The Nation Newspaper

Tag: elections

  • Elections in Nigeria

    After the collation of results in the gubernatorial and state assembly elections that held on March 9, the gubernatorial election results of six states – Bauchi, Sokoto, Plateau, Adamawa, Kano and Benue- were declared inconclusive by the umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. Supplementary elections to determine the winners in those states were set for last Saturday, March 23. On the day, a pending court action stalled the conclusion of the election in Adamawa. However, the exercise that was conducted in the other five states were very much like the other elections already conducted in 2019, in terms of disruptions and violence.

    As at 11am on Monday, INEC had managed to announce winners in Sokoto, Benue, Plateau and Kano states. For those who are more concerned with counting tallies for the two major political parties, it was two apiece for the major parties in the final collation and result in those four states. The All Progressives Congress, APC, recorded victories in Plateau and Kano states, as Simon Lalong and Abdullahi Ganduje, both incumbents, were announced winners respectively.

    The opposition People’s Democratic Party, PDP, defeated its fiercest rival through the victories of Aminu Tambuwal and Samuel Ortom in Sokoto and Benue states respectively. Also, a pending court action had prevented the announcement of result in Bauchi; in the end, Bala Mohammed of the PDP was announced the winner, having beat the incumbent APC candidate.

    The marked use of violent disruptions to influence results in the elections is one of the major concerns of 2019 so far, and the nightmare seems to be dragging on forever. As at the time of writing, apart from Bauchi and Adamawa states, Rivers State is the only other state where the result of gubernatorial elections are yet to be announced. In a class of its own, Rivers State looks to have been set aside by INEC, probably until conclusion of the exercise everywhere else, because of the alarming degree of violence and disruption that occurred on March 9 in the state. Even if INEC and security outfits plan a concentration of personnel to collate and announce results there, most people agree that only one outcome – a Nyesom Wike win – is likely to restore normalcy (whatever that means in Rivers State) to the PDP stronghold.

    As it stands, APC has clinched 15 states to PDP’s 11 in the 29 states where gubernatorial elections were conducted in 2019. With the likely possibility that PDP will take the outstanding three, an outsider would think that our politics has produced a rich democratic outcome with the almost even split between the two biggest parties. The attractiveness of a duopoly for a healthy democracy is a matter of global debate, but Nigeria is in the same company with some aged and mature democracies in its inherently two party political system. The only difference is that our two major parties are separated by a revolving door, and our politicians can not always decide where to come out.

    Although the signs have always been there, this election is a refresher on the rudiments of election victory in Nigeria. First, as just discussed, is the adequately sized ‘platform’ – a synonym for political party in Nigeria. As of now, only two political parties fit that profile. Apparently, size does not refer to the number of members; it is about the size of the pocket of the party or the pockets of its key members. This matters in our politics of stomach infrastructure. Bags of rice, beans, garri, etc., are branded and distributed openly in election season, without shame or repercussion, by law or by conscience. In recent times, this has degenerated into distribution of raw cash at the polling units, during voting. There were reports to this effect during the presidential, gubernatorial and even in the supplementary election on Saturday. Our politics is heavily transactional, and only parties with deep pockets can compete.

    Then there are the thugs, for obvious reasons. They are unruly, violent and brazen, but methodical and targeted in their activities. They are responsible for most of the bloodshed in these past elections and virtually all the cases of inconclusive results. As for our security operatives, although there has always been suspicion of undue influence by them in elections, in 2019, we have received disturbing reports of active involvement and engagement in the disruption that makes it hard to tell the thugs apart from the security officials. The situation in Kano especially over the weekend further demonstrates that preparations for the disruptions were made. Lives have been lost and innocent voters maimed.

    After the money and the muscling, come the lawyers. Win or lose, the election war chest is incomplete without funds for the likely legal battle afterwards. The legal option can redefine winning and losing in Nigerian elections, as history has shown. That is why our politicians always run to tribunals. A day before the supplementary elections on Saturday, a shocker was delivered by the election tribunal hearing petitions against the victory of Gboyega Oyetola, winner of the Osun State gubernatorial election held last year. Oyetola was sacked by the tribunal, and INEC was ordered to retrieve his certificate of return and issue one to Ademola Adeleke of PDP. Of course, Oyetola continues to draw on the war chest by going on appeal. But the decision has given impetus to Atiku Abubakar, now of the PDP who is currently contesting President Muhammadu Buhari’s victory, and other would-be petitioners who have smelled a chance for a comeback.

    In this regard, the lawyers and tribunals become players in the warped game, selling their services, and more, to the highest bidder. History has exposed the underhand deals that have put the legal profession under scrutiny. Careers have ended and legal reforms have been carried out. But in 2019, old tricks are returning to this theatre of manipulation and with the election exercise all but done, the ball will again be passed on to the lawyers and the nation will say a silent prayer that integrity and honour will prevail, even though the signs have not been good in this election year.

