Mid-Week Essay
And What Is To Be Done About the 2003 Elections Results?
Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD
Burtonsville, MD, USA
May 13, 2003
Introduction
What is to be done about the 2003 elections results? That is
the big question begging for an answer – or many answers.
Despite best efforts at ignoring the elephant in the room, the brouhaha
about the recent elections is not going away any time soon. With Buhari
and his ANPP band now being a tour Western capitals (check your local listing),
there may be rough time ahead.
Reports today by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs, as well as a May 1 statement by the Nigerian Civil Society (for
both statements, see appendices) are also not flattering at all either
to the Government of President Obasanjo or to INEC.
What To Do About April 12, April 19, May 3 Elections?
So what can President Obasanjo do at this time?
First with the amount of evidence, albeit circumstantial, of the rigging,
what he SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO DO is thump his chest around the country
that he and his governors and new legislators won a RESOUNDING VICTORY
based on these rigged numbers. God knows that they may INDEED have won,
but not by these numbers. He would have lost his limited
legacy as a democrat if he and his PDP aides carry on as if everything
was clean.
His last open letter to INEC's Chairman Dr. Guobadia in which he urged
some investigation of reported electoral malfeasance shows that he is beginning
to realize that he must be more careful otherwise we may have
another long-time crisis a la June 12 (without its cancellation)
in our hands.
Secondly, he should not interfere in INEC's effort to straighten things
out.
Now what should INEC then do?
It should take ALL of the reports of its own monitors; those of the
Nigerian election monitors; as well as those of all the international monitors
- no exceptions, warts and all - and make a table of the state-by-state
complaints, election-by-election. In fact, INEC could choose to COMPLETELY
IGNORE any state that was not mentioned in any of the reports as being
problem states, stating that it believes that the elections were completely
credible in un-named states.
Then from that table of observer complaints, INEC should pull up all
the relevant the election results, and make voter turn-out analysis comparisons.
These should be both differential analysis (relative to House versus Senate;
Gubernatorial versus Presidential) as well as integral analysis (relative
to the number of registered voters in each polling station or district)
of those states and constituencies in which all relevant results have been
posted for example on its website.
For example, the 618,071 difference in votes in Ogun State of April
19 Gubernatorial/Presidential elections; 173,559 in Kaduna State, 78,805
in Sokoto State, 55,740 in Jigawa State, 46,336 in Oyo State, 41,269 in
Yobe State, 37,369 in Adamawa State, 31,850 in Niger State, 30,644 in Akwa
Ibom, 24,197 in Edo State, 20,241 in Zamfara State, 15,375
in Benue State, and 12,753 in Kogi State, should not go un-addressed.
On April 12, the most egregious differences were Adamawa with 53,839
votes, Edo with 51,075 votes, Yobe with 44,437 votes, and Akwa Ibom with
33,372 votes. A local-government-by-local-government analysis
yields quite some interesting results.
Differential and integral analyses of BALLOT REJECTION RATES also
show interesting results in comparison to the complaints of the monitors,
with 12 states having absolutely zero bad ballots in their the ENTIRE
House and/or Senate returns, despite their total number of votes of 5,953,221
in the House of Reps. (H) elections and 7,671,236 in the Senate (S) elections.
These states are Abia (H,S), Adamawa (H,S), Bauchi (H,S), Bayelsa (S),
Borno (S), Ebonyi (H), Enugu (H,S), Gombe (S), Imo (H,S), Lagos (S), Oyo
(H) and Sokoto (H,S).
Finally, two to three weeks after some of the elections have been held,
some results of some states have still not been published by INEC itself.
Luckily, these states cut across party lines in terms of ascendancy.
INEC should then PUBLISH a list of election sites where it feels that
egregious violations MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED, and leave it up to PARTIES and
CANDIDATES to file complaints before the TRIBUNAL. Those that it has already
found egregious violations, it should NOT TO CONTEST in the Tribunals,
and in fact will join the Parties and Candidates in asking for a
formal cancellation of those SPECIFIC ELECTIONS, not just a blanket
cancellation. It can also signal that it will VIGOROUSLY CONTEST
those places where it is convinced that credible elections are held.
Then we can re-run elections in only those areas where the Tribunals
rule so. The law allows for up-turning of elections even AFTER those
people have been installed in office, so May 29 should not REALLY be a
limitation, providing that filing of petition has been done
within 30 days of declaration of results as required by law.
I believe it is that confidence-building that we need right now, not
throwing up of our hands that nothing can be done.
Local Government Elections Should Be Postponed
Finally, I do not believe that the next local government elections
should be held under the cloud that we are in right now. It will just once
more give more room for rigging - so why bother? Why allow criminality
to occur when we know, when we are now sure AHEAD OF TIME that it will
occur? Does that show any national responsibility?
