2015: Insecurity, govs plea and INEC’s challenge in North-East

L-R: Gaidam, Nyako and Shettima

The plea by the governors in the North-East, whose states are under emergency rule, that the Independent National Electoral Commission should take its cue from war-ravaged Afghanistan to conduct elections in their states in 2015, seems to have thrown up a new challenge to the electoral umpire.

The government and people of war-ravaged Afghanistan won international acclaim for the successful conduct of an election amid threats and intimidation by a recalcitrant terrorist group, the Taliban.

Afghans, more than everyone else, know first hand what the alternative

could mean. They had been subjected to the whims of religious extremists, who forced their way to power and unleashed a system of government better imagined than experienced. This, perhaps, was the reason behind the decision by many Afghans to step out of the comfort of their homes at great personal risk, to perform their civic duty when an opportunity presented itself.

Some members of Nigeria’s main opposition party, the All Progressives Party, see the success of the Afghan elections as a vindication of their position that fears that elections cannot hold in some states because of the Boko Haram insurgency are unfounded. They have always held the view that elections can hold in states under emergency rule.

0pposition members had raised objections to a pronouncement by the National Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Attahiru Jega, that the election management body might not hold elections in states considered to be violence prone.

He had, at a stakeholders meeting, argued that the INEC could not hold elections in states under emergency rule.

Jega further explained that if the commission insisted on conducting elections in such insecure places, not only would the elections not be free and fair, they would also be disrupted.

He said, “You can’t conduct elections under emergency rule because of generalised insecurity. And if there’s insecurity, how can you conduct elections?

“If you hold elections, the situation is that you can’t have free and fair elections under emergency rule. Otherwise, you’ll be going through the rituals – either the elections will be disrupted or people will not come out to vote. Ideally, elections can’t hold under emergency rule.”

Emboldened by the example set by the people of Afghanistan, Governors Murtala Nyako of Adamawa, Ibrahim Gaidam of Yobe and Kashim Shettima of Borno, whose states are currently under emergency rule, urged INEC to take a cue from its counterpart in that country.

The governors gave the advice in a joint statement signed by their spokesmen.

They argued that by going ahead with the polls despite visible threats by insurgents, the people of Afghanistan liberated themselves from the scourge of fear.

This, they added, sent a strong signal to not only the insurgents but also the rest of the world that no amount of threat would prevent them from performing their civic duties.

The statement partly read, “Our Independent National Electoral Commission should please learn from the landmark election that took place in Afghanistan, during which election officials took the bold step of going on to conduct elections in spite of threats by the Taliban to send the country into extinction if the elections were held.

“The Central Government in Afghanistan provided adequate security for the conduct of the polls. It was also reported that there was a 53 per cent voters’ turnout during the elections and it went on peacefully in most places.”

While admitting that insurgency, which has become more pronounced in the three states, has a similar attribute to the Taliban doctrine in Afghanistan, the advised INEC to work with the relevant agencies of government to ensure that no part of the country is excluded from the 2015 elections on account of threats.

They argued that suspending elections on account of threats by insurgents and other sundry social miscreants would amount to succumbing to their doctrine and conceding victory on the part of Nigeria.

The three governors also expressed the opinion that it would even be more damning for Nigeria’s democratic credentials should INEC go ahead to exclude Adamawa, Yobe and Borno states from the 2015 elections.

They posited that all criminal gangs needed to do was to extend the attacks to other parts of Nigeria and have more places excluded from future elections.

While admitting that no election was worth the loss of any human life, the governors are of the view that denying a people the right to choose a leader at any level based on real or imagined threats by criminal gangs, would amount to succumbing to the wishes of such gangs.

They reiterated that it was also the inalienable right of citizens to elect their leaders in a democracy. To that extent, it also becomes an important obligation of the Federal Government to protect all citizens while they do so.

A delegate to the ongoing national conference, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, agrees. He, however, said an election was not an end in itself but a means to an end. According to him, the way elected public officials in Nigeria conduct themselves, especially during elections leaves so much to be desired.

He said, “We have had a very poor record of elections in this country in recent history.

“The 2003 elections were rigged, the 2007 elections were massively rigged and the 2011 elections were even worse. We appear to be progressing in the wrong direction with each succeeding election becoming worse than the previous one.”

Junaid believes that this challenge notwithstanding, the right of individual citizens to participate in the process, which will culminate in the choice of who should govern them and how they should be governed, is non-negotiable.

He explained that the social contract entered into by individuals, who come together to form society, requires individuals to surrender privileges which manifests in the powers exercised on their behalf by individuals elected to do so; be it at the executive, legislative or the level of the judiciary.

He explained that the right of individuals to choose people to exercise such powers on their behalf is the reason for the existence of all human societies. This, he further argued, made any attempt to truncate the process a criminal offence.

The APC previously claimed that it uncovered a plot by the Peoples Democratic Party-led Federal Government, to create an enabling environment to deploy “Special Forces” to suppress votes in opposition strongholds.

The Interim National Publicity Secretary of the APC, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said the plan was to single out the North-West and the North-East for this treatment.

He also alleged that these areas were picked because of what the Presidency termed the “voting demographics” in the zones in 2011.

The APC spokesperson said, “The North-West had 18,900,543 registered voters in 2011 while the North-East had 10,038,119. By contrast, the President’s ‘safe support base’ of South-South and South-East had 8,937,057 and 7,028,560 respectively; the total of which was less than that of the North-West alone!

“The PDP/Presidency therefore believes that unless the votes in these two zones are suppressed and those of the South-West (14,298,356) stifled one way or the other, the chances of the President winning re-election are very slim.”

In response, the Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Mr. Ibrahim Jalo, dismissed APC’s claims as part of a smear campaign by the opposition.

Jalo said, “2015 is in the hands of God and only Him knows what will happen then. However, let me say that both the President and the PDP are only interested in the provision of good amenities for the good people of Nigeria.

“APC is not interested in testing its popularity and even two years before the general election, it has started crying wolf where there is none. It is a losing party.

“The APC has lost confidence in itself and that is why it is crying now even when it has not been beaten. It should wait till 2015 when it will know that its popularity is on the pages of newspapers.

“Mr. President is a patriot, who loves every part of this great country equally. He does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of tribe or religion; there is no way he will support or encourage anything that would destabilise any part of this country.

“He has demonstrated this time and time again with his resolve and commitment to restore peace, law and order in troubled areas especially in the north-East.”