    So what does it mean to win or lose elections in Nigeria, in a murky playing field where almost everybody is smeared by the filth on the field of play? Victory is fleeting and the pangs of defeat are short-lived, because the game is always afoot and a loser can switch teams within a moment’s notice to enjoy the benefits on the ‘winning side’. It is not a pleasant picture by any means, especially when the real loss is not suffered by anyone on that murky field of play, but by ignorant cheer leaders, wilful or inadvertent bystanders and even the unborn.

    To cure the ignorance of the electorates, our politicians need to find a conscience and begin to engage people on issues that matter, rather than through stomach infrastructure. They must begin to engage the wilful, apathetic political bystanders, by ensuring a better, fairer contest in elections, with officials that know their duty. The force of law may be needed through better electoral laws, but compulsion should be accompanied by working systems.

    National identity cards for example can be synchronised with driver’s license, passport and other documents of identification including the voter’s card, with a unique number for all living Nigerians, managed by a sophisticated system of biometric identification and verification. Integration of this system in the electoral process can help increase faith in the system and minimise disruptions. INEC’s approved budget was over N240 billion for this election alone. If that had been frontloaded into better biometric systems, we would have solved several problems for the price of a failed election.

    At the end of the day, the guilt is evenly spread and some may say that we have the electoral system we deserve. Election rice may be sweet on one person’s plate, but the same hand that offered the food may have engineered the death of another Nigerian many miles away or just next door. It is time we get our priorities straight.

  • Elections: Police get kudos

    A human rights organisation, Crime Victims Foundation of Nigeria (CRIVIFON) has commended the Lagos State Police Command for maintaining law and order in the state during the last general elections.

    Its Executive Director, Mrs. Gloria Egbuji, made the commendation in a statement in Lagos.

    Mrs Egbuji noted that despite attempts by some miscreants to cause problems in some parts of the city, the police, led by Commissioner of Police, Zubairu Muazu, in collaboration with other security agencies, were able to nip the situation û in the bud.

    According to her, that the police authorities were able to halt the political thugs who wanted to stoke a ‘tribal war’  in Okota area of Lagos after they had set ballot boxes ablaze, was a testimony that the police commissioner was determined to live up to his earlier promise of making Lagos safe during the elections.

    Read also: Buhari receives minimum wage report

    “The foundation considered it highly commendable on the part of the CP, Muazu, for his quick initiative in holding meeting with critical stakeholders amongst the Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa communities in the trouble-prone area with a view to dousing the tension already built by the hoodlums’ planned attack,” she said.

    The foundation also commended the Assistant Inspector-General (AIG) Zone 2, Mr. Lawal Shehu and the CP for moving round most parts of the state to monitor the conduct of the election and for ensuring peace and orderliness.

  • Inconclusive elections

    Before this article is published, most of the outstanding governorship and state assembly elections declared inconclusive by the electoral umpire for one reason or the other would have run their full circle. Then also, one would be in a better stead to appreciate the heuristics of declaring elections inconclusive even in contests winners had clearly emerged.

    Here a difference must be made between run-off and inconclusive elections. The first relates to a situation where election outcome is unable to produce a clear winner in keeping with extant laws while in the second there is a clear winner. However, the total number of cancelled votes during the election is said to be higher that the margin with which the winning candidate is leading his opponent. In such circumstance, INEC, relying on extant regulations and guidelines for the conduct of elections has had to declare the outcome inconclusive while ordering supplementary elections to be held in those areas votes were cancelled.

    This novel criterion for determining winners in national elections surfaced during the very first elections conducted by the incumbent INEC chairman Mahmood Yakubu. The furore it generated was so much so that it earned Yakubu the sobriquet ‘inconclusive elections’ It soon became a matter of serious embarrassment that virtually all the elections Yakubu conducted during his first few months in office were virtually inflicted by this electoral virus. And this raised serious suspicion.

    Of course, the new concept was challenged in court. And the case ran its full course with the Supreme Court curiously ruling in favour of the INEC though to the dissatisfaction of the discerning public. But we have since been left to bear the brunt of this strange mode of determining winners in elections even as INEC has not been able to uniformly apply it. The expectation that INEC would progressively strive to exorcise the ghost of inconclusiveness from its electoral process has remained largely illusory. Rather, what we have seen since the 2019 elections commenced has been a deluge of arbitrariness in the application of the formula. Lack of uniformity and indiscriminate application of the formula have combined to raise serious suspicion on the purported inconclusiveness of inconclusive elections.

    Not unexpectedly, this has given rise to genuine feelings that the formula is a subterfuge by the government in power for self-help in circumstances it finds itself losing to the opposition. This position appears to have been given added fillip by the turn of events since the conduct of the governorship and state assembly elections.

