DEATH OF HAJIYA LAILA DOGONYARO

Hajiya Laila Dogonyaro, Garkuwar Garki died on Thursday 28^th April 2011, leaving behind a vacuum that will be very difficult to fill. She has been buried in her hometown, Garki in Jigawa State. Hajiya Laila left behind a large family and a reputation for public and community service that should serve as a lasting legacy for her family and inspire many women in Nigeria. At a time when the leadership deficit in the North is being felt most acutely, the death of Hajiya Laila will deprive millions of women and virtually all Nigerians of the service of a woman who devoted her entire life to championing causes of the underprivileged and the unfortunate.

Hajiya Laila’s life is a study in the emergence of leaders from multitudes; of the triumph of vision and tenacity for change against established structures designed to preserve the existing order; and of the values of service to others in a system which increasingly emphasizes self-service and the corruption of social values. Born into a society in which men and women were supposed to know their places, and operate within them, Hajiya Laila will be remembered as a wife and mother who, in spite of phenomenal limitations, was able to operate as a beacon of hope for many with her cultural background, and for many who thought women could not reach positions which can speak for them and affect their lives.

Hajiya Laila followed a trail set by other northern wives and mothers who organized as women to speak and act for women and children, and work with men to improve lives and bring relief and hope for the underprivileged. These were privileged women, such as Mrs. Comfort Dikko, Hajiya Astajam Ali Akilu, Hajiya Asiya Bamanga Tukur, Mrs. Zakari and Hajiya Aishatu Joda who nonetheless felt that a distinct northern women’s organization was needed to address the specific needs of northern women. With the active support and blessing of their husbands and the late Sardaunan Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, they formed the Jam’iyyar Matan Arewa, an organization which achieved many results and the distinction of demonstrating that power and privilege can work for the weak and the powerless. The Association built schools and orphanages, and established branches across the whole length and breadth of the north. It galvanized women from all classes and circumstances to stand up and organize for women, and highlight problems of women. Men were made to sit up and take note, and accord the pressure of northern women the attention and credit it deserved.

Hajiya Laila, as President of the Association, raised the standards set by the founding mothers of the Association to enviable levels. The nation took note, and she was elevated to the position of the President of the National Council of Women’s Societies, an umbrella body which wielded considerable power and influence in Nigerian politics. Hajiya Laila became a household name in Nigeria thereafter, and there has been no significant national development in which she was not a key player. She walked the corridors of power, and served as an icon and mentor for thousands of women who aspired to live lives of leadership, commitment and service to their communities and the nation.

Hajiya Laila lived to the last day as a community leader. Her house in Kaduna was filled from morning until night with people who sought help, assistance or advise. Her last major assignment was the completion of a Community school in Garki, her beloved town which bestowed upon her the title of Garkuwar Garki, a precedent that had no equivalent in history.

Hajiya Laila died at the age of 67. She will be a bright star in the history of this nation, and will be remembered as a symbol of hope against despair, and as a symbol of hope against despair, and as the embodiment of hope, service and commitment.   

AS KADUNA STATE VOTES TOMORROW

Tomorrow, Thursday 28^th of April, the people of Kaduna and Bauchi States will vote in the Gubernatorial and State Assembly elections, as well as the Senate and Federal House of Representatives seats that are yet to be voted for. These elections had to be shifted from the 26^th to 28^th of April due to unfavorable security situations.  The elections will hold on the second to the last day which the Constitution allows for elections, and any failure to conclude them successfully will pose serious constitutional and security challenges for citizens of the States and the nation.

          Given the fact that the violence which followed the Presidential elections of the 16th of April was more pronounced, widespread and damaging in Kaduna State than in any other part of the country, the nation’s attention will be focused on this State tomorrow and beyond. The Federal and State Governments have made it known that there will be massive deployment of soldiers and policemen, as well as  other security personnel in the State before, during and after the elections of tomorrow. The 6.am to 6.pm curfew is still in place in the State, and thousands of people are still living in makeshift camps across the State as refugees. Many people will not be able to vote either because they have lost everything, including their voters’ card, or because they have relocated too far away from their voting stations, or because they will be too afraid to go to their polling units to vote.

The specter of violence is still haunting people of the State, and they are daily reminded that only a few days ago, following the explosion of a bomb in Kaduna, the Police announced the discovery of an entire bomb factory in the City. Community relations and trust have largely broken down. Voters, who a few days ago would confidently go to vote in areas far away from their residences will not venture that far now, out of fear of attack or intimidation. The State has been garrisoned for the last eight days, and the curfew has created a siege mentality among most citizens.

          The citizens of Kaduna State will therefore go out to vote under considerable stress and fear, in spite of the assurances of the State Government that adequate security will be provided for voters and polling officials. Reports of unprecedented low turn-out in many States in the North is likely to discourage many voters, who may not necessarily be intimidated by security concerns, to go out and vote. Voter apathy and concerns over security may therefore combine to create a very low turn-out in many parts of the State. This will be a most unfortunate situation, in part because the citizens of this State need to turn out in large numbers and elect a Governor who will command respect and genuine acceptance of the entire citizens.

Nowhere is the need to have credible elections involving as many voters as possible more pronounced than in Kaduna State. In this State every negative and divisive tendency has been brought to bear in the Governorship elections. Religion and region have been played to a most dangerous level. The post-election violence which engulfed many parts of the North had taken a distinctly ethno-religious dimension in Kaduna State. The relative peace and security for life and property enjoyed by citizens of this State was burnt down in less than three days by rioters and killing mobs. The biggest casualty in Kaduna State has been inter-community and inter-religious harmony, as well as trust and peaceful co-existence in many parts of the State where Muslims and Christians live.

Given the damaging campaigns in the build-up to the elections, and the most unfortunate riots which occurred just a few days ago, the transparency, credibility and turn-out at the elections for the next Governor of Kaduna State are central to assuring all citizens that peace and security can be regained. All parts of the State need to freely exercise their choices, and the candidate that wins must do so without any shred of doubt. The task of rebuilding trust and confidence among the communities in Kaduna state, and re-inventing unifying ties must start with the election of a Governor and members of the State Assembly which should not cause further rancour and division.

