Wednesday, 1 August 2012
THE JUNE 12 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS NEITHER FREE NOR FAIR
By
Abubakar Siddique Mohammed,
Director,
Centre for Democratic Development Research and Training,
P.M.B 1077, Hanwa, Zaria,
Nigeria.
Was the June 12th, 1993 presidential election free and fair? Was it the “freest and fairest election” in Nigerian history? If it was free and fair and it was actually won by Chief M.K.0 Abiola, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party, what electoral mandate did it give him? Did it give him the mandate to become the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Commander - in - Chief of its Armed Forces, for a period of four years, from 27th August, 1993, to 26th August, 1997, under the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution of 1989? Or, did that election and its results, give him a special mandate, higher than the mandate given by any previous or, subsequent, Nigerian election, to become the President of Nigeria for four years, from any day he is installed, during his life time? That is, did Chief Abiola, on June 12th 1993, obtain a mandate from the electorate of Nigeria, which is not defined, or limited, by any time framework, any constitution, any laws, and even the existence of the other essential political institutions of civilian democratic government in a federal Nigeria, like the federal legislatures and the state executives and legislatures?
These are some of many questions millions of Nigerians are asking as their response to the deafening media campaign, since the death of General Sani Abacha, to have Chief M. K. O Abiola installed by the present military regime as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Commander - in - Chief of its Armed Forces, heading a "Government of National Unity", outside the provision of any constitution, for the next four years. These questions are, not only not receiving any answers, but are even being shut out of the media coverage of the current political debate about what to do with the current transition programme to return Nigeria to civilian democracy on Thursday, 1st October, 1998, with the swearing - in of a democratically elected President on that day.
These questions cannot be avoided, because they address some very important political issues, which go far beyond the fate of Chief M. K. O. Abiola and what is called "his mandate". These issues are central to the building of democratic civilian rule in Nigeria on solid foundations. Nigeria cannot start rebuilding democracy without a clear public understanding of, what actually is a free and fair election and the meaning and the basis of the electoral mandate derived from such an election.
The campaign for what is called “the actualisation of June 12th” is promoting the false impression that the freedom and fairness of an election is determined solely by what happens on the day of the election; and has nothing to do with the whole political process of party formation, party control, the nomination of candidates, the election campaign and the extent of the democratic space within which these are conducted.
There are six aspects of an election which determine whether, or not, it is democratic, free and fair. The first aspect has to do with the composition of the electorate. The second aspect has to do with the formation and control of the political parties putting up candidates for the election. The third aspect has to do with the nomination of the candidates. The fourth aspect has to do with the election campaign. The fifth aspect has to do with the polling, the counting and recording of votes and the announcement of results. The sixth aspect has to do with the operations of the judicial system in its handling of the election petitions.
The Parties and the Electorate
The extent to which an election is free and fair, is determined by the freedom with which the adult citizens of a country can participate in it as voters. In an electoral system in which primaries are conducted by political parties for members of each party to elect their candidates, this freedom of participation has to include the freedom to form political parties which can contest elections and to vote for, or against, candidates in the party primaries. This freedom was denied to the citizens of Nigeria in the presidential election primaries of 1993 which produced Chief M. K. O Abiola as one of the two presidential candidates. The convention of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) which was held in Jos on Saturday, 27th March, 1993, in which 5,215 delegates voted and Chief Abiola won with a majority of 272 votes, cannot by any democratic standards be regarded as free and fair. This is because the S.D.P itself was decreed into existence in 1989 by the Armed Forces Ruling Council. In fact, the formation of the SDP and the National Republican Convention (NRC), violated all universally acceptable democratic principles of party formation.