    Elections in six states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Kano, Plateau and Sokoto fell to the hammer of inconclusiveness. Of the six states, the opposition was clearly winning in five of them except Plateau. That of Rivers State was halted midway collation on account of heightened insecurity in the state. But, INEC lately decided to recommence collation and announcement of results in Bauchi and Rivers states. Curiously, there have been litigations seeking to bar the electoral umpire form doing this. While the continued collation and announcement of the Bauchi governorship result has been halted following a court order granted the incumbent governor, that of Rivers is to proceed though on a later date.

    It remains however curious that no other person than the governor of Bauchi State is spearheading the litigation not to have the electoral body continue with the collation and announcement of the results. And in the case of Rivers State, the opposition African Action Congress AAC which claimed initial lead in the results collated before the suspension had approach an Abuja High Court asking that the collation and announcement of results be discontinued. One then begins to wonder what all this is intended to achieve except to reinforce the suspicion that there is more to the inconclusiveness and cancellation of results than ordinarily meets the eyes.

    The term inconclusive elections as applied by INEC has become so contentious that it will continue to divide opinion given the way and manner it has been applied since Yakubu assumed the mantle of leadership of that agency. Before him, that terminology was virtually alien in the overall calculations of the conditions precedent to the declaration of contestants as winners or losers in our elections. Take the case of Benue State where the incumbent governor of PDP extraction was clearly leading with 410,576 votes over his APC counterpart who scored 329,022, translating to a margin of win of 81,554.  INEC declared the election inconclusive on the ground that the total number of cancelled votes stood at 121,019. By its warped estimation, this number is bound to make a lot of difference on who finally emerges victorious. Hence, elections have to be held in those areas where votes were cancelled.

    This arithmetic is even contradicted by the standard percentage of the electorate who come out to vote vis–à-vis the number of registered voters. Standard statistics have it that not more than 30 per cent of registered voters actually come out to exercise their franchise during elections. And even if we concede the whole of this percentage  or even 50 per cent of the cancelled votes to the APC candidate, it will still fall short of the winning margin of the PDP by more than 20, 000 votes. And it exposes the duplicity in the entire exercise.

    The above scenario is hypothetical case since both candidates will still have to share the remaining votes. There exists nothing to indicate that the losing candidate will fare much better when elections are held in the cancelled areas. There is also the case of the Abia North senatorial district where the APC candidate polled 31,201 to beat the PDP candidate who scored 20,801 votes. The margin of win was 10,400 votes. But 38,526 votes were cancelled which would have qualified for inconclusive elections using INEC criterion. But that did not happen as a winner emerged.

    All these reinforce the arbitrariness in the application of the concept and fears that it a contrivance by the government in power for self-help where it finds its candidates losing. That is why it is difficult to dismiss accusations by the opposition that the idea of inconclusive elections is designed to deny its members victory through sundry subterfuge. The high number of states where the PDP candidates were clearly leading but declared inconclusive lends ample credence to this view.  By the time this article is published, the inconclusiveness of the elections in the six states would perhaps, have been determined. The way they go would further be a veritable barometer to gauge the value of that regulation in approximating the collective will of the electorate as explicitly expressed at the ballot box.

    One thing certain though is that inconclusive election, the way it has been applied since Yakubu assumed office has become another nomenclature for staggered elections. Such elections place governments in power at added advantage and ipso facto stymie elements of freeness and fairness that are irreducible decimals of democratic engagement. And in a clime where the coercive apparatus of state are deployed sometimes to cajole and intimidate voters, it affords the government higher latitude to achieve its aims through unwholesome means.

    With rising incidence of vote buying, such elections place at vantage position, those with unlimited access to state finances and power. And because of the higher prospects of staggered elections compromising our electoral process, it has become an anathema that should be exorcised from our electoral process. It is not only time-consuming but unnecessarily depletes the very scarce resources needed to tackle the daunting developmental challenges of a country whose citizens have largely remained hewers of wood and fetchers of water.

    More seriously, the Yakubu-led INEC has become a serious embarrassment to this country and its electoral process. It has overtime shown an increasing inability to conduct seamless elections; one that will not result in inconclusive outcomes in many states. Before his adventure, we have had elections in this country devoid of the inconclusiveness he inflicted in our electoral process. Our electoral laws must be tinkered with to obviate the distractions and anti-democratic value of ‘inconclusive elections’.

  • Matters arising from 2019 elections (3)

    It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in “Federalist No 1”

    Not with inconclusive elections, cancelled or deferred vote collations, rising number of election petitions, social media theatrics about how elections have been rigged and won or lost by competing political parties, mounting cases of cults around personalities, such as Kwankasiyya, Gandusiyya, and assurance of due process before visitors to Aso Rock on incomplete elections, it should not surprise anyone that obsession over the 2019 elections in traditional and social media may continue until President Buhari enters his lame-duck season by the end of last quarter of 2021. If readers are bored by unearthing of arcane matters arising from the 2019 elections, they need to relax and come to terms with the fact that this is a fertile season for over sensitivity and overreaction.