The elections tomorrow are therefore vital for the peace and security of the State, beyond electing a Chief Executive. It is vital that citizens turn out to vote, irrespective of what they feel about the previous elections, or the outcome of elections in other States. Security must be provided for voters and polling officials, and at all cost, people must not be intimidated or frightened away from performing their civic responsibilities. It will be useful for the State Government to consider relaxing the curfew sufficiently to allow the voters and polling officials to turn out early for accreditation and stay to conclude all the voting and counting processes. The State Government should either suspend the curfew, or relax it to commence from 6.am and end at 10.pm, the period which, on the basis of experience, will allow the full voting process to be concluded across the whole State. If the citizens of the State, INEC and the security agencies succeed in conducting a peaceful and credible elections in Kaduna state, the State Government should consider suspending the curfew altogether. It will make little sense to flood the State with soldiers and policemen, and then lock up the citizens of the State night after night. It should be clear by now to the State Government that while the curfew may restrict the activities of a tiny minority who may want to sustain this campaign of violence, for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, all it does is to maintain the high levels of fear and insecurity.

          The vast majority of citizens in Kaduna State want to elect their Governor, State Assembly representatives, One Senator and a few Members of the House of Representatives tomorrow. Many will turn out and vote. Those who intend to vote should encourage others to vote with them. The people we vote for tomorrow will lead us for the next four years. We have only tomorrow, one day, to choose who these people are. If for any reason we fail to decide who they are with our votes, we will live with the consequences of their levels of responsibility, competence and compassion. Those who want to vote but are afraid must be given all due assurances and protection by the government. Whoever emerges our Governor in particular should have the mandate of Christians and Muslims, and citizens from the north and south of the State. By all means, the citizens must resist the temptation to boycott tomorrow’s election, because they will not only be voting for the Governor and legislators, but they will be voting for peace and security in our State.                  

ASSAULT ON NIGERIA’S FOUNDATIONS

The deadly riots which followed the April 16^th Presidential elections in many parts of Northern Nigeria exposed one of the dangerous structural weaknesses of the nation. Just when one part of the country was settling down to celebrate an electoral victory, another was rising in protest against the same victory. The results, and the reactions to it, polarized the nation into two, one part burning, and the other condemning the burning part for being anti-democratic and urging the nation to move on. Three days into the riots which claimed many lives and caused very serious breaches in peace, trust and relationships between and within communities, the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) released a Press Statement signed by its Co-chairman, His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar, President General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and His Grace, Pastor Ayodele Joseph Oritsejafor, President, Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and President, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. NIREC is the highest government-funded consultative forum of Muslim and Christian leaders in Nigeria, and it wields considerable influence in government circles on religious matters.

The Statement, which was titled “Stop the Carnage”, expressed the shock and disappointment of the Sultan and Pastor Joseph Oritsejafor over the outbreak of violence as a result of the outcome of the Presidential elections. They advised Muslims and Christians not to allow political differences to divide the nation along ethnic and religious lines. They urged Nigerians to learn from the many lessons around us; and to learn from the mistakes of others. They cautioned that violence only begets violence, and at the end of the day, everyone loses. They called on political leaders to exercise restraint in their actions and utterances, and for all governments to be alive to the discharge of their constitutional responsibilities.

Many Nigerians thought that the advice of the religious leaders who lead NIREC was timely and responsible, particularly since what appeared to have started as a political protest was degenerating into a deadly religious conflict in many parts of the North. When General Muhammadu Buhari made statements distancing himself and his Party from the widespread violence, the nation also took note, and many people felt that it was the right thing to do. It took a few days for the carnage to stop. In those days, many people were killed, most in cold blood. Many more were injured. Thousands fled with nothing, and many are refugees even as we speak. People are still living in fear that we have not seen the last of this conflict, which appears to have shaken the entire foundations of our national existence. There have been many equally frightening reactions from some sections of Southern Nigeria to the riots, most involving disparaging remarks about the riots and entire people living in the far North.  

The agony of the victims and the fears of Nigerians were however dangerously compounded two days ago by the call for the arrest of the CPC candidate, General Muhammadu Buhari over the post-election violence by no other than Pastor Oritsejafor, the President of CAN who a few days ago jointly signed the Press Release with the Sultan, calling for peace. The Pastor was reported to have described the post-election violence as part of a religious agenda of the Muslim North, led by northern political leaders, who include General Buhari. The Pastor claimed that the political situation is merely a ploy to achieve a wider Muslim agenda in Nigeria, and demanded that the leaders of this plan be arrested and prosecuted.

Before the nation had digested this ominous outburst by a highly-placed religious leader, his Co-Chairman in NIREC, the Sultan of Sokoto released his own Statement in which he described Pastor Oritsejafor’s comments as unfortunate and regrettable. The Sultan cautioned that religious leaders, especially during times of crisis, should preach tolerance and mutual understanding and not promote dissension and discord. The Sultan warned all leaders and the media not to do anything that is capable of aggravating the situation. He dismissed Pastor Oritsejafor’s claim that the post-election violence was a plot hatched by Muslims as part of a religious agenda as preposterous and unfounded, describing the violence itself as most unfortunate. The Sultan said that it is important to remind the Pastor that a genuine search for peace should never be regarded as a tactical engagement, to be pursued only when it suits our immediate interests. He maintained that the search for peace is a life-long commitment which all leaders must take seriously.

It is now obvious that the riots which broke out after the Presidential elections of the 16^th of April have taken many casualties and prisoners, including the valued and responsible standing of our religious leaders. General Buhari and the CPC has, predictably, dismissed the Pastor’s demand for his arrest as unchristian and unfortunate, and as unrepresentative of the views of the generality of Christians. But the response of the Sultan is more significant in terms of its impact on Muslim-Christian relations in the country. When two leaders of the two dominant faiths disagree so publicly on a most serious matter with profound implications for peace, security and the survival of Nigeria, it gives every citizen a major cause for concern. The President-General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria are people who should lead Nigerian Muslims and Christians, speak for them, and assure them that we can all live in peace in a country ordained by God to be a multi-religious and multi-ethnic nation. If we cannot look up to them for comfort and assurances, where do we go? Is this the end of rapprochement between the leaders of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria? Can this public and damaging disagreement be contained by a third party, or is this the end of harmony at the very top? How are simple, law-abiding but frightened Muslims and Christians supposed to treat these disagreements? Have our religious leaders now joined partisan politics, or has politics now destroyed the last vestiges of respect and relative independence of our religious leaders?

