Preventing Violence in Nigeria’s 2015 Elections

Nigeria’s then-President, Goodluck Jonathan and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, signed a peace pact in January 2015, referred to as “Abuja Peace Accord.” The peace accord was signed in the presence of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to ensure that the political parties were committed to peaceful elections. United States Secretary of State John Kerry and former South African President, Thabo Mbeki also met with the two top presidential contenders on different occasions to reiterate the need for free and fair elections in Nigeria devoid of violence. However, in spite of these efforts, there were fears and anxiety that the forces working against the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections might be difficult to contain. The shift in the election date; the new alliance between Boko Haram and the ISIS; the challenges of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); and the deadly campaign strategies of the two major political parties, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC); suggest that peaceful polls might be elusive. This article reviews the factors likely to undermine the conduct of the 2015 election.
 
In 2011, Nigeria experienced post-election violence that left about 800 people dead and previous elections in the country had followed a similar trend. Threat analyses conducted by various organizations showed that the likelihood of violence was higher this time than in previous elections partly because of the strong opposition that suddenly sprang up to challenge the dominant party. As such, violence preventive measures were initiated by various stakeholders, both within the country and from the international community, to forestall issues that could undermine the conduct of the election and destabilize the country. However, the current developments in the country make one question whether the various violence prevention efforts are yielding results.  

First, let us reflect on the reasons for the election postponement. Prior to February 14, 2015, INEC and Nigeria security agencies assured Nigerians that they were ready for the elections.  
However, on February 7, one week before the commencement of the election, Chairman of INEC, Professor Attahiru Jega announced a shift in the election dates to March 28 (Presidential election) and April 11, 2015 (Governorship election). According to Prof. Jega, the reason for the shift, was the security concern expressed by the National Security Adviser. Prof. Jega defended the postponement as in line with the constitutional provisions of section 26 (1) of the Electoral Act, as amended. Nonetheless, the decision to postpone the election was criticized within and outside Nigeria. The manner in which the election postponement was carried out at the eleventh hour left a lot of doubt and suspicion on the part of the agencies responsible for this change. It also made some people wonder if the security agencies were committed to holding the elections or whether there were forces that are making them act differently. 
Since the beginning of February 2014, the Multinational African Union Force, consisting mainly of some ECOWAS and regional neighbors with Nigeria, started a mop-up operation against the Boko Haram extremist group. Boko Haram originally controlled about 52,000 square kilometers of Nigerian territories. The National Security Adviser requested to shift back the election date by six weeks to enable the Multinational force to complete their mop-up operation. But was six weeks enough to eliminate a group that had killed 13,000 Nigerians in the past 5 years? If so, then it was likely that the counter-insurgency operations were politicized. The Multinational force recently made some gains in retaking territories initially taken over by Boko Haram. But as a twist of fate, the recent allegiance between Boko Haram and the ISIS should not be taken for granted. Many analysts have argued that the recent pledge of alliance by Boko Haram is a way of gaining media attention after having been fractured by the AU Multinational force.  However, Boko Haram’s alliance with ISIS should not be dismissed; the group is capable of evolving strategy that can frustrate the Multinational force. The history of how the group emerged from a peaceful Islamic group to deadly sect should not be forgotten, including the heavy-handed response by the Nigerian military.    

Apart from the security challenges, there was the question of whether INEC was really ready for the elections after many years of preparations. The issue of the distribution of the permanent voter’s card (PVC), and the use of card readers have continued to surface. The INEC claimed that the election was postponed due to security concerns, but only about 66.58% of the PVCs were distributed prior to the original date of the presidential election, and it’s doubtful that all the PVCs will be distributed before the rescheduled election. The introduction of card readers by INEC to prevent election fraud was seen as a positive development, but many have raised questions about the place of election card readers in the Nigeria constitution. Another issue that was raised about the card reader was the experimentation with a high profile election such as the presidential election, when the card reader has not been used before. These questions will continue to generate concerns, even as the elections are over.  This development has also led to recent calls for the sacking of the INEC Chairman by some people of the PDP, a situation that could further aggravate the problems. The parties are deeply divided over the issues of the PVCs and the card readers.  

In addition, the two main parties continued to attack each other. The APC criticized the ruling PDP of corruption, mismanagement of the economy and the inability to address the issues of insecurity and infrastructure provisions. The PDP also questioned the morality and legitimacy of Buhari’s presidential aspiration, having overthrown a democratic government in 1983 as a military leader. The other criticisms of the opposition leader were the issues of his age (72), and alleged health concerns. These issues of concern continued to create further divisions and exchange of words in the run up to the election. The dangerous aspect of the campaign strategies was the use of social media to twist issues of contention between the parties. The strategies also went beyond focusing on issues to attacking personalities: allegations of sponsored character assassination programs, hate speeches, and inciting statements. The use of social media magnified these events for more public consumption, creating widespread discontent and hatred.

To many ordinary Nigerians, the PDP and the APC are birds of the same feather. The APC and PDP were recently described as Siamese twins obsessed with the same idea of dispossessing the Nigerian people. According to some people, the PDP candidate is described as not committed to a transformation agenda for the country. A Buhari candidacy was recently described as incapable of sanitizing the behavior of the APC. A modified statement of how a politician described the two parties is “I have discovered that the umbrella does not guarantee protection from the rain, and the broom does not sweep properly unlike vacuum cleaners.” The ordinary Nigerian is less concerned about who wins and becomes the next president of the country than what happens after the election.

The common opinion of many analysts is that even though Muhammadu Buhari has won the election, there may still be violence in the country. “There may be unsettlement in the Niger Delta, and if Jonathan had won, there might have been an intensification of violence in the north.” The ethno-religious and regional implications are obvious. To avert these two extreme scenarios, some have canvassed the option of an interim government or a unity government between the two major parties, as the election might not produce the much-acclaimed dividend of democracy.  As Nigerians watch events unfold, the current situation requires new strategy to prevent likely violence post the 2015 election.  As the saying goes “a stitch in time saves nine.” The question is whether the time for conflict prevention has passed or last minute peace efforts will prevail.

### Photo 1: John Paden and Ernest Ogbozor taken by Evan Cantwell. Photo 2: From left to right: Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari taken by Flickr user CityPeople News Nigeria.