    One thing that commenters have recognised about the election is that it has divided the nation or poisoned inter-ethnic relations. Even the Hausa-Fulani world that has been characterised by readiness of northern politicians to give other Nigerians the impression of peaceful relations across political divides between Hausa-Fulani political figures has since the election looked like a cracked world. Secondly, media pundits especially in the social media have recognised the war of words between indigenes of Lagos State and Igbo people resident in the state. It is more optimistic to look at this situation as resulting from the elections. But what if in fact the division has always been there long before presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial elections? Any surprise that President Buhari himself rated ensuring the unity of the country high on his 2019 manifesto, without necessarily limiting erosion of unity to Boko Haram terrorism?

    Similarly, if the struggle for political power over Lagos State between Igbo residents and indigenes of Lagos State has been in existence long before the 2019 elections, then the country’s unity must have deserved its being cast as a problem by President Buhari. In other words, blaming what appears as receding national unity on the elections may be putting emphasis on effect rather than cause. It may mean that just about any contest for any form of power—political power to rule the country or states, economic power to enable one ethnic group to dominate others, or cultural power, like the claims of some Igbo men and women that Lagos is a no-man’s and no woman’s land can turn an election into a mini civil war.

    As desirable as electoral reforms may be to reduce election-related tension in the country, an urgent problem to address is why are Nigerians so divided that even elections, i.e., giving opportunities to citizens to choose their leaders of governments often seems like the beginning of a civil war? As all petitions are judicially settled and unchallenged governance at the national and subnational levels becomes acceptable to all contestants, leaders of government may need to be more amenable to calls for dialogues or discussions on the way forward for the country on how to realistically bring sustainable unity to the country or respond to what is popularly referred to as the National or Structural Question.

    Going through the manifestoes of APC and PDP does not indicate irreconcilable differences that can frustrate moving forward, once the claims and counterclaims about the elections are settled.  There are overlaps between the platforms of Buhari’s APC and Atiku’s PDP. For example, both Buhari and Atiku pledge to pay more attention to Universal Basic Education. They also agree on representing and getting approval for the Water Bill not passed by the outgoing legislature. They are also on the same page on the imperative of reinforcing national unity. However, they differ on how to reinforce and sustain the country’s unity. Buhari has affirmed that nothing is wrong with the present structure of the polity, the single and centralised police system, and the need to focus on making all political re-engineering projects in the country by military dictators intact, despite demands from citizens to the contrary.

    But Atiku as the Candidate for Restructuring still promised to get all outstanding water bills approved, regardless of how subnational units feel about putting all forms of water—underground and surface— under federal control feel about losing this aspect of their autonomy and geography. He also promised to use his presidency to review existing state laws in respect of cattle grazing, while assuring voters that restoring a noticeable measure of federalism to the country and increasing percentage of funds to subnational governments are sure bets to sustain the country’s unity. Apart from the hype around restructuring, there are no major ideological differences between Buhari and Atiku, nothing too wide between them to forestall some measure of bipartisanship between them once the courts confirm the winner of the presidential election.

    Given that PDP as a political party has never been warm toward restructuring, it is likely that Atiku’s promise of restructuring must have lost its steam after the elections, thus reminding Atiku’s supporters of the danger in embodying a legitimate democratic demand in a man whose political party has never acknowledged the importance of restructuring. Unlike PDP, APC at its birth as a political party embraced restructuring as a mechanism for enhancing national unity in a multicultural society. APC’s acknowledgement of the importance of federalism may have explained why devolution was one of the highlights of the party’s 2015 manifesto: “Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.” Despite changes in Buhari’s assessment since 2015, there is still a good role for genuine autonomists to play in the post-election era.

    In most democracies, the ideology of ruling party is often superior to the personal mission of the president or prime minister. Even though President Buhari has not since he won the 2015 election with the manifesto to use the constitution to restore federalism taken any effort to move in the direction of devolution, his party now has a second chance to fulfil the promise it had made as a national party in 2015.

    After the country returns to regular post-election governance, one challenge for ideologues of the APC is to assist Buhari to fulfil the ‘Hardware Problems’ he had promised to fix-provision of security across the country; accelerated power supply; integrated mass transit system, etc. An equally important challenge is for APC ideologues to assist the president to see the importance of finetuning the “Software Problems”—fighting corruption, enhancing national unity, and others on his list of things-to-do during his second and final tenure. One Software Issue that President Buhari has not included in his second-term goals is pursuance of rational debate on effective management of the country’s diversity. The intellectuals of the ruling party need to encourage him to add this important matter to his laundry list.

    It is important that President Buhari himself has promised an open and inclusive governance. And those who are convinced that Nigeria requires a new political structure should hold the president down to this great promise. An open and inclusive government is more than having representatives of all groups in political offices under the presidency. An open government also means governing under the principle of unfettered dialogue on all areas of governance that inevitably include perpetual search for solutions to existing problems and those that may surface in the life of a country or even an administration. Returning a federal system of governance is one such problem.

