“THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ADJUDGED THE 2007 GENERAL

ELECTIONS TO BE MARRED WITH RIGGING AND IRREGULARITIES”

MY OPINION AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE IT BETTER IN 2011?

BY

ELIJAH C. BRIGGS

GENERAL OVERVIEW

“The only thing we seem committed to is unrelenting cynicism

which we parade as a landmark of honour.

Claude Ake

Across the globe, scathing criticisms, vituperative attacks and a barrage of

condemnations have continued to trail the conduct and eventual outcome of the 2007
Nigerian general elections – the same which declared most unequivocally the
presidential candidate of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Umaru
Musa Yar’Adua winner.

From Europe through America to Asia, condemnation of the elections pour forth in
torrents, with the United States and Britain dismissing the elections as flawed. "We are
deeply troubled by what we saw in Nigeria over the weekend," White House national
security spokesman, Gordon Johndowe said.

Spokesman for the State Department, Sean McComack was less diplomatic. "Clearly
these were flawed elections," he quipped. "It’s safe to say that while everybody can
applaud the efforts of the Nigerian people in participating in these elections, that the
process really didn’t meet the hopes and the standards that the Nigerian themselves set
up and the expectations that they set out."

The British government also expressed its regrets that the presidential elections fell far
below international standards. "We are deeply concerned at reports from international
observers that the elections held in Nigeria have fallen far short of international
standards and were seriously flawed", Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, noted.

The European Union (EU) also criticised the conduct of the elections. Max van der
Berg, Head of the EU mission in Kaduna told the Financial Express, a leading newspaper
in Dhaka, Bangladesh, that the election which produced Yar’Adua as winner was
outspokenly negative. "The assessment is outspokenly negative," he noted. "I’m
concerned".

Germany has equally expressed its reservations about the presidential elections. It said in
a statement that it was worried about reports of irregularities and use of violence in some
parts of Nigeria during the elections. "These incidents have given rise to concerns that
not all Nigerians entitled to vote really were able to do so freely and without fear."

Foreign election monitors have variously pooh-poohed the conduct of the polls, saying
they were massively rigged in favour of the ruling party.
Madeleine Albright, who chairs the Washington, United States-based National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs, told the Washington Post that the electoral
system has failed the Nigerian people. Said she: “In a number of places and in a number
of respects, the electoral system has failed the Nigerian people. The trend line on
elections in Nigeria is not going in the right direction".

Another Washington-based group, the International Republican Institute (IRI) said the
presidential and parliamentary elections were not as credible as those previously held.
Pierre Pichard Prosper, spokesman for the organisation observed: "The system failed the
Nigerian people and suffers from a lack of credibility. The system as designed did not
work. Many people were denied the opportunity to vote. The Nigerian people were failed
by their leaders". He also noted: "The elections fell below the standard set by previous
Nigerian elections and international standards witnessed by IRI around the globe".

Another group based in New York, Eurasia, said the results of the polls were
questionable. "The just ended elections in Nigeria, while they produced a new
government, also produced a highly questionable democracy", Sebastian Spio-Garbrah,
an analyst with the organisation, told the AFP.

The New York Times, in a report published on its website, scored the elections very low.
The influential newspaper wrote: "Almost everywhere, ballots arrived late, and
presidential ballots were printed without vital information to identify candidates and
prevent fraud. Races for legislative seats were postponed for lack of ballots in some
places. Voting began late and went very slowly in others. There were wide spread reports
of shortages of presidential ballots in several stations”.

"The problems occurring on the heels of disputed state elections on April 14, raised the
possibility that the presidential election might not produce a credible winner, plunging
the nation into crisis. And it dimmed hopes that Nigeria could for the first time pass
power from one fairly elected government to another. "The irregularities pointed to open
manipulation of the votes by election workers, accompanied by the police and officials of
the governing Peoples Democratic Party. Despite the fact that hardly any one had been
seen voting, reported turnout had been high, as much as 100 percent, according to tally
sheets, with the majority of votes going to the governing party."

Former Canadian Prime Minister, Joe Clark, who said he did not personally witness any
electoral malpractices in the areas where he monitored the polls, however said he learnt
that a lot of manipulation had occurred in some other places. "There was nothing
threatening in the air where I was, but I should specify that there have been reports
elsewhere that were more of a sense of threat", he told The Canadian Press.

MY CANDID OPINION

It must be noted here at the onset that corruption, election rigging and proliferation of
irregularities is not peculiar to a race or tribe or culture, but endemic and widespread in
the whole world, whether in the West or in the East; North or even South. Not to sound
immodest, this may be viewed in some quarters as a sequel to the many essays on
Professor Maurice Iwu’s conduct of Nigeria’s 2007 general election and the
condemnations that trailed the wake of the damning assessment turned in by the EU
Observer Mission and analogous critiques likewise.

