Nigeria Content Online

While we’ve been otherwise engaged, events in Africa are being dictated by old and new colonial powers.

It is hard to know
which was more dramatic: in Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo was detained
by Alassane Ouattara, just as he had been when the latter was prime
minister in the 1990s. No doubt Gbagbo was an oppressor, and it is not
the intention here to try “settling the precedence between the flea and
the louse” over whether it is his supporters or Ouattara’s who have been
responsible for the most human rights abuse, rape, mutilation and
massacre in the struggle for supremacy in Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo should
perhaps have followed the example of his Senegalese counterpart,
Abdoulaye Wade, who – by his own reckoning – had in the past twice
swallowed the bitter pill of a stolen election rather than plunge his
country into conflict. (Yes, of course, there’s a message there for
Nigeria!)

But the
intervention of France in the events that led to Gbagbo’s arrest
(notwithstanding its disingenuous attempt to present sending a convoy of
25 tanks and armoured personnel–carriers to assault his hideout as a
‘protecting civilians’ activity, with Gbagbo’s subsequent arrest due
solely to pro–Ouattara forces who just happened to be on the spot)
cannot be dismissed as merely the result of French President, Nicolas
Sarkozy’s positioning for electoral advantage back home. Rather,
Gbagbo’s fate sends a powerful message to other African leaders who
might try stepping out of line.

It certainly trumped the efforts of the ECOWAS on the Ivorien crisis.

Meanwhile, in
Libya, British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s insistence that
“Muammar Gadaffi Must Go” at the very time when an African Union
delegation to Tripoli had secured Gadaffi’s agreement to a ceasefire
followed by talks, and was on its way to Benghazi to see whether the
opposition Libyan Transitional National Council might also agree to a
ceasefire and talks, seemed designed to trump anything the AU might come
up with too.

The LTNC gave the
AU team a civil enough reception in public, being careful not to dismiss
them out of hand; but although Libyan pro–freedom groups can find yards
more examples of democracy and resistance to oppression in Africa than
in the Arab world, they have hardly hidden their contempt for Africa and
Black Africans, and after rejecting the proposal for not accepting all
their demands, were sneeringly wondering what conflicts Africans have
ever resolved. Mind you, since South African President, Jacob Zuma, had
diplomatically withdrawn from the Benghazi leg of the trip, they might
have forgotten the liberation of the entire southern part of the
continent and Nelson Mandela’s resolution of the Lockerbie matter, to
name but two.

With Western
powers openly demanding régime change, the LTNC was emboldened to not
only reject even a negotiated cease–fire unless Gadaffi stood down, but
to demand that their Western protectors provide them with weapons:
presumably so that they can outdo Gadaffi in slaughtering their
fellow–citizens.

The excuse that
previous cease–fires have not been observed is thin. After all, those
were self–proclaimed by Gadaffi, whereas what the AU took to Benghazi
was a proposal that Africa was ready to back and seek wider
international support for. If there was justified concern that Gadaffi
would continue moving his troops into position under cover of cessation
of hostilities, what stopped guarantees on that from being part of the
negotiations?

By the end of the
week, the goal of regime change was even more baldly stated with
Sarkozy, David Cameron of Britain and Barack Obama of the U.S.A.
threatening to continue bombing Libya until Gadaffi was removed. With
no cease–fire in place, the ‘protecting civilians’ mantra was still
available to the triumvirate. But it is an increasingly discredited fig
leaf.

Britain’s World
War II Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, once famously advised that
“Jaw Jaw is better than War War.” His 21st Century heirs seem bent on
encouraging peoples who would often be better off with an imperfect
peace on which they can build, to instead continue conflicts which they
themselves are only sporadically interested in seeing through to
conclusion.

The brutality that
many Libyans suffered under the ‘Brotherly Leader’ makes it impossible
not to sympathise with their resistance to ever again coming under his
control, and while Black Africa might not expect a particularly warm
relationship should the LTNC succeed in ousting Gadaffi, his own record
on the continent is hardly such as to cause undue sorrow over his
personal fate. But a negotiated cease–fire would not have re–imposed
Gadaffi’s control over those parts of the country that had risen against
him, and could well have re–emboldened unarmed civilian protesters in
those parts of Libya that had not. So why the insistence on “War War?”