                                                    

    • Concluded

     

  • Impressive turnout at Lokoja 1 supplementary poll

    The supplementary House of Assembly election is going on peacefully in the four polling units in Lokoja Local Government Area of Kogi State.

    As at 7:30am, voters were observed at the polling units watching with keen interest as Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) officials prepared the exercise.

    Our correspondent reports that the turnout was impressive at the three polling units where the house of assembly rerun election is being conducted in Ward D.

    Member representing Lokoja 1 state constituency, Alfa Imam, at the Cantonment Polling unit in Ward B, expressed satisfaction with the turnout of voters.

    He lauded the people of Lokoja for their orderly conduct.

  • Nasarawa rerun:Keffi East constituency witnesses mass turnout of voters

    A large turnout of voters has been witnessed in the ongoing rerun election to determine who will represent Keffi East in the Nasarawa State House of Assembly.

    A correspondent of the News Agency of Nigeria(NAN), who visited Makera polling unit at Angwan Rimi ward, the only voting point where the rerun was being held, found many voters waiting on the queue to vote.

    NAN recalls that on March 10, INEC declared the result of Keffi East Constituency inclusive. The SDP candidate, Abdullazi Sule, was leading his APC counterpart, Mohammed Wada, with 97 votes, while 1052 votes were cancelled.

    Sule scored 7234 votes, while Wada had 7137.

    Mr Bala Kabiru, a voter, who spoke with NAN, expressed happiness with the orderliness of the process.

    “I am happy that I have just voted. I have voted the candidate of my choice,” he said.

    Musa Salisu, another voter, said that the conduct of the election was satisfactory.

    “I voted around 8: 40am and I am happy that I did that on time and can go home to do other things.”

    Miss Aisha Aliyu, another voter, also expressed happiness with the conduct of the exercise so far.
    She expressed optimism that the exercise would be peaceful

  • Elections and the dilemma of victory

    SIR: With the elections successfully put behind us, Nigerians may now access some semblance of peace. With the contenders and the pretenders having made a choice between ‘clinking glasses’ and ‘licking wounds’, I have no doubt in my mind that the sleeping dog will, at least, for now, advance some respite.

    Beyond the pledges, slogans and the ‘dividends of democracy’ rhetoric that have not dovetailed into reality, one striking issue is the apathy of voters during the elections. In practical terms, that the voter turnout was less than 36% of the 84,004,084 registered voters in the largely peaceful exercise did not detract from governance issues. That Nigerians of voting age were reluctant to vote was a clear attestation to the deep animosity and a growing sense of frightful disconnect between the political class and the masses. It showed how eerily cadaverous the electorate’s morale and expectations have become. Apart from areas where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recorded over-voting, which was outright fraud, most of the polling areas recorded very low turnout of voters, even as quite a sizeable number of eligible voters opted to stay indoors for lack of better things to do.

    Voter apathy is a product of many factors. For instance, a dose of rigging perception does more inestimable harm to the electorate’s psyche than millions of campaign jingles or slogans. When the people hold the notion that whatever they do, rigging will still take place; or that some powers-that-be, somewhere, will still influence or manipulate the outcome of their franchise, the implications cannot but be grievous. The situation even becomes complicated if a government is perceived to be fraudulent or fraudulently installed. The possibility of being disobedient to such a flawed system cannot be ruled out.

    Another area of our politics that must be critically looked into is alienation. It is a fact of life that, if the people are alienated from the programmes and policies of the government, it simply means that such a government is only planning for the people, not with the people. This, of course, negates the principle of democracy and development. Chances are therefore that such electorate will feel reluctant to vote.

    Beyond the ceaseless elegance and captivating hymns of partisan concerns, Nigerians are hungry. The systemic decay is apparent, and the concomitant erosion of political capital of the country and socially-ascribed legitimacy, which for decades, has been taken for granted, or assumed as given, is gradually receding. It will therefore amount to political suicide on the part of our political leaders to task the people’s tolerance by feigning ignorance of this ominous phenomenon!

    While Nigeria’s political leadership needs self-appraisal, self-cleansing and a lot of refocusing, it is time the electorate’s expectations were matched by government’s delivery mechanisms. Politics must be inclusive, not divisive, or, non-exclusive!

     

    • Abiodun Komolafe,

    Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State.

  • Don’t blame army for involvement in elections – Bayelsa Dep Gov

    The Bayelsa Deputy Governor, retired Rear Admiral John Jonah has urged Nigerians to refrain from blaming  the army for its involvement in the 2019 general elections.

    Jonah spoke yesterday at Elebele in Yenogoa during the inauguration of some projects in the 16 Brigade Barracks otherwise known as “Tukur Buratai Camp” located in the community.