Silence is no longer golden because Nigeria is hurting from an unrelenting barrage of

vigorous attacks from all manners of people even a year after the elections. So, as a
native Nigerian, I will be damned if I should just continue to remain silent about what
happens to my native country, her institutions and public officials, and the drag it
imposes on Nigeria’s quest for a befitting diplomatic stature, good order and foreign
investments.

It is germane to point out that if Nigerians themselves accept the election outcome, warts
and all, that alone may be grounds for the international community to look less to the
grim report turned in by the EU Observer Mission, bearing in mind two twin sets of facts:
One - Nigeria’s teething pains with her elections are less of the making of Maurice Iwu or
one man alone but more of an institutional immaturity on the part of Nigeria as a young,
and an inexperienced democracy. Two - The cultural tendency to never-say-die on the
part of Nigerians in contest for any office (political or civic, home-based or Diasporan)
which often drives the loser to exaggerate any irregularities occurring in the ordinary
course of subjecting elections to human discretion.
It is interesting to consider Maurice Iwu’s allegations that the EU observers turned
monitors or worse by demanding a free pass to attend INEC meetings (as if Nigeria is
already a failed state); and even had the brazen temerity and alacrity to demand for their
keeps the entire body of sensitive data containing the biometrics of Nigeria’s registered
voters including, as Maurice Iwu put it, “the fingerprints of the President of my country”,
apparently because they offered 40 million Euros as grants-in-aid to INEC.

So who then is fooling who? It is trite to note that it will be unacceptable and vehemently
opposed anywhere in the world, not excluding the vast majority of European countries
AND THE United States for such sensitive and sacred information to be divulged not just
to citizens but outsiders! Alas, Nigeria was perceived to be the fool (even at forty?)

So, Maurice Iwu was right to have feared that the 40 million Euros was not mere freebies
but carried the prospects of strings and diplomatic disrespect that a modern, strong and
prosperous Nigeria does not need any longer. And he had good cause to worry that more
unconscionable demands could have come had he not drawn the line. Therefore, it goes
without saying that it was for this reason alone that a hostile environment existed
throughout the election period between the EU Observers and Maurice Iwu/INEC. Recall
that the EU called Iwu arrogant first before some Nigerians began to do the same.

It is particularly perturbing when palpable discoveries show most convincingly that the
EU 2007 report is almost a verbatim repetition of their 2003 report and one cannot but
wonder why. It is also discernible that the EU report is replete with dodgy disclaimers –
meaning that the Observers are sort of eating their own words and generally appeared
wishy-washy on an assessment they intended the whole world to believe as gospel. Well,
if the Observers who wrote the report appear to be evasive or reluctant to own up to it,
why should anybody, including Nigerians ground their assessment of the 2007 elections
on the tenors of a report that is so notoriously self-disclaiming? It is plausible that since
Maurice Iwu pissed them off, they were more likely to get back at him by turning in a
report that is less of an objective assessment but more of a fall-out of a bitter personal
disagreement they had with him.

Additionally, the EU observers were too few in number to traverse the huge land mass of
Nigeria and tens of thousands of polling precincts and wards, most of where the conduct
of the election was widely acknowledged by Nigerians to have been free and fair. Had the
observers covered all the polling centres, they would have confirmed that most political
parties and their candidates lost primarily because they lacked in any of the factors or
elements necessary for succeeding in national elections, and prevailed in their traditional
strongholds. Or had our “friends” forgotten so quickly that Nigeria remains the most
populous black nation in the whole wide world? And mistook it to be a little island down
the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean?

For most of the West, especially the European Union, there is this rampant tendency to
rush to hasty and sometimes unfounded conclusions that elections held in countries that
the West fears, loathes or does not understand are never free and fair. The West does not
loathe or fear Nigeria but it is well-known that it does not yet fully understand Nigeria
and the unique cultural burdens that continue to stalk her fledgling Western-style
democracy. The high standard set by the West for elections to be credible is fine and
laudable, but pressuring young democracies and a people who have endured decades of
autocracy to embrace them overnight is unrealistic and unfair to boot. It gets to a point
that creates the appearance of pandering to opposition elements and a disregard for the
nation’s sovereignty.

Using the just concluded elections held in Russia as a case study (which saw Putin’s
party winning with super majorities). The same EU observers also saw red and
irregularities in that election. But I suspect that the real truth lies somewhere in between
the West’s traditional distrust of a nuclear-powered Russia led by a non-aligned Putin and
a persisting misunderstanding of a post-Soviet Russia that is still learning the ropes of
representative democracy, if not some petulance over the failed Western capitalist quest
to be the major player in exploiting Russia’s huge deposits of natural gas and other
hydro-carbons, which has been blamed on Putin… Res ipsa loquitur!!

ELECTION TRIBUNALS – FACT OR FICTION?