These are very trying and frightening times for many Nigerians. Our religious leaders have joined the fight, so they have no time to pray for peace, or to provide comfort and leadership to ordinary folks. It is now up to every Nigerian Muslim and Christian to dig deep into our reserves of humanity, decency and propriety and find ways in which we can live as good Muslims and Christians, until sanity returns to our leaders. Nigeria does not need to go up in flames which will consume all of us. Certainly, a few among us have lit the fires of hatred and mutual destruction, but in the manner each individual behaves, we can salvage the nation and our lives from a looming disaster.

MORE WORK, LESS QUARREL

With just four days to the rescheduled elections of the National Assembly, the polity is being heated up by quarrels over issues related to the elections. These quarrels are worrying because they are unnecessary and confusing. They should stop, and constructive and helpful discussions on the way forward, and voter education should take their place. After all, the elections of last Saturday have been aborted, and the rescheduled ones will hold, unless someone somewhere succeeds in plunging our nation into an even bigger disaster than we witnessed last Saturday by deliberately subverting them.

          Politicians are actively engaged in a fruitless blame game and speculations over the failed April 2^nd elections. After the Chairman of INEC has accepted full responsibility for this embarrassing failure, and has apologized to the nation, the speculations and accusations being made by many politicians are really diversionary and unproductive. Whether Professor Jega was compelled to move the elections by one week, or he and his Commission did so voluntarily and legally is irrelevant. Those who still believe in Jega’s integrity should not doubt his ability to withstand pressure. Instead, we should accept and work towards winning the elections fairly and transparently.

          But a more worrying quarrel is one over a major problem that is yet unresolved. INEC insists that the Open Secret Ballot system will be used for all the elections. This system means that all voters will be accredited first between 8.am and 12.pm. Those who will vote, and who have been accredited will be counted, and their numbers  announced. They will then queue up and vote in secret, but will each cast their ballot in public. After, they may, if they choose, remain behind to witness the counting and the declaration of votes. This is its version of the Open-Secret Ballot System.

          On the other hand, security operatives and some political parties say this is not acceptable to them. They argue that the law does not allow voters to stay behind after voting, under whatever excuse. Their own interpretation will make it possible and necessary for them to enforce the law and disperse voters who, according to them, have no legal right to loiter around polling stations, or insist on being close enough physically to witness the counting and declaration of votes cast. One or two other parties do not like the idea of separate accreditation and voting, largely on the grounds that it will take too long for people to vote, and is not supported by law.

          With everyday we move nearer to the elections, the need to resolve this issue is becoming more and more pressing. Last Saturday, many voters went out to be accredited, vote, and stay behind to witness the count and declaration of votes cast, no matter what the security agencies said. Fortunately, we did not have to go through the experience of finding out the effect of this decision by large numbers of voters who had decided to stay put. Now is the time to ensure that we do not leave these grey areas with the potential for conflict unattended.

The issue of polling units is also important, and we need INEC and the political parties to address this issue properly. Many people who went out to vote last Saturday could not locate their polling units, and to date no one has clarified where they will vote. We also need a re-affirmation of the decision of INEC that voters will be accredited first, and then vote later. If this is still the case, the public needs to be informed well in advance, and polling officials must come out early to commence the process. At all cost, we must avoid the mistakes and the avoidable lapses we witnessed last week.

          A disturbing trend is emerging, in which some political parties are portrayed as sympathetic and friendly to Professor Jega, and others hostile to him. This is a dangerous trend. Professor Jega does not need any cheerleaders. Parties who are supporting him because they think he will be sympathetic to them will be seriously disappointed. Parties which are trying to intimidate him and create divisions within the Commission will find that they are wasting their time. Professor Jega’s explanations to the nation for the botched elections of last Saturday have clearly shown that no political party was responsible for his failures. He and his Commission alone are responsible, and they should left alone to speak for themselves, and defend their actions or account for their failures.

          INEC cannot afford to repeat basic mistakes which will alienate it completely from public sympathy. The reports of some mistakes on ballot papers are disturbing. If they are true, INEC needs to move quickly to remedy them, or let coustituencies where elections cannot hold know this well in advance. INEC needs to be on its toes to counter deliberate falsehood being peddled by some politicians and political parties, such as stories that it has already published Presidential run-off election ballot papers; or that there are serious splits within its ranks; or that some politicians are substituting trained NYSC people with their own ad hoc staff.

          INEC needs to re-assert its control over the electoral process. It is INEC, not the political parties which will conduct these elections. INEC should tell Politicians and Political Parties which are using it to settle scores to shut up, and let it get on with the job of organizing free and fair election. All this talk and speculation over Jega’s integrity and competence will only be verified on the days when Nigerians cast their votes. If the elections go well, we will forget his past failures. If he allows Politicians to mess up his job, he will single-handedly plunge this Country into a monumental constitutional crisis.                

STILL ON POLLING UNITS, BALLOT PAPERS AND VOTER EDUCATION

There are reports that during a very long and all-inclusive meeting on Tuesday 5^th of April, that is yesterday, INEC reviewed its preparations for the elections of the 9^th, 16^th and 26^th of April. It is reasonable to assume that INEC took a long and hard look at its failures and weaknesses which led to the cancellation of last Saturday’s elections and the rescheduling of all three elections. A number of important decisions were reported to have been taken by INEC so it is important that INEC communicates these decisions to the public effectively. Those issues that are still being examined  by INEC should also be decided upon long before Saturday, 9^th April so that voters will go to the polls informed and prepared to both vote, and behave as good citizens.

          One of the decisions reportedly adopted by INEC is that only a maximum of 300 voters will be allowed to vote at any one unit. The rationale behind this rather radical review is that it will allow for enough time to accredit voters before voting, and specifically address the huge problems we witnessed last Saturday when up to 1000 voters or more turned up at many polling centers to vote. Since INEC has insisted on a separate accrediting and voting processes, it is important that sufficient attention is paid to the management of both processes.