    The deputy governor said he had investigated the army involvement in the elections and found that what they did was not different from what the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai had said.

    He, therefore, appealed to Nigerians to continue to support the Nigerian army which he described as a stabilising factor, to discharge its duties.

    Buratai had, on different occasions, said the constitution empowers the army to support civil authority in addressing internal security challenges when called upon, citing Section 217 of the 1999 constitution as amended.

    The army chief said this role also extend to providing security during elections.

    He, however, warned those deployed for the conduct of the elections to be professional, respect human rights and remain apolitical.

    Earlier, while inaugurating building projects in the barracks, Buratai who was represented by Maj.-Gen. A. A. Saliu, the Commander, Training and Doctrine Command – TRADOC, charged commanders to always impact positively on their environment.

    He promised more fund to provide required infrastructure in the Brigade and army formations across the country.

    Buratai also called on the citizens to cooperate with the military by providing it with useful information to enable it ensure their safety.

    Also speaking, the GOC 6 Division Port Harcourt, Maj.-Gen. Jail Sarham noted that the Brigade would assist in addressing security challenges in Bayelsa and the Niger Delta in general. Sarham thanked the state government for the assistance it provided for the construction of the barracks.

    In his address of welcome , Brig.-Gen. Kelvin Aligbe, the Brigade Commander, said what was required in the new barracks now was perimeter fence, parade ground and officers’ quarters.

    The building inaugurated included Guard house, a two-storey medical centre, Brigade Garrison, Soldiers and Warrant Officers/Sergeant clubs and a block of 30 flats for Corporal and below.

     

  • Matters arising from 2019 elections (2)

    After the 2011 elections, former President Goodluck Jonathan brought the attention of the country to what he considered one of the most important matters arising from the 2011 elections which he won against General Muhammadu Buhari. He asked the nation to opt for a maximum of one term in office for the president and the governors.  He argued that such constitutional amendment would save the country billions of naira that could be better spent on delivering the common good to the citizenry.

    Jonathan’s idea was loudly underplayed by many politicians, particularly those who had their eyes on the presidency and the governorship for second term. The matter was quickly crowded out by the voices of politicians hoping for at least two terms in office. From experiences garnered by public affairs observers in the 2015 and now 2019 elections, it is not just the cost of money spent on elections that calls for a constitutional amendment; it is the hardly noticed emotional and psychological cost of presidential and gubernatorial elections every four years in a country that is not sufficiently structured along clear ideological lines on the way to political and economic modernity.

    Even though President Buhari called for a low-budget for electioneering, there is no way of knowing how much was committed by the various political parties, especially the two major ones on preparations for and mobilisation of voters for the elections of the last three weeks. With media reports about over 40 deaths and several cases of maiming of supporters of opposing parties by hoodlums organised by forces of personality cults across the country, there is no exaggeration in saying that the casualties for 2011 elections that startled Jonathan are nothing compared to the figures of the 2019 elections. Not even the election of 2015 had the traumatic impact on citizens that families of the dead and wounded from the 2019 elections have experienced, not to talk about how much money—private and public—that must have come into play in an election that the ascetic Buhari had wished to be as low-profile as possible.

    Apart from politicians that may prefer to turn Nigeria into a plutocracy, there are many that also enjoy the festivals and rituals of personal attention that has characterised the politics of personality cults in the country. There are also many optimists who believe that with time, Nigeria will grow up politically to the extent of appreciating the culture of democracy, such as is evident in many democracies across the globe. But there are many patriots who believe that using the constitution to tame the excesses of politicians and their hero worshippers is a more effective way to streamline the country’s electoral process. Just as in 2011, this writer sees more wisdom in pushing for constitutional amendments that can limit or reduce the trauma of elections in the country. There is so much that can be achieved through restructuring in this respect, such as bringing more powers to the regions or states to reduce the attention on the central government. But with a president who has not campaigned on the manifesto of devolution of powers (unlike the platform on which General Buhari contested the election against Jonathan in 2015 in which re-federalising the country was manifest on the party’s manifesto), it may be more effective to use the constitutional approach to change many things that the 1999 Constitution had imposed on the country. Constituents who are for restoring federalism have the right to pressure their lawmakers to present such bills.

    It is conceivable that if Nigerians had been asked to participate in negotiating a post-military constitution, they could have asked for a system of one term of five or six years that obviates the problems of incumbency or a system in which the incumbent governor would feel that his reputation is on the line if he does not do everything to come back. More importantly, a one-term presidency would take a lot of attention away from incumbency factor and give presidents more opportunities to act like statesmen than partisan politicians. Those who are likely to benefit from sycophancy to the incumbent president or governor would not have the need to over exert themselves as we had witnessed in the recent elections at national and subnational levels.

