term impacts will they have on the body politic of the
country?
In a game that will mostly be based on 'wait and see' the
government has more time on its hand and can afford to wait. ...
Should they choose to go on the streets it may not yield any
immediate political benefits too but definitely create more
chaos, destruction and even more deaths for their supporters and
innocent members of the public?
They also have to consider the reality of the power relations.
Opposition will only be able to get away with public disorder and
impunity in areas where they are most popular. Why make
ungovernable places that are already sympathetic to you like
Lagos, Kano for example.
Would you not be inviting the government to declare state of
emergency and Direct PDP rule in those pockets of places where
the opposition is actually in power? How will that play out with
elected opposition candidates from those `areas? The critical
Niger Delta has been disenfranchised for a long time that
stealing their mandate again is just routine. And now they can
even claim one of them is finally in Aso Rock since the new Vice
President is from the Niger Delta.
The last time Nigeria had a free and fair election was June 12
1993 and the Military dictator, the Gap-toothed fiendish General
I.B. Babangida and his regime annulled the result. National
protests and international isolation followed forcing IBB out of
power but the winner, Chief MKO Abiola, never regained his
victory. Instead another military regime even more brutal than
IBBs followed and Abiola died in prison. When Abacha was aided to
his death in leisure the same Generals organized Abiola's`death
in prison by choking on tea served to him in the presence of a
'visiting' (or was it supervising?) delegation of Senior US
officials including Susan Rice`, Clinton's Assistant Secretary of
State for Africa., Susan Rice!
The June 12 struggle that was a national campaign became isolated
as a Yoruba affair in spite of the fact that Abiola would have
won even without votes from Yoruba Land. Obasanjo was one of the
scheming Generals who denied Abiola his mandate. Other Generals
rewarded his betrayal of democracy by making him President after
Abacha. And they are all now complaining about him.
The situation is different now. Neither Buhari nor Atiku can
claim the same National mandate and popularity as was claimed for
Abiola. They are also unable to transform the frustration of the
voters into a sustainable popular struggle. A military coup is
more or less out of the picture. They cannot accuse Obasanjo of
favoring his ethnic group or his religious faith. So all the
fault lines of Nigeria's politics are safe.
Just as the Generals gave Nigeria a President who was Yoruba in
1999 but not necessarily the preferred candidate of the Yoruba
people Obasanjo has given us a President who is Hausa-Fulani
Muslim but cannot be Hausa-Fulani President.
The sadness of it all is that I believe that Yar' Adua could
still have won, may be not in such ridiculous margins. But the
PDP has made it look like there were no good `reasons why many
Nigerians would have voted for him given the limited choice they
had of really effectively choosing between three candidates. One
a former General and the other a former Custom Officer and Yar
'Adua, the only civil civilian who also had a reputation for
running a decent administration in his state and also one of only
a handful of the 36 state governors not known or believed not to
be corrupt.
Obasanjo has `helped` Yar Adua to the gate of Aso Rock he cannot
cohabit with him in it. It will now depend on him how he
shoulders on. It will take more than his initial reconciliatory
statements to his ``worthy opponents`` for the controversies and
the credibility deficit with which he was anointed to settle.
Obasanjo turned against those who facilitated his entrance into
that bastion of power therefore he cannot expect that he would be
driving Yar Adua from behind. Proxy politics like opposition
ganging up have both never really worked in Nigeria. One of the
first things Yar Adua has to do with immediate effect is to
unlearn some of his benefactor's worst ways of doing things.
Politics is about persuasion not conquering your opponents.
The International Election tourists otherwise known as Observers
or Monitors will already be on their way to the next election in
some other country by now, cutting and pasting, on their high
powered laptops, as they go. Democracy in any country can only be
guaranteed by the peoples of that country not any group of
outsiders no matter how well-meaning. EU, NDI, Madeline Albright,
Common wealth and whoever can say all they will their governments
are not about to impose sanctions on Nigeria (not while the oil
is still flowing) and their businesses are not going to withdraw
under Yar Adua (they did not under Abacha) so it is really up to
Nigerians to fight to make their interests relevant to their
political dispensation as they confront an undemocratic civilian
government and equally non democratic opposition political
parties whose only ideology is `its our turn to chop`
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