Right now, there is no law compelling the state governments to run local
government elections. The new and continuing state governments can RETAIN
the hand-picked local government councilors or pick new ones as they see
fit. But for goodness sakes, let us PROPERLY REVISE our voter registers;
expand/re-constitute INEC and the SIECs to include party members so as
to get a little more independence; fund INEC and the SIECs in a more independent
manner; reduce the four-step collation process into no more than two;
secure the institutionalized service of our internal monitors - maybe
they too should be required to sign result tallies - so that they
can give more internal validity to our upcoming elections.
In any case, it is not a wise move to have so many new state governments
be saddled with the task of organizing local governments within less than
a month after their inauguration.
I rest my case for now.
Appendix I
IRIN NEWS ON 2003 ELECTIONS
NIGERIA: Obasanjo's official landslide has hollow ring
UN Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs
13 May 2003
[This is from IRIN, a UN humanitarian information
unit, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or
its agencies. If you re-print, copy, archive or re-post any item on this
site, please retain this credit and disclaimer.]
LAGOS, 12 May 2003 (IRIN) - The triumph of President Olusegun
Obasanjo and his ruling party in Nigeria's general elections was as sweeping
as it was unprecedented. But given widespread accusations of electoral
fraud on a massive scale, their resounding victory has a hollow ring.
"I doubt the results reflect the mood of the electorate," Chima Ubani,
the head of Nigeria's prominent human rights group, the Civil Liberties
Organisation, told IRIN. "It's not the actual wish of the electorate but
some machinery that has churned out unbelievable outcomes. We've seen a
landslide that does not seem sufficiently explained by any available factor."
Most of Nigeria's 29 opposition parties have denounced plans for Obasanjo
to be sworn in for a second four-year term on May 29. Instead they are
demanding that Nigeria's chief justice over as interim head of state to
organise fresh elections within three months.
Obasanjo, a former military ruler in the 1970's, officially won 62 percent
of total votes cast in the presidential ballot on April 19 as he sought
a second term as an elected civilian president. And in separate polls during
April and early May, his People's Democratic Party (PDP) won an absolute
majority in the national parliament and governorships and legislative majorities
in 28 of Nigeria's 36 states.
Under previous democratic governments, Nigeria's ruling party always
had to reach a pact with an opposition party to function effectively. But
the PDP has surpassed even the comfortable majority it won in 1999, to
arrive at the threshold of total one-party dominance.
However, Muhammadu Buhari, Obasanjo's main rival in the presidential
election and leader of the country's biggest opposition party, the All
Nigeria People's Party (ANPP) said the elections as "the most flagrantly
rigged in Nigeria's history". Several other influential opposition parties
agree.
Their strident condemnation would have seemed like sour grapes if local
and international observers had not picked large holes in the conduct of
the elections.
The most weight opinions from local observers came from the Transition
Monitoring Group (TMG), a coalition of 170 human rights and civic organisations
which had 10,000 election observers on the ground, and the Justice Development
and Peace Commission of the Roman Catholic Church, which deployed
30,000 observers across Nigeria.
The TMG said it found cases of multiple and underage voting, snatching
of ballot boxes by armed thugs and falsification of results. It said that
while several parties were involved in fraud, the major beneficiary was
Obasanjo and ruling PDP. They control the police and other security agencies,
which were found to have been active in perpetrating electoral fraud.
The JDPC made similar observations, but also pointed an accusing finger
at Nigeria's electoral commission. In many parts of the country the results
which it announced did not reflect trends observed at the polling stations,
the church monitoring group said. "Someone was fiddling with the figures,"
Ifeanyi Enwerem, the head of the JDPC told IRIN.
Similar cases of widespread electoral fraud and other premeditated malpractices
were also reported by international monitors, including those from the
European Union, the U.S-based National Democratic Institute and the International
Republican Institute.
Only the Commonwealth observer group, while noting cases of fraud, said
it was convinced that the results did indeed reflect the will of the electorate.
The JDPC described as "incredible" official results showing nearly 100
percent turnout in southern Rivers State, with 2.1 million of 2.2 million
registered voters casting their ballot for the ruling party on a day when
observers reported a low turnout.
And in the volatile oil-rich Niger Delta, ethnic Ijaw militants questioned
electoral commission figures showing an 98 percent turnout near the oil
town of Warri. Weeks of fighting between Ijaws and people from the rival
Itsekiri and a boycott organised by Ijaw militants ensured there was practically
no voting in the area. An electoral official assigned to work in the area
told IRIN that top politicians in Obasanjo's PDP had taken home electoral
materials and ballot boxes which they filled and returned.