In a bid to open a leeway through which aggrieved contestants having been dissatisfied
with the released election results, the Electoral Act and other momentous Legislations
afford a fair pedestal for all and sundry to approach the temple of justice towards the
attainment of a fair and equitable judgment. Hence bolstering the Judiciary as the last
bastion of hope for the hapless hoi polloi.

Via this veritable vista, a number of court rulings have kept the entire nation on its toes.
From the ouster of Sir Celestine Omehia in Rivers State by the Supreme court’s ruling
that Rotimi Amaechi was wrongfully substituted and thus should accede to his rightful
throne, to the judgment in the Edo State election tribunal announcing Adams Oshiomhole
as the rightful and legitimate Governor of the State, has to an extent given credence to the
earlier assertions made by international observers and disgruntled opposing camps.

However, it is exciting to take into cognizance the glaring fact that the court in some
cases ordered a re-election in some states like Cross rivers, Kogi, Bayelsa, Sokoto,
Adamawa et al. but it leaves one discombobulated when imminent discoveries and
eloquent testimonies show that these same men retained their seats after the re-run. What
then went wrong? Or better still – what did not go wrong? Gov. Timipre Sylva of
Bayelsa, Gov. Liyel Imoke of Cross Rivers and a host of others have proved their
critiques abysmally wrong and confounded their foes in like manner. One then wonders –
where were all the rigging and irregularities? Did Nigerians repent over night?

No doubt a couple of court findings and decisions have seen some elected officers given
the left hand of fellowship and have been made to abdicate their illegally obtained
crowns. Amongst the myriad examples, in Ondo State the Justice Joseph Ikyegh led
Election tribunal nullified on June 26th 2008 the return of another House of
Representatives member from the PDP thus bringing to five the number of nullified
elections in the lower chamber of the National Assembly. This however does not mean to
say that the entire elections were massively rigged and marred with irregularities. How
about Lagos State? Where everything went on as smooth as possible not withstanding the
colossal size of the same. Let us remember once again the words of Former Canadian
Prime Minister, Joe Clark, who averred thus "There was nothing threatening in the
air where I was…”,
TOWARDS A BETTER 2011 - IDEAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A critical appraisal of the foregoing necessitates the following suggestions and

recommendations to improve the framework and conduct of processes and procedures for
future elections. Consequently, related areas are offered for consideration and action by
the Nigerian authorities, not excluding election stakeholders and the international
community: And to implement pristine clear and effective guidelines for voting,
counting, collation and the publication of results. These will be succinctly adumbrated.

1. Amendment of the Electoral Act and other subsidiary statutes to provide more detailed
provisions for voting, counting and collation procedures. These should include:

(i) A requirement for results to be publicly displayed at polling stations immediately after
counting has been completed;

(ii) A requirement for copies of official result forms to be distributed to all involved
stakeholders, including political parties, candidates and observers.

(iii) A requirement for detailed results broken down to polling station level to be
publicly displayed at all superior levels of the election administration;

(iv) A requirement for the Independent National and State Electoral Commissions to
swiftly publicly display, including on its website, detailed results of the elections,
including all polling station results as well as collated information on the number of
voters, votes cast, invalid votes etc.

(v) A requirement for results to be officially announced within a time limit of three
days;

(vi) A requirement for voters, political parties and observers to be able to request a
recount of ballots at polling station level when irregularities have been identified;

(vii) A requirement for INEC to be able to order a recount of ballots at polling

station level if it is established that the law was violated; and

(viii) Provision of clear grounds and authority to INEC to annul election results

2. Beefing up of adequate security personnel to forestall any violence that may occur in
the process.

3. More Stringent measures be put in place to ensure that voters who registered must tally
with actual voters.

4. Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) mechanisms for

accuracy and empirical certainty.
CONCLUSION

One unbeatable hiccup in Nigeria’s slow march to development and self-sustenance is the
nauseating and disgusting decay which institutionalized corruption, institutional
insouciance and the brazen disregard by us for ourselves, have brought on none else but
us. It is undeniable that the first step to the attainment of a virile and workable democracy
is the unrestrained, unrestricted and unreserved right to choose who bears rule over one,
and when this is subverted, the services of a soothsayer would be needless since the clear
writings on the wall lucidly spell doom, thus casting an ominous pall on our frail
existence.

Hitherto and now, the electoral processes have suffered major setbacks and impediments
but the time has come for us as one nation to rise up to this intractable problem and
secure our future. We need little or no external observers to dictate our pace; all we need
is honesty, candour and due respect for the rule of law. Then can we beat our chest
without a scintilla of doubt to say we are on the path to greatness.

The 2007 general elections have come and gone; but the memories linger and we must
learn from the egregious blunders of the past and brace up for a better future, come 2011.
Hence let us keep rejoicing in hope, patient in our tribulations and continue instant in
prayer as we strive to become PRIMUS INTER PARES among the comity of nations.