The reduction of the member of voters to a maximum of 300 will address the issue of number, but it has to be managed very carefully, because it could cause more problems than it will solve. In the fist place, what this decision will entail is that there will  have to be many more polling units. More election officials will have to be recruited, trained and deployed before Saturday. The Register of voters will have to be re-structured to conform with the new number at each polling unit, and voters will have to be availed an opportunity before accreditation to see where they will vote. Security personnel will be stretched to cover more units. Political Parties and candidates will have to recruit, pay and deploy more agents to new units. Election officials will need to be given exact numbers of ballot papers that are consistent with the numbers of voters at each unit. Polling units will have to be numbered properly, and be placed within wards and Local Government documentation so that they are properly and legally captured in the election formats. All these need to be done properly, on time, and the voting public needs to be adequately informed.

          A second problem relates to INEC’s capacity and ability to put these changes in place, and retain public confidence. There were many problems with people identifying their polling units last Saturday. Very large units had been broken up, and many voters who traditionally went to registration units which also doubled as voting centers, could not locate their names. There was much agitation, therefore, before the election were aborted. This new decision of INEC to limit the number of voters to 300 per unit will compound the situation, unless INEC succeeds in reaching out to the public and sorting out all problems relating to polling units and register of voters. Even the most optimistic and sympathetic observer of INECs capacities will acknowledge that this will be a very difficult task for INEC to accomplish. So a fair point to make is that while the idea of creating a manageable number of voters per units is good, it may be difficult to manage, given the poor record of INEC in public education and the very little time it has left to ensure that the change is given effect without widespread confusion and restiveness on Saturday.

          If the INEC leadership succeeds in ensuring that its officials at State and lower levels do their work properly, it will reduce many of the problems voters are likely to encounter on Saturday. The issue of locating voting centers is one. Another is making sure that polling officials do not play a fast one on voters by claiming that they have received fewer  ballot papers than the number of registered voters at polling units. Election materials and personnel must arrive on time and with all materials intact. Yet another is the need for clarifications on what voters should do after they cast their ballots.

          Nigerians will be hoping that INEC’s many problems have been adequately addressed in such way that they do not become the nation’s many problems. Many Nigerians still believe that professor Jega is a sincere and honest Nigerian, but many are intensely suspicious that he will be overcome by the tricks of some politicians and the weaknesses and greed of some of the people he has to work with. Already, evidences of lack of organizational capacity and serious logistical failures have exposed his weaknesses which can be exploited. There are dangerous speculations about the fate and custody of used and unused sensitive materials, such as ballot papers and marked registers. In an environment of deep and widespread suspicion regarding the conduct of polling officials and security agents, every step must be taken to ensure that the public is carried along with any changes or amendments INEC makes to its rules or plans.

          At this stage of the preparations for the elections, INEC must not do anything that will further compound or complicate its problems. The issue of a ceiling of 300 voters per unit must be handled very carefully, and if necessary, INEC should allow its Resident Electoral Commissioners some leverage to affect changes and amendments in field operations which are both practical and transparent. INEC must improve its public awareness campaigns, so that the public hears from it, not politicians or political parties, what it is planning or doing. It needs to evaluate all problems which were observed last Saturday, and take steps to correct them. The public needs to continue to support and believe in INEC, but INEC should also accord the concern and worries of the public the attention and respect they deserve.                                     

BREAKING-UP POLLING UNITS

In our commentary yesterday Wednesday, we took a critical look at reports that INEC has now decided that no polling unit will have more than 300 voters. The reported rationale behind this decision was that it will make accreditation easier, and accomplished within a maximum of four hours, so that voting can start from 12. 30pm. We commented extensively on the implications of this decision at this rather late stage in the preparations for the election, and drew attention to a number of challenges which the decision will encounter at the level of implementation. One of the problems we discussed is the absence of effective public awareness campaign by INEC to ensure that the voting public is made aware of this change, and appreciates its benefits, as well as be assured that it can be managed in such as manner as to guarantee both practicality and the credibility of the voting process.

          In order to ensure that we sustain our very high levels of public awareness campaign, our medium has made efforts to confirm or clarify that this is the correct position, and what the public should expect as a consequence of this decision. This had become necessary because we are aware that majority of voters do not know of this decision, and, on the basis of practical experience, many people are liable to suspect any change or innovation in the voting process.

          We have now confirmed that INEC’s decision is to break up large polling units with, say, 1000 to 1200 voters into 3 or 4 polling points. All the points will be around the same place. They will have their ballot box, officials with desks, and registers. The registers will be broken up alphabetically and assigned to the points in such a manner that accreditation and voting can take place without undue delays or manageable crowds. For the purposes of voting and counting procedures, all the points will be part of one unit, that is, votes cast at all points of the same unit will be treated as if they are cast in the same ballot box. Voting points are therefore only to assist in administration of polling activities in a polling unit, and are not additional, autonomous   units. 

          This means that voters should go to the same polling units they went to last week. If their polling unit is large, they should expect to see additional ballot box or boxes, accreditation desk or desks, one or two more polling officers, and a register of voters which has been broken up in alphabetical order. They will be assigned to a polling point according to their names, and they will be accredited and vote in accordance to the same rules and procedures. Voters should be patient while locating which point of the unit which will have their names, and cooperate with the officials.

          These explanations should help educate the public in terms of the decision to reduce the sizes of polling units by creating related polling points, but INEC still has to do a lot to ensure the success of the innovation. The recruitment and training of additional polling officials is important. It is hoped here that INEC already has a reserve of these officials, and will resist the temptation to tap into the ready pool of politically compromised list of non-NYSC ad hoc staff.

          Another challenge to meet is still crowd control. The breaking up of large polling units into polling points may make it easier to complete accreditation and commence and conclude voting within a shorter period, but it will require some considerable effort and deployment of staff to control and guide the public to ensure a peaceful and secure environment. The overwhelming majority of citizens will go out, vote and come back home. They will trust that President Jonathan’s commitment to one man one vote is genuine, and Professor Jega’s integrity will be sufficient to protect their votes. But a small minority which has very little faith in the system will insist on staying behind, observing the count and declaration of votes at polling units, and even, in some cases, escorting used balloting materials to collation centers. A few more will appoint themselves as vigilantes to ensure that no rigging takes place, and they may assume roles and responsibilities which is given to Presiding Officers and security agents at polling units and collation centers. No one should therefore expect that everything will go smoothly on Saturday, but if majority of voters know the rules, and understand what is expected of them, trouble makers will be isolated. This is why it is important that those who want free  and fair elections should go out only to vote, show discipline and be patient, and by all means resist antics  of those who may want to cause trouble  to get the  elections cancelled, or to steal over votes.