Before the SDP and the NRC were imposed on the people of Nigeria, by the then ruling military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, 38 political parties and associations had been freely formed to contest for the elections which were to return the country to civilian rule. These parties and associations were, for the avoidance of doubt:
1. People’s Liberation Party (PLP)
2. People’s Front of Nigeria (PFN)
3. Nigerian Peoples Welfare Party (NPWP)
4. Nigerian National Congress (NNC)
5. Peoples Solidarity Party (PSP)
6. Nigerian Labour Party (NLP)
7. The Republican Party of Nigeria (RPN)
8. National Union Party (NUP)
9. Liberal Convention (LC)
2
10. Patriotic Nigerian Party (PNP)
11. Ideals Peoples Party (IPP)
12. All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP)
13. Peoples Patriotic Party (PPP)
14. United Nigerian Democratic Party(UNDP)
15. Democratic People’s Congress (DPC)
16. People’s Party of Nigeria (PPN)
17. Black But Beautiful Party of Nigeria (BBBPN)
18. Welfare Party of Nigeria (WPN)
19. Liberal New Movement Party (LNMP)
20. Movement of Nationalists And Dynamos (MONAD)
21. Brotherhood Club of Nigeria (BCN)
22. United Front Party of Nigeria (UFP)
23. Abuja United Front (AUF)
24. New Democratic Alliance (NDA)
25. People’s Alliance Party (PAP)
26. The All People’s Party (TAPP)
27. People’s Progressive Party (PPP)
28. National Development Party (NDP)
29. People’s Convention Party (PCP)
30. Oriental Progressive (OP)
31. Nigerian Emancipation Party (NEP)
32. The Voice Group (Bendel) (THVP)
33. Commoners People’s Party (CPP)
34. Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC)
35. Nigerian Farmers Revolutionary Council (NFRC)
36. Northern Youth Council (NYC)
37. Socialist Party of Workers, Farmers And Youth (SPWFY)
38. Nigerian Republican People’s Party (NRPP)
Of the 38 political parties formed, 13 had applied for registration by 6 p.m of July 19th, 1989, the deadline fixed for the submission of application. These were:
1. Peoples Front Party of Nigeria
PFN
2. Nigerian People’s Welfare Party
NPWP
3. Nigerian National Congress
NNC
4. People’s Solidarity Party
PSP
5. The Republican Party of Nigeria
RPN
6. National Union Party
NUP
7. Liberal Convention
LC
8. National Labour Party
NLP
9. Patriotic Nigerian Party
PNP
10. Ideal People’s Party
IPP
11. All Nigeria People’s Party
ANPP
12. People’s Patriotic Party
PPP
13. United Nigeria Democratic Party
UNDP
3
Among these parties, were several which in the words of General Ibrahim Babangida himself, had “deep roots” in Nigeria politics. Indeed, veterans of the National Council for Nigeria and Camerouns (NCNC), Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), Action Group(A.G), and United Middle-Belt Congress (UMBC) of the First Republic, many of whom had played active roles in the struggle for Nigerian independence were found in these parties. Also found, were activists of the People’s Redemption Party (PRP), the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP), the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), the Nigerian People’s party (NPP), and the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) of the Second Republic.
Impossible conditions were set by the military for the registration of political parties. Satisfying the conditions for registration did not only require the parties to spend hundreds of millions of naira, it also required them to put in place elaborate organisation, logistics, equipment and personnel, which even the military government could not fulfil, even when they later banned these parties and decreed the SDP and the NRC into existence. It was clear that the regime had imposed these impossible conditions because it had no intention of handing over to a democratically elected civilian government. This was known to Chief M. K. O Abiola as he himself said in a lecture he gave in a public meeting in London, on 14th August, 1993, to justify his anger at what Babangida later did to him. He said, “Yes, Babangida is my friend. We have been friends for quite a long time. The first time he started this democratic race of his, I asked him whether indeed there was a vacancy, since I do not like applying for a job which is not vacant”. When he satisfied himself that the office was not vacant, that means General Babangida had no intention of handing over, Chief Abiola issued a statement to the effect that “over the last few weeks, thousands of people have urged me to stand for the presidency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whilst some have counselled otherwise. Having carefully considered both sides of the argument, I have decided that I will not offer myself for this great office at this time”
In a broadcast to the nation, on the 8th of October, 1989, General Ibrahim Babangida announced that “the thirteen political associations are dissolved with immediate effect.” Not only were these parties banned, they were also forced to close their offices and stop all activities, or risk having their members being arrested and detained by the military regime. The military regime then created two political parties, the SDP and the NRC, and directed all those who were interested in politics to join either of the two.
