Eleven candidates for the February 14 presidential election and their parties endorsed an anti-violence pact in Abuja last Wednesday.To lawyers, although such agreement is not tenable in law, it is symbolic, and could serve its purpose, but with the sincerity and commitment of politicians. Eric Ikhilae reports.
Those in the race for next month’s presidential election have pledged to ensure a violence-free exercise. President Goodluck Jonathan, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and nine other candidates signed an accord last Wednesday to maintain peace. They also pledged to stop vicious campaign comments which could affect the conduct of a free and fair exercise. But how can this pact be made to work?
The agreement was part of measures to avert a recurrence of the violence which occured during and after the 2011 general elections.
The presidential candidates signed the pact at a 2015 General Elections Sensitisation Workshop on Non-Violence in Abuja.
The session was hosted by the Office of the National Security Adviser and Office of the Special Adviser to the President on Inter-Party Affairs.
The two offices were supported by the European Union(EU), UKaid, UNDP, IRI, the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, and the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS).
The politicians committed themselves, their parties and supporters to the following:
•To run issue-based campaigns at national states and local government levels. They pledged to refrain from campaigns that will involve religious sentiment, ethnic or tribal profiling, both by themselves and all agents acting in their name.
•To refrain from making or causing to make in their names or that of their parties any public statement, pronouncement, declaration or speeches that have the capacity to incite any form of violence before, during and after the elections.
•To forcefully and publicly speak out against provocative utterances and oppose all acts of electoral violence whether perpetuated by their supporters and, or opponents.
•To commit themselves and political parties to the monitoring of the adherence of this accord, if necessary, by a national peace committee made up of respected statesmen and women, traditional and religious leaders.
•All the institutions of government, including INEC and security agencies, must act and be seen to act with impartiality.
The development has been hailed and described as symbolic, with the capacity to discourage electoral violence this time.
Nobel laureate Prof Wole Soyinka endorsed the pact, saying it was “a positive step” and praised the organisers. Soyinka said he hoped 2015 would prove to be a “live-and-learn election year, not a do-or-die.”
However, there are fears in some quarters that the politicians may not walk their talk. How will they control their passionate supporters? Is the pact capable of thawing the general apprehension over the possible outcome of the elections?
Those who think the pact marks a step in the right direction are of the view that it was the first time in the nation’s recent history when major players in electoral contests are made to pledge to discourage violence and to openly demonstrate act of comradeship.
They argue that the published photographs showing President Jonathan, locked in a warm embrace with Gen Buhari, with both men smiling broadly, was capable of sending the message that the quest for political powers should not be at the expense of societal peace.
Others however believe the general apprehension is excusable in view of the nation’s electoral history, coupled with the philosophy that now drives partisan politics in the country. From the First Republic, through the Second, the abortive Third and the current Republic, violence has become a regular feature.
Politics in the country is now driven by the do-or-die philosophy; a belief system built on the warped mentality that it is a taboo for an incumbent to lose election. The stake is further raised by the fact that in this clime, the allure of political offices is more tempting. Politics has become the most lucrative business in the country. Known paupers often land in grand opulence overnight by either merely holding political offices (to which they add no value) or being close to someone at the corridors of power.
Critics argue that what is required for peace to reign during and after the elections is for state institutions, charged with electoral duties to be fair, transparent and impartial. They contend that such an agreement (as endorsed last week by 10 presidential candidates and their parties), aside from being “a gentlemen’s agreement,” is not enforceable in view of the difficulties involved.
They argue that what was needed was the political will by those in government to strengthen state institutions and provide necessary measures to effectively punish electoral offenders.
They observed, for instance, that, for almost four years, President Jonathan could not muster the zeal to follow through his pledge to establish the Electoral Offences Commission, a body he promised to set up on assuming office in 2011. The Justice Mohammed Uwais-led Electoral Reforms Committee (ERC) had suggested the need for such a body with the power to investigate and prosecute election-related abuses.
The commission, as proposed by the ERC, would have the principal responsibility for investigating and prosecuting electoral offenses under the Electoral Act, including incitement, the use or threat of violence, bribery of voters or election officials, theft of ballot materials and falsification of election results. A Bill to that effect is still pending before the National Assembly.