PS: I’d intended
to write something rebutting the Youth Mafia’s complaints about my
article on ‘De Yoot Vote’ this week. But I realised that I would only
be repeating my ‘The Young Do Grow’ article of May 9, 2010.
(http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/Columns/5565422–182/story.csp)
In any case, they only attacked with words — what Churchill might have
called “Jaw Jaw.”

A group of 18 persons is currently being held by
the police in Imo State, on an allegation of plotting to kill — by
stoning — former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Imo State governor,
Ikedi Ohakim.

Prosecutors say the accused, on March 31 this year,
pelted a convoy conveying the two politicians with sachets of pure
water. They have all been in detention since the incident happened, and
have been charged to court for attempted murder, which carries a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment.

It beggars belief that persons accused of pelting a
governor’s convoy with sachets of pure water would be taken to court on
a charge that could earn them life imprisonment. But what further
worsens this particular case is that one of the accused, Precious
Efurueze, is only 13 years old and, therefore, a “child” in the eyes of
the law.

In September 2003, President Obasanjo signed the
Child Rights Act (CRA) into law. It was a revolutionary piece of
legislation which sought to convert into law, the principles and
guidelines espoused by the United Nations and other international
bodies. According to UNICEF, it “domesticates the obligations of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and consolidates all laws relating
to children into one single legislation”.

Section 221 of the Act states unambiguously that:
“No child shall be ordered to be — (a) imprisoned; or (b) subjected to
corporal punishment; or (c) subjected to the death penalty or have the
death penalty recorded against him.”

The Act also makes provisions for the establishment
of “children correctional centres” where “child offenders may be
detained and given such training and instructions as will be conducive
to their formation and re-socialisation, and the removal or reduction,
in term, of their tendency to commit anti-social acts and such other
acts which violate the criminal law.”

But as with many things Nigerian, our penal system
continues to act in ignorance, or defiance, of the Act. Imo State, where
Master Efurueze is being charged, is one of the 24 Nigerian states
whose legislative houses have passed the Act. A pre-CRA study by the
Constitutional Rights Project found evidence that Nigerian children were
regularly detained in police stations and prisons, that “only a small
percentage of child offenders had committed serious offences” and that
“a large proportion of children were not legally represented during
their trials”.

Now, years after the passage of the CRA, not much
has changed. A 2008 Amnesty International Report on Nigeria’s prison
system throws up damning revelations:

“In many of the prisons visited by Amnesty
International, minors shared large dormitories with adults. Most were
around 16 or 17 years old; some were even younger. In Kuje prison, the
Amnesty International delegates spoke with children as young as 11 and
12. Reports suggest that these children were tortured while in police
custody.”

As if it was not bad enough that Efurueze had been
in custody since the incident, last Wednesday, a magistrate turned down
an application for bail for all the accused, without making an exception
for the minor.

Her decision to invoke a “my hands are tied; this
is a case of felony” excuse for her decision, is disingenuous, and
reveals a disgraceful ignorance of the law. Refusing bail to a minor,
especially considering what the minor in question has been accused of,
and causing him to be detained alongside adults, constitutes a flagrant
disregard of the provisions of the Child Rights Act, and is deserving of
condemnation.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the
magistrate in question would be involved in a questionable exercise of
legal judgement. In July 2010, a non-governmental organisation, the
Network on Police Reform in Nigeria (NOPRIN) publicly petitioned the
National Judicial Council over what it described as “the flagrant abuse
of judicial power and process by Chief Magistrate Victoria Isiguzo,
Presiding Magistrate, Magistrate Court 1, Owerri, Imo State.” This was
in relation to the arraignment, before Mrs Isiguzo’s court, of Ikenna
Samuelson Iwuoha, on charges of criminally defaming Governor Ohakim.