          This Saturday, it is possible that even more people will come out to vote than we saw last Saturday. If INEC has problems with missing or mixed-up ballot papers or other vital electoral materials in particular areas, States or Constituencies, it should have the courage to say so before people troop out again on Saturday. Security personnel should be well briefed on how to relate with the public, and on their specific roles in the voting process. It is very important that those who will be deployed to provide security cover and give the public the confidence to go out and vote conduct themselves in the appropriate manner. People will leave their homes rather early in the day, and some may need to move to one or two centers before they locate their registration units. These voters should not be harassed or discouraged.

          Nigerians will cooperate with INEC and all other agencies because they want to vote for their next set of leaders. If they do not believe that their votes will count, they will not make all the sacrifices they are making. On Saturday, they will demonstrate their faith one more time in INEC and their nation’s future. All those with responsibility to assist them to vote, and to have their votes counted properly should do so. If they do not, and the Saturday elections fail substantially to meet the aspirations of our people, the next two elections will be in serious jeopardy.   

BREAKING-UP POLLING UNITS

In our commentary yesterday Wednesday, we took a critical look at reports that INEC has now decided that no polling unit will have more than 300 voters. The reported rationale behind this decision was that it will make accreditation easier, and accomplished within a maximum of four hours, so that voting can start from 12. 30pm. We commented extensively on the implications of this decision at this rather late stage in the preparations for the election, and drew attention to a number of challenges which the decision will encounter at the level of implementation. One of the problems we discussed is the absence of effective public awareness campaign by INEC to ensure that the voting public is made aware of this change, and appreciates its benefits, as well as be assured that it can be managed in such as manner as to guarantee both practicality and the credibility of the voting process.

          In order to ensure that we sustain our very high levels of public awareness campaign, our medium has made efforts to confirm or clarify that this is the correct position, and what the public should expect as a consequence of this decision. This had become necessary because we are aware that majority of voters do not know of this decision, and, on the basis of practical experience, many people are liable to suspect any change or innovation in the voting process.

          We have now confirmed that INEC’s decision is to break up large polling units with, say, 1000 to 1200 voters into 3 or 4 polling points. All the points will be around the same place. They will have their ballot box, officials with desks, and registers. The registers will be broken up alphabetically and assigned to the points in such a manner that accreditation and voting can take place without undue delays or manageable crowds. For the purposes of voting and counting procedures, all the points will be part of one unit, that is, votes cast at all points of the same unit will be treated as if they are cast in the same ballot box. Voting points are therefore only to assist in administration of polling activities in a polling unit, and are not additional, autonomous   units. 

          This means that voters should go to the same polling units they went to last week. If their polling unit is large, they should expect to see additional ballot box or boxes, accreditation desk or desks, one or two more polling officers, and a register of voters which has been broken up in alphabetical order. They will be assigned to a polling point according to their names, and they will be accredited and vote in accordance to the same rules and procedures. Voters should be patient while locating which point of the unit which will have their names, and cooperate with the officials.

          These explanations should help educate the public in terms of the decision to reduce the sizes of polling units by creating related polling points, but INEC still has to do a lot to ensure the success of the innovation. The recruitment and training of additional polling officials is important. It is hoped here that INEC already has a reserve of these officials, and will resist the temptation to tap into the ready pool of politically compromised list of non-NYSC ad hoc staff.

          Another challenge to meet is still crowd control. The breaking up of large polling units into polling points may make it easier to complete accreditation and commence and conclude voting within a shorter period, but it will require some considerable effort and deployment of staff to control and guide the public to ensure a peaceful and secure environment. The overwhelming majority of citizens will go out, vote and come back home. They will trust that President Jonathan’s commitment to one man one vote is genuine, and Professor Jega’s integrity will be sufficient to protect their votes. But a small minority which has very little faith in the system will insist on staying behind, observing the count and declaration of votes at polling units, and even, in some cases, escorting used balloting materials to collation centers. A few more will appoint themselves as vigilantes to ensure that no rigging takes place, and they may assume roles and responsibilities which is given to Presiding Officers and security agents at polling units and collation centers. No one should therefore expect that everything will go smoothly on Saturday, but if majority of voters know the rules, and understand what is expected of them, trouble makers will be isolated. This is why it is important that those who want free  and fair elections should go out only to vote, show discipline and be patient, and by all means resist antics  of those who may want to cause trouble  to get the  elections cancelled, or to steal over votes.

          This Saturday, it is possible that even more people will come out to vote than we saw last Saturday. If INEC has problems with missing or mixed-up ballot papers or other vital electoral materials in particular areas, States or Constituencies, it should have the courage to say so before people troop out again on Saturday. Security personnel should be well briefed on how to relate with the public, and on their specific roles in the voting process. It is very important that those who will be deployed to provide security cover and give the public the confidence to go out and vote conduct themselves in the appropriate manner. People will leave their homes rather early in the day, and some may need to move to one or two centers before they locate their registration units. These voters should not be harassed or discouraged.

          Nigerians will cooperate with INEC and all other agencies because they want to vote for their next set of leaders. If they do not believe that their votes will count, they will not make all the sacrifices they are making. On Saturday, they will demonstrate their faith one more time in INEC and their nation’s future. All those with responsibility to assist them to vote, and to have their votes counted properly should do so. If they do not, and the Saturday elections fail substantially to meet the aspirations of our people, the next two elections will be in serious jeopardy.   