Observers are of the view that a more pragmatic way would better serve to discourage the recourse to violence, and assuage the fear being nursed by many about whether or not the circle of violence will recur this year.
There is also the concern about the inability of state institutions to remain impartial, be guided solely by state’s interest and refuse to act in favour of the incumbent.
This, observers argued, raises a serious issue in view of the recent conduct by the leadership of the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services (DSS).
They contend that where the Inspector General of Police (IGP) chooses to “interpret and apply” the Constitution by withdrawing security aides attached to some individuals, who defected to opposition parties, but ignores the same Constitution when politicians decamp to the ruling PDP, does not show an IGP that will be impartial during elections.
They equally observed that a DSS that prefers invading the offices of opposition parties, while raising false alarm plans to hack into the database of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), even when INEC did not complain about such threat, did not guarantee fairness.
Observers suggest that in view of the central roles both institutions (Police and DSS) play during elections, they should do more to shed the current partisan image they currently exhibit.
Lawyers, including Sebastine Hon (SAN), Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Femi Falana (SAN) and Mahmud Magaji (SAN) expressed varied views about the benefit of the anti-violence pact. While some dismissed it as being worthless, others believe it could serve useful purposes.
Hon described the development as symbolic. He noted that was the first time when major political contenders are made to openly pledge their intent not to be violent. He said was hopeful it will curb the tendency to resort to violence.
“Everybody saw it on television and read it on the newspapers. So, to an extent, I think it was a plausible effort.
“But I do not think it is binding on any of the candidates who signed the agreement. There are several Supreme Court’s authorities that say for a candidate to be held liable for electoral offences, you must prove his direct involvement or participation in the violent act for it to affect the outcome of the election or the candidate himself.
“I think it all depends on the sincerity of the candidate. If they are sincere and committed to the agreement, their supporters – because they both have cult-like followership – will see the need to avoid violence. I hope the candidates are sincere and abide by the terms of the agreement,” Hon said.
Nwobike, who described it as a good development, noted that it lacked the capacity to “generate any peace-capital. I do not think that agreement will achieve any purpose. The reason is that the candidates, who signed the agreement, cannot control their followers.
“Secondly, a lot of things have happened in the past that tend to suggest that such arrangement cannot really work. When the presidential candidate of the APC lost election in 2011 about 11 Youth Corps members from the South were killed.
“They were not killed by you and I. They were killed by the miscreants. There is no evidence that it was the candidate who asked them to kill. But it is very clear that those who carried out the killings did not even seek the man’s instruction to kill, and so, he could not even restrain them. There were crises here and there in some PDP states to.
“Let me also say that it is a good development. It is good that it was signed. It is good that the politicians have bound themselves to the terms of that agreement. It now presents a benchmark on the basis of which we, the electorates, can assess these candidates and their political parties,” Nwobike said.
Falana argued that the signing of the pact was a waste of time on the ground that none of those who signed the peace accord could be made to account for any uprisings that may happen after the elections.
He said the country should be work to ensure that electoral offenders are prosecuted rather than signing an accord that will never work.
Magaji argued that such agreement was not enforceable. He noted that it was impossible to directly link those who signed the pact with the actual perpetrators of violence. He said what could prevent violence was where the umpire is fair and transparent in its handling of the exercise.
“Where 100 per cent of the registered voters in a particular state or local government is recorded to have voted for a single party, you begin to ask: Was it that nobody travelled, died or left the state between the time of voters’registration and the time of election? Was it that the candidates or leaders of the other parties did not vote for their parties or themselves?
“When such things happen, it will be very hard for you to convince the people that nothing went wrong. Where there is over voting, it shows clearly that there is rigging. In such instance, it will be difficult for you to tell ordinary Nigerians that they should exercise patient while we explore due process, because the umpire itself, did not follow due process.
“The contract/agreement is a welcome development for some reasons. First, it cast a moral burden on the aspirants. Second, it is going to stabilise the polity, and third, it will, to a certain extent reduce the chances of violence. But fairness and transparency must be the watchdog of INEC,” Magaji said.
Although views are divided about the legal worth of the anti-violence pact, there appears to be a point of convergence, which is the fact that a repeat of the nation’s ugly electoral history is avoidable where all Nigerians, particularly the major players, resolve to ensure that the process is fair and transparent.