    The argument by those who want two or more terms for president and governors is based on the reasoning the UK and the US, often cited as reference points by Nigerian politicians, have systems that allow their heads of state to stay on for eight or more years. The same set of politicians have no difficulty cutting tenure of vice chancellors to one term of five years on the ground that heads of tertiary institutions would have exhausted themselves at the end of a five-year term. Not allowing incumbents to run for a second term would prevent the situation where sitting governors get emotionally involved in winning to the extent of committing public funds directly or indirectly to such elections, as it often happens in the country. That many advanced democracies have multiple terms for their executives does not justify Nigeria to do so, as there are so many choices that such countries make which those who get to positions of leadership in our country do not strive to imitate.

    A related area that may benefit from constitutional reform is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Too much noise has been made about INEC this election season in respect of poor preparation, overloading caused by centralization of the powers and functions of the commission, and even charges of inadequate impartiality (independence). Without doubt, INEC can be more independent than it is, even in terms of process of appointment. In a system in which the powers of the president are extensive, just the appearance of sycophancy on the part of electoral officers is enough to give the impression of partisanship. Presidents can be saved from unnecessary charges of influence on the electoral process if they do not have a second term to contest. With a single-term tenure, presidents can be allowed to nominate INEC officers for an election he or she is not contesting. Confirmation for INEC officers can be subjected to two-thirds vote of approval. Leaving nomination and approval of commissioners in the hands of the legislature after a two-thirds vote of consent to such nomination will certainly make the INEC visibly independent and the search for independent individuals more rigorous than it has been since the exit of military rule.

    Since President Buhari has identified his four areas of concern during his second term: Boko Haram and other security threats to the stability of the country; improvement of the economy; ridding the country of political and bureaucratic corruption; and oiling the wheel of the country’s unity, bringing pressure to lawmakers on constitutional amendments to make the 1999 Constitution reflective of the wishes of the citizenry is a task that must be continued at the level of party policy discussions and through sponsored or private bills from legislators who believe Nigeria and Nigerians deserve a more democratic and federal constitution than the current constitution. It is never too late to demand for constitutional changes in any democracy. Fortunately for party leaders, further sensitising legislators about the danger of saddling the country with a constitutional document never approved by citizens is not antithetical to the stated agenda of President Buhari for the next four years.

  • Nigeria and her vanishing voters

    At the just-concluded general elections, many voted with their feet rather than fingers and we are still scratching our heads wondering why.

    If voters are becoming an endangered species, it is certainly not for lack of numbers. Officially, Nigeria has 84 million registered voters and of that number, 72.7 million collected permanent voters cards (PVCs) to enable them participate in the polls. That represents 86.3% of persons on the electoral roll – a very high figure indeed.

    But those who picked up the cards were probably more intent on using them for identification purposes, than for queuing in the sun to elect their leaders.

    On Election Day they confirmed this by the numbers that showed up at polling stations. In states like Abia, Enugu and Ebonyi turnout was well below 30% at the February 23 presidential and National Assembly polls. The national average was only slightly better at 34.75%.

    If those numbers were depressing, the turnout for the governorship and state houses of assembly elections two weeks later was abysmal in most places across the country. At some locations it was barely 20% of those who could vote.

    These figures represent a steady pattern of decline from a high of 70% in 1999 when the military ceded power to civilians, to an average turnout of 42% in 2015, and now barely 35% showing up to vote in this year’s polls. Anyone attempting an honest analysis of this phenomenon would do well to acknowledge that the trend is not new.

    What should bother anyone concerned about sustainability of democracy in Nigeria is that until now we’ve not had a serious national discussion about voter apathy.

    It is especially troubling that this year’s turnout is one the lowest of all recent elections held on the African continent. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (I-IDEA), it is the second lowest – the worst being 32.3% recorded at the 1996 Zimbabwean presidential election.

    While we may not all agree as to what is responsible for the apathy, it is evident that these low numbers are symptomatic of something grievously wrong with the electoral process. The source of the dysfunction needs to be quickly identified and addressed.

    Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, John Onaiyekan, speaking immediately after the gubernatorial polls, described the turnout as a “massive boycott.” He said in many places it was “a loud protest and vote of no confidence in a process that had destroyed their trust in the system.”

    It was a sentiment echoed by Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who, after voting on March 9 in Yola, Adamawa State, mournfully declared that he had no confidence that his vote would count. Never mind the fact that his party had won the state handily on February 23 and is well-placed to prevail in the governorship contest in a state presently controlled by an All Progressives Congress (APC) administration.

    Voter apathy in 2019 is a malaise brought on by a complex mix of factors; it goes beyond any shortcomings that can be attributed to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or the Muhammadu Buhari administration.

    At a primary level, it is a protest against politicians who only remember the people every four years when they desperately need their votes. This is the dynamic that drives vote buying and selling. The cynical voter feels that the only time he or she would benefit from the politician is when they can extract the measly two thousand naira price for their vote. Once the results are in, the victors quickly revert to their default mode: filling their pockets with the spoils of office far from the cares and concerns of their hapless constituents.