Now we are witnessing another case involving Mr Ohakim, and presided
over by the same Magistrate Isiguzo. There is also the hard-to-miss
irony that the name of Mr Obasanjo, who signed the Child Rights Act into
law, is mentioned in this case. We call on Mrs Isiguzo to take the
Child Rights Act into cognisance and proceed with immediate steps to
ensure that Efurueze is treated as the minor that he is according to the
laws of the land.

On April 9, 2011, Nigeria held the first of a series of
elections that will impact the direction of Africa’s most populous country and
second-largest economy, and set the course for the future of democracy in
sub-Saharan Africa. What we have seen so far in West Africa this year is
promising – peaceful and credible elections in Burkina Faso, Benin and Niger,
and the triumph of democracy over dictatorship in Cote d’Ivoire. Some forty
years ago, I began my first tour as a newly-minted Foreign Service Officer in
Lagos. Arriving just seven years after its independence, the Nigeria I found
was one locked in a brutal civil war with an uncertain future. I am proud of
Nigeria’s achievements over the last decades, and its role as a leader in
Africa and the world.

On April 9, I observed along with 17 other US Embassy and
Consulate teams, Nigeria’s National Assembly elections. We were heartened by
what we saw. In sharp contrast to its elections of 2007, Nigeria was
demonstrating that it can hold credible elections that allow the Nigerian
people a meaningful opportunity to elect their leaders. Together with US
Ambassador Terence McCulley, I visited polling stations in the Federal Capital
Territory and adjacent Nassarawa and Kaduna States. I was struck by how well
Nigeria’s civil society and the democratic institutions worked together and the
broad- based and enthusiastic participation of Nigerian citizens exercising
their right to choose their leaders. The commitment and professionalism of the
young people of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) who performed
extraordinarily well in carrying out their important work is an encouraging
sign of Nigeria’s bright future. I also saw the incredible dedication of
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chair Attahiru Jega, who
remained steadfast in pulling off the round despite the initial false-start on
April 2. Deemed a “general success” despite delayed delivery of election
materials, the presence of “under-age” voters, and some incidents of violence,
Nigeria has the chance to do even better by holding a fairer, freer, and more
peaceful Presidential election on April 16. I urge election and security
officials to build upon this foundation for an even stronger and more peaceful
showing on April 16 and April 26.

Times are changing. Social media played an important role in
this cooperation. INEC and voters exchanged messages via Short Messaging
Service (SMS) texts, Twitter, and Facebook, with camera images sent from
cellular telephones, all to promote a more transparent process, to verify
adherence to correct procedures, and to alert authorities and the media to
potential challenges. This Saturday, I will join Nigerians in watching
@inecnigeria and @swiftcount on Twitter as they transparently work towards a
credible election process.

Democracy is important to all of us. No one person or any single
electoral event can transform an entrenched political culture. Sadly, this past
weekend, some opponents of democracy tried to derail the process by resorting
to thuggery and violence. Political intimidation and violence have no place in
a democratic society. As we move forward, Nigeria’s political leaders – and
those who aspire to lead – must refrain from inflammatory rhetoric or acts of
intimidation. Any election violence is unacceptable, as it casts a shadow over
the entire electoral process. The United States not only condemns violence and
intimidation, but we are prepared to take appropriate measures against those
individuals who violate basic democratic norms, as we have done in places such
as Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar..

The 2011 Presidential, National Assembly, Gubernatorial, and
State Assembly elections provide an historic opportunity for Nigeria to become
a model for the rest of Africa and the world, especially for those citizens
demanding democracy in their countries. All Africans deserve smooth, peaceful,
transparent, and credible elections. The conduct of the first round of
elections indicates that Nigeria is ready to be that example. We stand with the
Nigerian people in seeking free, fair, and credible elections and I challenge
all Nigerians to work together with even more patience and determination this
weekend to produce leaders elected by the Nigerian people.

Johnnie Carson is the U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

This article was written before the election for
president was held yesterday. When you are reading this article you may
already have a reasonable idea as to who is going to be the next
president of Nigeria. On the other hand, the election might have been a
much closer race than most people thought and the final result might not
be known for some days. Either way, when it comes to an analysis of the
elections, the winner is…Nigeria.

By all standards the conduct of the 2011 elections
in Nigeria has raised the bar on the conduct of elections among African
nations.