Nigeria's lower chamber of parliament last week weighed in on the side
of the critics by passing a motion asking for fresh elections in the entire
south of the country and parts of the north, alleging "grave irregularities".
The House of Representatives also called for the dismissal of the country's
police chief, Tafa Balogun and chairman of the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC), Abel Guobadia, blaming their agencies for the alleged
disenfranchisement of millions of citizens.
Despite initially ignoring the criticism and commending INEC for its
conduct of the polls, Obasanjo subsequently urged the electoral body to
investigate some of the issues raised, particularly in Enugu and Rivers
states in the southeast.
INEC said last Friday it had started an "exhaustive" investigation of
its own officials for their alleged involvement in electoral fraud. However,
political analysts said this is unlikely to satisfy opposition groups who
have vowed to prevent Obasanjo's inauguration for a second term and have
threatened "mass action" if fresh elections are not held.
Most of the aggrieved opposition parties are also preparing to challenge
the results before electoral tribunals which are expected to begin sitting
in the coming days. However, Nigeria's leading constitutional lawyer, Professor
Ben Nwabuaeze, said these tribunals would not address the main avenues
through which fraud had been committed.
"There is the right of the millions of voters whose votes had been rendered
useless and their wishes thereby thwarted," he said. "These millions cannot
go to the election tribunals or the court of appeal."
Appendix II
NIGERIAN CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON THE GENERAL ELECTIONS OF APRIL
12TH AND 19TH 2003
May 1, 2003
Introduction
As Nigerians prepare to vote in the state legislative elections scheduled
for Saturday, May 3, 2003, it has become necessary to review the political
situation following the conduct of the National Assembly Elections held
on Saturday, April 12, 2003 and the Presidential/ Gubernatorial Elections
held on Saturday, April 19, 2003. This intervention is issued based on
observations on the controversy surrounding the elections, especially the
reports of the monitoring groups, grievances by some parties, responses
by government officials and the mass media.
This review is being conducted by members of civil society organizations
involved in election monitoring activities during the last elections. Representatives
of 45 organisations1, met in Abuja on Tuesday, April 29 and Wednesday,
April 30, 2003 under the auspices of the Electoral Reform Network (ERN)
to deliberate on matters arising from the series of elections conducted
so far.
The deliberations took into consideration the preliminary reports issued
by election observer groups, including the Transition Monitoring Group
(TMG), the Catholic Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JDPC), the
Labour Election Monitoring Team (LEMT) and the Federation of Muslim Women
Associations of Nigeria (FOMWAN) and the Muslim League for Accountability
(MULAC). These report were supported by direct evidence of observers who
saw events in the
electoral terrain.
Collectively, these groups deployed a total of 46,000 observers to cover
the 120,000 polling stations in the country. This represent about 31 per
cent of the polling stations. In actual fact, our observers covered more
polling stations than the total number of monitors because in many communities,
between 4 and 8 polling stations are located in the same vicinity. When
these units are taken into consideration, Nigerian civil society organizations
covered more than one third of the polling stations. Our monitors/ observers
reports, therefore, a true reflection of events that went on in a substantial
numbers of the polling stations.
All these observers/monitors were accredited by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) to observe the elections. We believe that the
reports of these Nigerians performing a civic duty of election observation
must be taken into consideration by the election authorities in determining
the success or otherwise of the elections.
Summary of Findings
The evidence available to us confirms that elections/voting took place
in some parts of the country voters had the opportunity to turn up at polling
stations, cast their ballots for the candidates of their choice and had
results declared reflecting their choice. This ideal situation was
actually the exception rather than the rule.
We have evidence that in many polling stations across the country, voters
voted, results were declared at some polling stations, while in other there
was a conscious decision by electoral personnel not to declare the results.
Whether declared or not, these results were manipulated by electoral officers
and party officials at collation centers. This was the situation in many
local government areas in Anambra State Njikoka, Aguata, Onitsha and Nnewi;
Imo State Owerri North East, Orlu; and widespread in Rivers, Enugu and
Delta States. But a comparision of these results declared at polling stations
and recorded by both domestic and international observers, show substantial
discrepancies.
The third case scenarios are places where voters were disenfranchised
because they did not have the opportunity to vote. Our observers' report
show that elections did not take place in Ughelli North, Ughelli South,
Okpe, Patani and some parts of Bomadi and Burutu Local Government Areas
of Delta State.
While in some areas, these malpractices were isolated, in other areas,
they were part of a systematic plan to either disenfranchise the voters
or distort the votes.
