Nigeria Content Online

In September 2010, John Campbell, the former
United States Ambassador to Nigeria, published a sensational article in
Foreign Affairs about the dire consequences of the elections failing.
He argued that “Logistical preparations for the 2011 elections have not
started. There is no voters roll, and despite the president’s signing
of an electoral reform bill, some of these reforms remain unimplemented
four months before the election. The election therefore will almost
certainly lack legitimacy, especially in the eyes of the losers. This
will further drive the country to the brink, especially if winners and
losers are defined by their religious and ethnic backgrounds.” The
response of most Nigerian commentators to Campbell was that the
elections would not be as bad as predicted and that Attahiru Jega and
his team have the capacity to organise an election that is
significantly better than what we have had previously. The day after,
what is our assessment of the elections that took place yesterday? The
three key words that have been repeated over and over again in relation
to the elections are free, fair and credible.

Writing a day before the elections, my feeling is
that in most parts of the country, the elections would be relatively
free. That is to say, most people would be able to go to their polling
unit and cast their vote without impediment. The situation of 2007 in
which, in so many states, voting did not take place and yet results
were declared, is most unlikely to happen. Nigeria, I believe, is on
the path to reclaiming the franchise for its citizens.

The fairness of the elections is maybe the most
problematic element. Fair elections are characterised by a level
playing field for all contestants. It has been clear that candidate
Goodluck Jonathan has had enormous resources to engage in a major media
blitz and run the most elaborate road show Nigeria has ever seen.
Obasanjo’s campaign, which was supported massively by resources raised
for the campaign by “Corporate Nigeria” pales into insignificance
compared to Jonathan’s. The President needs to explain to Nigerians,
the financial sources that are supporting his ongoing campaign.

The credibility of the elections is what we shall
be assessing as from today. In so doing, we are interested in knowing
whether the outcome of the various elections would correspond to the
choices made by a majority of Nigerians. In other words, has the
special procedure developed for the elections produced the desired
result?

To discourage electoral fraud, INEC has developed
a procedure in which accreditation takes place in the morning and
voting in the afternoon. Voters are allowed to stay at the polling
centres to observe the counting and posting of results. Civil society
has encouraged voters to stay, observe the counting, photograph the
results with their cell phones and share the results with their
neighbours to create widespread awareness of polling centre results. It
is unfortunate that the National Security Adviser to the President came
out openly to challenge the procedure. The constitution is clear that
the procedure for voting is determined by INEC. He should have played
the role of a responsible citizen, supporting the decision of the organ
that is constitutionally empowered to act.

Observers and political party agents have been
encouraged to follow the results to the ward, local government and all
other levels of collation of results, so that people know that the
results announced reflect actual results counted at the polling
stations. The day after is the time for reflections and assessment on
the use of the special procedure.

It has been clear since 2003 that the integrity of
Nigeria’s elections would only improve if more and more citizens
protect their mandate. The outcome of this election would depend on
Nigerians taking the opportunity offered by the special procedure to
defend their mandate. This is the path to preventing the fall over the
precipice that Campbell has spoken about.