While one death is one too many, the fact is that
electoral violence in the current elections has been stemmed from the
terribly high numbers seen in previous elections.

The three key players in making the 2011 elections a
significant improvement on those gone before are INEC chairman,
Attahiru Jega; national security adviser, Andrew Azazi; and Nigerian
president, Goodluck Jonathan.

President Jonathan should be congratulated for
kicking Maurice Iwu out of the INEC Chair. That wasn’t enough to fix
INEC. The choice of Jega was not sufficient in itself. Jonathan gave
Jega a clear directive to improve the election process. To fulfil this
mandate INEC required resources and Jonathan has ensured they have been
provided.

The appointment of General Azazi (rtd) to replace
Aliyu Gusau as National Security Advisor in early October 2010 was a
major statement by Jonathan. This was a significant challenge to some
PDP ‘big men’ and forced Gusau to declare his hand in running for the
presidency in the 2011 elections. In fact, Gusau had stepped down a few
weeks earlier because he knew he was about to be replaced and thus
avoided embarrassment. Kayode Are, the former DG-SSS was acting NSA
following Gusau’s departure. Colonel Kayode was Gusau’s man and so the
status quo seemed to be maintained. But this was merely temporary.
Appointing Azazi over Kayode was another signal from Jonathan that he
was not afraid to confront the SSS and reform the security services.

Azazi was faced with a very formidable task of
securing the loyalty and control of Nigeria’s security services at a
time when there was instability in the south, the middle belt and the
northeast. Azazi was appointed just days after the bombings at Eagle
Square which symbolically struck at the heart of the nation. To compound
the situation, there were those who fuelled conflict with the intent of
showing that Jonathan did not have control of the security situation
and thus should not be president. All-in-all, with less than six months
at his disposal to deliver a workable level of national security, Azazi
seemed to be set on mission impossible.

Jonathan became president of Nigeria in May 2010.
He appointed Jega as INEC chairman in June 2010 and Azazi as NSA in
October 2010.

At a time when the president was expected to be
focused on running hard for election and securing every political
advantage possible, we saw Jonathan going out of his way to create a
situation which drastically reduced opportunities for the incumbent to
unfairly influence election results. This is what Nigerians should
expect from their president. The outcome may not be perfect but it is
hard for any reasonable person to argue that the 2011 elections have not
been a significant improvement on previous elections.

There is room for further improvement in the
conduct of elections in Nigeria and on this point the next president of
Nigeria must give a firm undertaking to the people of Nigeria to
continue the process of electoral improvement that Jonathan has not only
initiated but pressed hard to progress.

In his brief term of office as president of
Nigeria, Jonathan has done much more than merely be a caretaker
president. He has taken major risks in propelling Nigeria forward both
internationally and domestically. In the recent ECOWAS meeting, Jonathan
challenged other African heads of state to share responsibility for the
demise of the people of Cote d’Ivoire and by example sought a solution
that would ultimately remove Gbagbo from office. Previous attempts at
similar action in respect to Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, that
should have been championed by South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma,
have repeatedly failed.

Domestically, Jonathan has taken Nigeria a quantum
leap towards free and fair elections. These gains can be eroded but it
is up to the people of Nigeria to call for continued improvement in the
election process.

Through the conduct of the 2011 elections, Nigeria
has shown other African nations that democracy does work. The people do
have a voice.

If Jonathan has been elected president, then Africa may have a new
leader who can show by example that progress can be made in nation
building. If Nigerians have elected another candidate to the presidency,
then that person will have to work hard, for Jonathan has certainly
raised the bar in what can be expected of Nigeria’s president.

While we’ve been otherwise engaged, events in Africa are being dictated by old and new colonial powers.

It is hard to know
which was more dramatic: in Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo was detained
by Alassane Ouattara, just as he had been when the latter was prime
minister in the 1990s. No doubt Gbagbo was an oppressor, and it is not
the intention here to try “settling the precedence between the flea and
the louse” over whether it is his supporters or Ouattara’s who have been
responsible for the most human rights abuse, rape, mutilation and
massacre in the struggle for supremacy in Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo should
perhaps have followed the example of his Senegalese counterpart,
Abdoulaye Wade, who – by his own reckoning – had in the past twice
swallowed the bitter pill of a stolen election rather than plunge his
country into conflict. (Yes, of course, there’s a message there for
Nigeria!)