Thus, the SDP, the primaries of which Chief Abiola won to become the candidate in the June 12th presidential elections, and the NRC, had their constitutions and manifestos produced by the military and formally launched by General Babangida at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Press Centre in Dodan Barracks on Monday, December 4, 1989. In his broadcast to the nation, on October 9th, 1989, General Babangida said that “The draft constitution of these parties as approved by the Armed Forces Ruling Council shall be identical. The National Electoral Commission shall submit (these) draft manifestoes to the Armed Forces Ruling Council for preliminary approval within two weeks from today…The draft manifestoes may be amended at the national conventions of each party subject to NEC guidelines. They shall then be sent to the Armed Forces Ruling Council, which
4
shall approve the amendments, after which the draft becomes a party manifesto”. Thus, not only had the parties no independence whatsoever, their members and even the ordinary Nigerian voter were denied even the choice of programmes, as the parties had “identical manifestoes” which they cannot in reality amend.
This undemocratic situation was captured by the editorial in The Guardian newspaper of Friday, 22nd December, 1989, which states that : “Whether it is in the area of the economy, education, health, etc. that one takes, we find that there is little fundamental difference between the manifestoes of the parties. Even their preambles, which should reveal the basic philosophy and the nature of social order they want to construct, fail to provide any meaningful differences between the two parties. And if parties do not differ in their basic philosophy of society, then, differences over strategies become cosmetics. Their language, uniformly bland, is bereft of the commitment and dedication to goals and ideals that should inform manifestoes,.”
The SDP and the NRC were not only creations of the military regime, but they were also funded by that regime. Their state, local government and national offices were built by the military government. The Federal Military Government alone voted N676.5 million for the construction of 21 party offices in the state capitals, while the state military governors were ordered to construct two offices each for the parties, in each of the local government areas of the country. They budgeted a total sum of N546.6 million for this, making the total expenditure on the offices of these two parties, to come to the huge sum of N1.22 billion, equivalent, at that time to US$111.2 million.
Even the membership cards of the two parties and their symbols and colours were dictated by the military regime of General Babangida. What is very significant with regards to the status of the June 12th election is that the adoption of the two-party system was what Chief M. K. O Abiola had canvassed for since 1985. In an interview in the New Nigerian of 31st May, 1985, Chief Abiola, “commended a two-party system and described the five party system as a ‘ridiculous rubbish’ because it was expensive to run and did not guarantee a better government.”
Clearing the Field for Abiola
Clearing the field for the emergence of Chief Abiola as the SDP presidential candidate by the military government of General Babangida started since 1991. First, General Babangida announced a ban on most people who had held public offices and who wanted to become presidential candidates. When some of these politicians refused to accept such a ban and continued with their political activities, they were arrested and detained on 2nd December, 1991, and later arraigned before the Transition to Civil Rule Tribunal, in order to frighten and intimidate them. These politicians were:
1. Major General Shehu Musa Yar ‘Adua (rtd)
2. Alhaji Lateef Jakande
3. Chief Bola Ige
4. Chief Solomon Lar
5. Alhaji Muhamadu Abubakar Rimi
6. Chief Christian Onoh
5
7. Dr. Olusola Saraki
8. Chief Francis Arthur Nzeribe
9. Alhaji Bello Maitama Yusuf
10. Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu
11. Mr. Paul Unongo
12. Alhaji Lawal Kaita
After this, the effort of clearing the field for General Babangida’s best friend moved to the organisation of the party presidential primaries. One of the conditions for free and fair election is the conduct of free and fair election of candidates by members of the political parties in the primaries. These primaries must be organised by the elected officials of the parties concerned. This was the case with the presidential primaries in the two political parties conducted in October, 1992. However, these primaries which were won by the late Major General Shehu Yar Adua, in the SDP, and Alhaji Adamu Ciroma, in the NRC, were annulled on 16th October, 1992, on the spurious ground that they were not properly done. The candidates, together with all other contestants, were banned again from contesting for the office of the president. Many others were cowered into silence.