AGAIN, JEGA DISAPPOINTS NIGERIANS

For the third time in one week, Professor Attahiru Jega has announced the failure of INEC to conduct elections in Nigeria. The fist two were outright postponements of the National Assembly elections. Last Saturday, on the 2^nd of April, he announced the cancellation of elections when the exercise was in full progress, citing the lack of result sheets as an excuse. Painful and wasteful as it was, Nigerians accepted the excuse that you couldn’t have an election without result sheets. The elections were postponed to Monday, 4^th April by Jega. Nigerians got ready to go out and vote on that day. But the next day, which was Sunday, he again said the elections of Monday 4^th were no longer feasible, and will take place on the 9^th instead. The elections planned for the 9^th and 16^th were also postponed by one week each. And now, two days before the National Assembly elections which had been postponed twice, he has announced that elections will not hold in 15 Senatorial Districts and 48 Federal Constituencies. The excuse is the same. Essential voting documents for the affected areas were either missing or wrongly printed. Many Nigerians will not vote for their Senators and House of Representative candidates until the 26^th of April, the same day appointed for the elections of Governors and Members of State Assembly. On that day, they will have to vote for four candidates: Governor, Senator, Member, Federal House of Representatives and Member, State House of Assembly.

To say that Nigerians will be disappointed with Professor Jega will be a major understatement. This act of postponing the elections for the third time in some parts of Nigeria over a matter which is the most basic electoral requirement, that is, ballot papers, has raised questions regarding the Chairman’s competence, and will give Nigerians real reasons to doubt whether this INEC can actually conduct the 2011 elections. Until now, many Nigerians had accepted all of Professor Jega’s excuses, and many have praised his courage and humility when he apologized and accepted responsibility for the embarrassing levels of incompetence which led to an election being conducted without result sheets. In spite of his monumental failure to address the most basic elements of an election, many people thought his integrity and courage were enough to sustain their faith in him.

When he again shifted the elections from the 4^th to 9^th of April, alarm bells started ranging in many quarters. If Jega had organized the elections on the 4^th, just two days after he postponed them, they would have been the worst organized elections even, with neither result sheets nor the correct ballot papers in many parts of Nigeria. Did he not know how ill-prepared he was when he gave himself only two days to conduct the elections? Again, many Nigerians continued to pray for, and support him and INEC, because the elections had to be conducted creditably only by Jega and INEC. But his decision-making capacity was being severely suspected in many circles, and it was becoming obvious that there are major gaps in his linkages with vital sections of the electoral machinery, such as his Commissioners and Staff.

The nation believed that Jega and INEC had plugged all loopholes, and addressed all shortages for tomorrow is election, which it had postponed twice. This is why it was bitterly disappointing that INEC again has to postpone elections into 15 Senatorial Districts and 48 Federal Constituencies because of the need to print, re-print or correct printed ballot papers. Printing or reprinting of ballot papers is so basic to organizing an election that the failure to do so can only be attributed to an unacceptable level of incompetence. One or two mistakes are acceptable, but to continuously inform the nation that you have failed at the most elementary stage is to take the patience and faith of Nigerians for granted. Those who think that Professor Jega and INEC are being primed to fail have no more grounds to make these baseless assumptions. INEC’s spectacular failures have been exposed, and the fate of the 2011 elections in the hands of Professor Jega and INEC need our prayers and higher levels of vigilance. There is no excuse this time for this partial postponement, and no one should make any for Jega. More important, Nigerians should be more prepared to press and ask Jega and INEC  how prepared they are now to conduct the Presidential and Gubernatorial and State Assembly elections.

The seemingly casual manner in which INEC cancelled elections in some Senatorial and House of Representatives elections is disturbing, and should raise our collective levels of concern. But the legal angle to the postponement is also worrisome. Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2010 gives INEC the powers to postpone elections on account of cogent and verifiable emergencies. Even the most forgiving critic of INEC will question whether the failure to print or receive result sheets and ballot papers for which you received full funding and had ample time to print represent cogent and verifiable emergencies. INEC apparently thinks it does, and that it can postpone elections many times over under the same excuse. But the nation has to contend with section 47 of the Electoral Act 2010 which makes it mandatory that voting in any particular election under the Act shall take place on the same day and time by the Commission throughout the Federation. This provision will appear to have taken away from INEC the power to postpone elections into to the same offices in some parts of the country, while others are allowed to go ahead. There will be some Nigerians who may go to court to challenge INEC’s decision to postpone the National Assembly elections in some parts of the country on the basis of this provision. If they succeed in making the case that the postponement is illegal, the nation will go through a major constitutional crisis, and the entire national assembly elections may be cancelled and organized again, if there is time before the expiration of the life of this administration.

The decision to reschedule the elections to the 26^th, and merge them with the Gubernatorial and State Assembly elections will also pose serious problems for millions of voters who will be required to cast four ballots. Given the levels of literacy and public awareness, the decision to ask voters to choose Governors, Senators, Members of House of Representatives and Members of State Assemblies all in one election will deprive millions of Nigerians the opportunity to choose under less challenging or confusing environment than their fellow citizens who will vote tomorrow. This will be wrong, and certainly less demanding than if they voted with the Presidential elections next week Saturday when they will vote for a President, a Senator and Member, Federal House of Representatives. Again, if Nigerians who will not vote tomorrow suffer handicaps, they will all have to do with the failure of INEC to address the most basic requirement of credible elections.

If there are no legal or other restrictions on other Nigerians who have been enabled to vote by INEC tomorrow, Saturday 9^th April, they should all go out en-mass to vote. Although we have no reasons to believe that INEC’s incompetence is part of a grand plan to frustrate the nation’s deep yearning for free, fair and credible elections, we should nonetheless insist that INEC improves its managerial capacities. Clearly, while Jega’s credibility is important, his competences are also vital to the success of the elections. We have received enough apologies from Jega and INEC, and all Nigerians hope that the other two elections are safe in their hands.

Nigerians should treat INEC’s weaknesses and disappointments as one of the prices we have to pay for credible elections. While INEC should be reminded that our patience and tolerance have limits, we should not let its problems discourage us. This time, Nigerians want to elect their own leaders fairly and openly. INEC should help us, not cause us more problems.                

STAND-ALONE JONATHAN

        

A stranger to recent political events in Nigerian politics would have been both curious and bemused to see President Jonathan on our television screens stand alone and answer questions in what is supposed to be a debate with his fellow candidates for the presidency of Nigeria. Even for those who have followed the maneuverings and the arguments around the presidential debates would have some strong opinions either in favor of the President’s solo performance, or against it. When the history of Nigerian politics is written, this curious phenomenon will be recorded as a footnote in the chapter which deals with the attitudes and strategies of people who plan to lead our nation.