But the
intervention of France in the events that led to Gbagbo’s arrest
(notwithstanding its disingenuous attempt to present sending a convoy of
25 tanks and armoured personnel–carriers to assault his hideout as a
‘protecting civilians’ activity, with Gbagbo’s subsequent arrest due
solely to pro–Ouattara forces who just happened to be on the spot)
cannot be dismissed as merely the result of French President, Nicolas
Sarkozy’s positioning for electoral advantage back home. Rather,
Gbagbo’s fate sends a powerful message to other African leaders who
might try stepping out of line.

It certainly trumped the efforts of the ECOWAS on the Ivorien crisis.

Meanwhile, in
Libya, British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s insistence that
“Muammar Gadaffi Must Go” at the very time when an African Union
delegation to Tripoli had secured Gadaffi’s agreement to a ceasefire
followed by talks, and was on its way to Benghazi to see whether the
opposition Libyan Transitional National Council might also agree to a
ceasefire and talks, seemed designed to trump anything the AU might come
up with too.

The LTNC gave the
AU team a civil enough reception in public, being careful not to dismiss
them out of hand; but although Libyan pro–freedom groups can find yards
more examples of democracy and resistance to oppression in Africa than
in the Arab world, they have hardly hidden their contempt for Africa and
Black Africans, and after rejecting the proposal for not accepting all
their demands, were sneeringly wondering what conflicts Africans have
ever resolved. Mind you, since South African President, Jacob Zuma, had
diplomatically withdrawn from the Benghazi leg of the trip, they might
have forgotten the liberation of the entire southern part of the
continent and Nelson Mandela’s resolution of the Lockerbie matter, to
name but two.

With Western
powers openly demanding régime change, the LTNC was emboldened to not
only reject even a negotiated cease–fire unless Gadaffi stood down, but
to demand that their Western protectors provide them with weapons:
presumably so that they can outdo Gadaffi in slaughtering their
fellow–citizens.

The excuse that
previous cease–fires have not been observed is thin. After all, those
were self–proclaimed by Gadaffi, whereas what the AU took to Benghazi
was a proposal that Africa was ready to back and seek wider
international support for. If there was justified concern that Gadaffi
would continue moving his troops into position under cover of cessation
of hostilities, what stopped guarantees on that from being part of the
negotiations?

By the end of the
week, the goal of regime change was even more baldly stated with
Sarkozy, David Cameron of Britain and Barack Obama of the U.S.A.
threatening to continue bombing Libya until Gadaffi was removed. With
no cease–fire in place, the ‘protecting civilians’ mantra was still
available to the triumvirate. But it is an increasingly discredited fig
leaf.

Britain’s World
War II Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, once famously advised that
“Jaw Jaw is better than War War.” His 21st Century heirs seem bent on
encouraging peoples who would often be better off with an imperfect
peace on which they can build, to instead continue conflicts which they
themselves are only sporadically interested in seeing through to
conclusion.

The brutality that
many Libyans suffered under the ‘Brotherly Leader’ makes it impossible
not to sympathise with their resistance to ever again coming under his
control, and while Black Africa might not expect a particularly warm
relationship should the LTNC succeed in ousting Gadaffi, his own record
on the continent is hardly such as to cause undue sorrow over his
personal fate. But a negotiated cease–fire would not have re–imposed
Gadaffi’s control over those parts of the country that had risen against
him, and could well have re–emboldened unarmed civilian protesters in
those parts of Libya that had not. So why the insistence on “War War?”

PS: I’d intended
to write something rebutting the Youth Mafia’s complaints about my
article on ‘De Yoot Vote’ this week. But I realised that I would only
be repeating my ‘The Young Do Grow’ article of May 9, 2010.
(http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/Columns/5565422–182/story.csp)
In any case, they only attacked with words — what Churchill might have
called “Jaw Jaw.”