    This disconnection between the political class and the people is being further exacerbated along age and regional lines. The younger generation of Nigerians – especially south of the Niger – who incidentally form the bulk of the population, appear less interested in all matters political than the older folk.

    A meme that made the rounds on social media during the elections aptly captured this phenomenon. In the image, there is a long queue of voters of all ages somewhere in the North, waiting patiently to cast their ballots. Directly beneath that was another picture of a group of youths playing football on a traffic-free street in Lagos on Election Day.

    That is a pithy riposte to cynics who sought to understand why turnout was much higher in certain areas up North supposedly susceptible to insurgent attacks, whereas in many areas in the South far from fear of violence, it was anaemic.

    Contributing to the problem is the low priority paid to civic education. INEC and government at different levels are not doing enough, neither are political parties, schools, religious organisations or parents helping much.

    Voters don’t just materialise, they are mobilised. Even in established democracies like the United States and United Kingdom, get-out-the-vote initiatives are major undertakings by political parties and non-partisan organisations to boost the turnout on voting day. It is something executed in a systemic manner – not by deploying the fire brigade approach for which we are famous.

    So, we now have a major problem getting the young and middle-aged enthusiastic about the political process.

    Getting the self-absorbed selfie and Instagram generation interested in anything other than themselves is tough enough: getting them excited about their civic responsibility requires more effort than is presently being devoted to it.

    Another factor that has definitely impacted turnout is the order of elections. In the past when the presidential elections came last, the outcomes of the gubernatorial contests stirred up enough anxiety, keeping interest at fever pitch for the main bout between the leading presidential candidates.

    But since the order was reversed – making the presidential polls first – state elections have become something of an anti-climax. It requires something extraordinary to motivate disappointed supporters whose candidate has just lost out in the big one, to file out for another contest where all signals indicate that defeat is the likely end. You need just as much effort to push the complacent.

    The other major reason for low turnout is fear of violence. In this cycle, the role of the military in the electoral process has come under close scrutiny. In certain parts of this country like Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Delta States, violence has become an intrinsic part of the process.

    Every electoral season is marked by killing, maiming and burning. Whoever has the upper hand in wreaking violence, or has the cooperation of the security forces, had free rein to cook up fraudulent results – especially in remote areas.

    It is to be expected that a people who have been terrorised by desperate politicians using vicious thugs to secure their goals, would be wary of putting themselves in harm’s way. The real question is whether it is the presence of soldiers or the activities of the fearless gunmen that frightens potential voters off the streets.

    These thugs are so well armed that the police – supposedly the lead security agency for the elections – are often outgunned. It is only the military that has proven to be sufficient deterrent to them. So if people argue that the presence of soldiers suppressed turnout in the Niger Delta, can the same be said of other areas of the country where they sight of them had a calming influence on the populace?

    Take away the soldiers from Rivers and Bayelsa and they would revert to the theatres of violence and bloodletting that we saw in 2015.

    Was there abuse of the electoral process by the military? Did they in any way prevent voters from exercising their franchise? That is for the authorities to investigate and punish where infractions are confirmed.

    The much-anticipated 2019 elections have come and gone. The process may not been pretty, but some of the surprising and unexpected outcomes are indicators that much of the past abuses are fading away.

    To win back the voters, more reforms are needed to make the process less tiresome. Still, it all boils down to what the government does about the identified security challenges. Democracy cannot take root, for as long as those bent on violently denying people the right to make a free choice, are allowed to thrive unchallenged.

     

    The avoidable deaths at Ita-Faaji

    wo days after the loss of 20 lives following the collapse of another decrepit building at Ita-Faaji in central Lagos on Wednesday, March 13, the state government began demolishing many of the structures in the area which had been marked for demolition.

    The four-storey structure which became the tomb for 20 young lives was marked for demolition in 2014. If it was adjudged to be unsafe for human habitation five years ago why was allowed to remain until it buried over a dozen little boys and guys?

    Lagos State Governor, Akinwumi Ambode, who rushed to the scene for the usual sympathy visit had an explanation: some of the landlords whose properties were affected, resisted the notices. This is an appalling excuse to give.

    What is the use of pasting a demolition notice if you have no intention of acting on it? In what form was the defiance of the landlords manifested to the extent that demolition could not be carried out for all of five years? Were there court orders stopping the government from following through on an action that was essentially for public safety?

    The absence of political will on the part of the state government, rather than the obduracy of the so-called landlords, was what allowed this avoidable calamity.

    We see that same weakness manifesting with regards to the insanity on most Lagos roads. In spite of all the laws against commercial motorcycles roaming free on expressways, today they have become an uncontrollable menace – just one road rage incident away from causing a major disaster in the city.

    We would not see any action until it happens – triggering a merry-go-round of sympathy visits and photo-ops from those who should have acted firmly to prevent it. A stitch is time can still save many potential casualties.