          Our earlier comments on the presidential debates have drawn attention to the fact that quite possibly, less than 1% of the voting public would have watched these debates. The other 99% either have no interest; or no electricity; or no television sets; or are too busy earning their daily bread to bother to listen to promises from people who have either failed the nation, or have no capacity to lead Nigeria effectively towards growth and development. Those who did listen or watched will find it difficult to distinguish between the candidates, largely because those who participated in the debates boycotted by President Jonathan and his deputy have had no experience in steering the ship of the Nigerian State. While they had visions, plans and programmes which may transform Nigeria, they had no chance to bounce them against a President whose Party has been in office and for the past 12 years, and is responsible for the current state of the Nigerian economy and society.

          If the debate involving other contestants and their running mates, except the PDP’s, was a tame affair, the solo appearance of President Jonathan and Vice President Namadi Sambo had even less value. Events which were to give Nigerians a chance to measure candidates against each other were turned into circuses, and while the candidates of the ACN, ANPP and CPC, among others had a chance to sell themselves, the PDP lost much ground for appearing to shun the challenge either for fear of looking worse than others, or because it is contemptuous of public and voter opinion. The President’s men may think that they secured for him a few hours of unchallenged and uninterrupted monopoly of the viewing audience by creating for him his own version of the debate, but they only succeeded in creating a damaging public relations outing for him. His rivals paid him back with his own coins by boycotting a debate of his own choosing, and, in addition, successfully made the argument that because the kitchen was too hot for the President and Vice President, they built their own kitchens where they determined the temperature. A confident President should engage his opposition, or have good reasons not to do so at all. If he wanted airtime to campaign as a PDP candidate, he should have sought for, and paid for one.     

          These debates have had little effect on the manner Nigerians will determine who becomes President.  They are targeted at an elite, which is not easily persuaded by a televised debate in their selection of candidates. The overwhelming majority of those who will vote have not even seen or heard of the debates. But the debates do say something about the psychology of the Parties, particularly the ruling party. The impression being created is that the PDP is on the defensive in this election on all fronts, a position it has not been in since 1999. In the far north, there are large pockets of intense resentment against it, not just because of the large following of the CPC and, to a lesser extent ACN and ANPP, but also because of the residual anger over the issue of zoning and rotation. In the South-West, it is fighting for its life against the twin assaults of a resurgent ACN and Labor Party. In the Middle Belt, the CPC and ACN are threatening to uproot it substantially as the dominant party. In the South South, where one would expect a solid base for the PDP, it is being challenged by rival parties in such a manner that it is clearly unsure of its chances at all stages and levels of the elections. In the South East, where there are major dissentions among PDP chieftains, the PDP is also not showing much confidence.

          The President appears to have acknowledged the shaky grounds on which the PDP is entering the contest, and this explains why he has recently targeted religious and traditional rulers, labor and organized groups in closed door meetings. PDP Governors have also all gone back to their drawing boards, and unimaginable quantities of money are being spent to plug loopholes in the PDP campaign strategy.

          Still, the opposition will be wrong to write off the PDP. This is a party with the biggest spread and the largest war chest. It has people vastly experienced in the politics of electoral victory currently going over every fine detail to see how the party’s weaknesses can be turned into its strength. It has the largest number of people who stand to lose the most if the Party fails to win the Presidency and retain or gain more Governorship slots. There are many people in the PDP who cannot imagine Nigeria under a different Party’s leadership, and when push comes to shove, they will pitch in to salvage its fortunes.

          The reality today is that the political space is much wider, and a few major political parties have a fighting chance of capturing substantial chunks of the political offices at stake. But all these depend on INEC and other agencies who will work with it to ensure that the votes of all Nigerians are counted well, and in the end, they will count in terms of determining who leads us. Millions of Nigerians, from those who suffered for days to register as voters; to those who campaigned for parties and candidates; to officials who trained to officiate during elections, to politicians who spent billions in campaign funds, have all invested heavily to see that these elections as free, fair and credible. Billions of our funds have been given to INEC and security agencies to make sure that materials are available; staff are recruited and trained; and security is adequate. All these investments must not be wasted by having an election which will be widely disputed. All Nigerians want is that those who are declared winners will be those who actually won. If this is done, no political party will complain, or urge its supporters to reject the result.         

WHY TOMORROW IS IMPORTANT

Tomorrow, Saturday 2^nd of April, most of the 73 million Nigerians who have registered as voters will go out to vote in the first of three elections. They will decide those who will be Senators and Members of the Federal House of Representatives. Tomorrow, we will also test the effectiveness of all the preparations which INEC and the Security agencies, Non-Governmental and Civil Society Organizations have made to ensure that the elections are free, fair and credible.

          The National Assembly elections, which will hold tomorrow, will determine the quality of people who make the laws under which we live in this country. The legislature is a most vital institution in a democratic system, because it not only checks and balances the power of the executive, but it also makes laws which directly determine the quality of our lives. Legislators should therefore be citizens of unquestionable integrity, possess vast knowledge and a transparent commitment to the public good. People who will make laws for us must first of all show the highest respect for the laws of the land and of the public. One way of judging them is by the manner they have run their campaigns. If we are satisfied that they have respect for the law, and have run honest campaigns devoid of corruption and violence, then they deserve our consideration and possible votes. On the other hand, if they are merely interested in going to Abuja to make money, and have spent huge amounts just to get there, or remain there, then this is the time to let them know that we have the power to say no.

          The image of members of our National Assembly has been severely dented in the recent past. Revelations regarding the huge amounts of take-home pays of our lawmakers, as well as the huge overall cost of the legislature on our public resources should make it necessary for us to elect honest and knowledgeable people who will serve, rather than give themselves huge amounts as salaries and allowances. On a number of occasions, legislators have attempted to make or amend our laws in such a way as to specifically favor them. The nation had to rise on a number of occasions against these attempts, and although on a number of occasions they retreated, the state of our amended Electoral Act is a good example of how legislators can damage the democratic system by imposing their own interests in our laws. Legislators who receive our mandate and disappear in Abuja until another election, and who therefore do not render account of their participation in legislative activities to their constituencies would be judged in tomorrow’s elections. By all means, Nigerians should avoid electing, or re-electing Senators or Members, House of Representatives who simply want to be rich, since being one these days is a guarantee to personal wealth.