In summary, the following represent various forms of malpractices and
inadequacies which afflicted the elections, based on the reports of the
various monitoring groups:
-
Inadequate preparation by INEC, resulting in logistic problems and inefficiency
of its officials, especially on April 12, 2003
-
Pre-election activities, such as voters' registration and education, were
hurriedly carried out by INEC. In particular, the voters' registration
exercise were not effectively done.
-
The display of voters' register for verification was not effectively done
-
In essence, voters' registration exercises created room for electoral fraud.
-
Inadequately trained INEC official
-
Domineering influence of state governors on INEC officials in many states,
including supplying personnel who served as INEC electoral officials
-
Pre-election violence, such as assassinations,especially of members of
opposition to the ruling party in many states.
-
Intimidation of opposition by the government, for example reply by President
Olusegun Obasanjo and the Inspector-General of Police to General Muhammadu
Buhari's letter of complaint about the management of the April 12, 2003
elections.
-
Violence in many parts of the country resulting in disruption or abortion
of elections in many polling stations, especially in the south-South and
South-East zones.
-
The use of members of the armed forces to intimidate the electorate and
party agents, especially in the South East.
-
Under-age and multiple voting
-
Ballot snatching and ballot stuffing
-
Falsification of results
-
Employment of party faithful as INEC ad-hoc staff
The Disputes
Following the announcement of election results, there were disputes,
claims and counter-claims of the circumstances surrounding the elections.
We have no doubt, based on our observers' reports, that in some areas,
the elections were conducted and results reflect the will of people. There
are also circumstances where cases of electoral malpractices can be left
to Election Tribunals to make the determination, whether or not these malpractices
substantially affected the outcome of the elections.
The responses of government officials to these reports have been unsatisfactory
and, in many cases, undemocratic. The demonisation of aggrieved parties
and international observers is unacceptable.
The use of government mass media at the Federal and State levels, especially
the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) and the Federal Radio Corporation
of Nigerian (FRCN), to malign aggrieved persons, demonise foreign observers
and as tool of propaganda to distort the nature and extent of electoral
fraud constitute abuse of power.
The resort to falsehood by the Minister of Information and National
Orientation, Professor Jerry Gana, during his world press conference, to
the effect that the National Orientation Agency deployed 120,000 monitors
is unacceptable.
Conclusions and Recommendations
INEC must acknowledge that although it may have set out to conduct
free and fair elections, not everything went according to plan. INEC should
be bold and honest enough to admit its errors and successes. The INEC cannot
seriously claims that elections have been successfully conducted in states
such as Rivers, Enugu and Delta. In some other states, including Anambra,
Abia, Benue, Imo and Plateau, where the election results have been willfully
falsified, INEC must quickly review the process and restore the legitimate
votes recorded.
Even in some of these cases, the INEC could reduce the tension in the
land by taking a second look at evidence of independent domestic and international
observers.
Based on the above, we wish to make the following recommendations:
-
In states where elections were not held, INEC should urgently make
arrangements to conduct elections there
-
The Election Petition Tribunals should not succumb to corrupt inducement,
threat or intimidation from any quarters. They should not give priorities
to technicalities over substantive issues and must aim to do substantial
justice
-
The demonisation of aggrieved parties and observers should stop
-
The use of government-controlled mass media, especially the NTA and
the FRCN, to distort the nature and extent of electoral fraud should stop.
This constitutes an abuse of power.
-
Government officials should desist from using derogatory statements that
do not reflect reality against opposition and observers.
-
Nigerians should learn to let people express their democratic rights and
freedoms without ethnic,religious and regional prejudice
-
The phenomenon of rented crowds of associations, professions, unions visiting
state houses and the presidency has emerged again as was the case during
the Abacha regime to congratulate "winners" and condemn opposition. This
is a shameful exhibition of corruption, opportunism and lack of principles
by both parties involved government and the "crowd" of visitors.
-
The Constitution needs to be amended and Electoral Act reviewed to make
INEC truly independent and not mere appointees of the President. There
is also a need to prohibit the use of government facilities and funds to
prosecute the election campaign of incumbent office holders.
We hope that the May 3, 2003 elections will be free from the malpractices
and fraud recorded in the previous elections. We commend the electorate
for their commitment to democracy and their perseverance so far and urge
them to continue to believe in the democratic process and turn out in large
numbers to vote on May 3.
Signed by:
Olawale Fapohunda
Electoral Reform Nework (ERN)
Angela Odah
Transition Monitoring Group (TMG)
Chukwuma Ezeala
Justice Development and Peace
Commission (JDPC)
John A. Kolawole
Labour Election Monitoring Team (LEMT)
Rekiya Momoh
Federation of Muslim Women Associations of Nigeria (FOMWAN) and
the Muslim League for Accountability (MULAC).
The Election Review Meeting and this publication is made possible
by the Electoral Reform Network (ERN)
Guides