          Tomorrow’s elections are also important because they will test INEC’s preparations and the patience and commitment of citizens who have registered to vote. Since accreditation will commence at 8. am, and actual voting will only start at 12.30 p.m, voters should be patient. It may be useful to advise voters to eat well before they leave home, because they may stay long at polling units. It is also important that voters show discipline and self-control in terms of respecting electoral rules. The current controversies on whether voters who choose to stay behind after voting to observe the counting and declaration of vote should be cleared by the authorities. The way things stand, there is likely to be much confusion and possibly some violence if security agencies, particularly soldiers and police insist that voters must leave the polling premises; and political parties instruct their supporters to stay put.

          Tomorrow is also important because we will know whether INEC has prepared well to make sure that officials and materials are at all polling centres on time; whether polling units including many which may have been broken up due to size are easily identifiable; whether the register of voters is as good as INEC says it is; whether those who will conduct themselves in a violent manner can be contained and isolated by security agencies; and whether our fears and apprehensions are without foundation.    

          Tomorrow is important because if enough honest and decent Nigerians come out to vote, they will limit or eliminate any damage which election riggers and those who plan frighten us away from voting or observing the collating process through organized violence. It is important that we all go out and vote, so that our numbers can give each other comfort and security. It is important we vote tomorrow because legislators are important to our lives, and the parties we support need us to vote for them so that they will have Legislators, Governors and a President. Just voting for Governor or President alone will not do. Let us go out tomorrow in large numbers, conduct ourselves well, and make the next two elections easier.         

AFTER THE BAD START

Very little will be served at this stage in blaming the Chairman of INEC for the huge disappointment of Saturday. The most important point to be made is that INEC now shows a weakness and a failing  which has cast a major doubt over its organizational ability, and these weaknesses must be addressed in such a way that they are not further exploited by those whose interests will not be served by free, fair and credible elections in our country. In our news analysis of Friday last week, one day before the ill-fated elections of Saturday 2^nd, and which we titled “why tomorrow is important”, we mentioned that the National Assembly elections will test the readiness of INEC and the veracity of all claims that it has put place every arrangement to ensure that conducts free, fair and credible elections. Most Nigerians are bitterly disappointed but are willing to allow Professor Jega another chance to make up for his disappointing failure. His apologies are accepted by most Nigerians, but we will not forgive him if he does not learn from these mistakes and plug all loopholes in the arrangements for the elections of the 9^th, 16^th and 26^th of April.

Now that the elections have been shifted by one week each, we will expect Professor Jega to work with his Commissioners and his staff to make sure that they are hitch-free. INEC and the world have seen how tens of millions of Nigerians turned out to vote, and how they accepted the excuses and apologies of Professor Jega, in spite of the hardships and disappointments they endured. No one should take the people’s patience and tolerance for granted. Even if arrangements for the three elections are near-perfect, Nigerians will be suspicious that some people will use INEC’s setbacks to perfect a system which will exploit the logistic and administrative lapses we are witnessing to rig the elections.

The few days left for INEC to improve on its performance should be utilized well. Even without the botched elections of last Saturday, it was obvious that old problems of past elections were evident, in spite of INEC’s assurances that it has learnt the right lessons from the past. Officials and materials arrived much later than the voting public in many places. Many voters could not find their names on the Register of Voters and had little or no assistance in terms of where else to go and vote. The arrangements for separate accreditation and voting processes failed due largely to late arrival of officials and or materials. Crowd control and security arrangements failed in many polling centers and the few security personnel on the ground maintained their distance from the voting process.  

There is also the need, now that INEC has a few more days, to authoritatively address the issue of what is the correct position for the public in terms of staying behind in or around the polling unit after they cast their votes. Nigerians went to last Saturday’s botched elections with a lot of tension around conflicting directives on staying behind at the polling unit after voting. INEC Chairman says voters who want to, can stay behind after voting to witness the counting and declaration of votes. The National Security Adviser, the Police and the Military say that the law is clear that voters must leave the polling centre after voting, and if they choose to hang around, they must be at least 300 meters away from the polling unit.  There has been some rather public and angry exchanges between INEC and the security agencies, and right up to the ill-fated Saturday elections, the correct position remained unclear.

Many Nigerians believe that there is a sinister motive behind the demand that they must leave the vicinity of the polling unit once they vote. They think it is a ploy to rig the elections behind their backs. Those who have responsibility to tell Nigerians what the law says, and the responsibility to enforce it should take cognizance of the public’s concern, and engage INEC and the political parties in the next few days so that a position that both satisfies the law and protects the public against breaching it and ensuring that their fears are addressed, is arrived at. Nigerians want to know how they can both respect the law, and protect their votes, simple. Mercifully, we did not reach the stage last Saturday, when the voting public will decide what it wanted to do, irrespective of what the Electoral Act says. It is vital that some serious discussions are held between INEC and security agencies between now and Saturday, so that these issues are sorted out, and the public is informed.

There are also legitimate concerns regarding the specific roles of security agencies, particular the military. Now that we have a few more days to the first election, there will be the need to inform the public more adequately, what exactly they are supposed to do. INEC also needs to ensure that it replaces all used sensitive materials, and takes steps to stop any of its staff from disclosing any voting results from last Saturday’s incomplete elections. Election officials who failed to perform to expectations last Saturday should not be sent to the field. In many States such as Kaduna, where there were reports that N.Y.S.C were replaced at the last minute by politician’s nominees as ad hoc staff steps must be taken to correct this. Nation-wide standards must be maintained; and if NYSC people are available, they must be given preference over other ad-hoc staff.

The only way Professor Jega will make up for our bitter disappointment is by making sure that the elections he is now going to conduct are hitch-free, and credible. Even at this moment there are people out there who are thinking of new ways to rig these elections. Professor Jega’s failure to conduct last Saturday’s election will encourage them into thinking that he is human after all, and his weaknesses can be exploited. Everything must be done by the INEC Chairman and the Commission to ensure that the elections we will have on the 9^th, 16^th and 26^th of April are acceptable and credible.