It was no other person but Chief M.K.O Abiola who rose to defend this brazenly unfair decision by General Babangida saying in The African Guardian of 10th March , 1993 that “ I do not agree with those who believe that it was the government that sabotaged the presidential primaries.”
When Chief Abiola joined the SDP to contest for the presidency, the ground had been further cleared for him. First, all the elected officials of the parties, from the federal down to the state and local government levels were dismissed by General Babangida. In their place, the military regime appointed administrators at the national and state levels, on the 26th of January, 1993 to administer the parties. In all, 88 sole administrators and executive secretaries were appointed to run the parties in all the states of the federation, including Abuja. All the officials were answerable not to the members of the parties they were administering but to the Armed Forces Ruling Council headed by General Babangida through the National Electoral Commission.
The undemocratic, and regimented, nature of the parties is even more glaring in the case of the SDP. For, in the period 26th January to 27th March, 1993, when the party’s primaries which produced Chief Abiola as presidential candidate took place, the party was administered by a retired air force general, and former military governor of Kano State, Air Vice Marshal Stephen Shekari. This airforce general presided over the Jos convention of 27th March, 1993, which produced Chief Abiola as the SDP’s flag-bearer.
As far as the composition of the party electorate which voted for Chief Abiola to become the SDP’s flag-bearer is concerned, there was nothing free or fair about it. There was also nothing democratic, or free and fair, about the formation and control of the party which nominated him. Therefore, Chief Abiola’s candidature had its roots in the military regimentation of the electoral process, in violation of all the norms of freedom and fairness in democratic elections.
6
The Election Campaign
Any attempt at honestly, and rigorously, understanding the June 12th, issue, cannot ignore the role of Chief M. K.O Abiola in the campaign for the perpetuation of military rule in Nigeria. Far from being a democrat, as we are now made to understand by those shouting for “the actualisation of June 12”, Abiola is one of the leading Nigerian civilian public figures who had always supported, and financed, military coups, as a means of changing governments. Thus, when he fell out with the National Party of Nigeria, in 1982, over his failure to get elected as the chairman of the party in order to be in a position to contest as its presidential candidate in 1983, he resigned from the NPN, claiming that he had left active politics, while in reality he was busy conspiring with the military to overthrow the democratically elected government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari. This, they finally did, with his financial and media support on the 31st December, 1983, with his bosom friend, General Ibrahim Babangida, emerging as the Chief of Army Staff.
When the sterility and repression of the General Buhari’s military regime became obvious and its draconian decrees widely hated, Chief M. K. O. Abiola came to the defence of the regime, adding that “Any body who is a threat to the government can be restricted”. As his newspaper, National Concord of 12th January, 1985 reported, he was “putting his full weight behind the curtailment of dangerous elements within the system” These “dangerous elements” were the 1979 and 1983 democratically elected civilian political leaders at the state and federal levels, who had been locked up in jail for over one year without proper legal trial. Those who were tried, were tried before secret military tribunals.
When the Buhari regime came under intense public pressure to allow people to discuss the political future of the country, Chief Abiola was one of the very few leading, civilian, Nigerians who gave yet another spirited defence of the military regime, by saying in the New Nigeria of 31st May, 1985 that, “we have a government headed by Major General Buhari, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. What is of concern to me is that he rules Nigeria well to the betterment of every Nigerian That is all. It doesn’t bother me how long he stay there. The longer he stays from my point of view the more stability we will have.”
When General Babangida seized power on 27th August, 1985, Chief Abiola became even closer to the military regime, because Babangida was his close friend and he also financed this coup. He defended almost every action of that regime , stating blandly that “there was nothing they have not done that I don’t particularly like”, as reported in the National Concord of 28th January, 1986.
In spite of some hiccups in his relationship with the regime, connected with the actions of some his journalists and his children, Chief Abiola was seen by the generality of Nigerians as General Babangida’s man. The main pillar of his election campaign was that he was so close to General Babangida and the military, that Nigerians thought, he should be voted for to get rid of the military, who would be willing to hand over to him, as he has been very close to them, at every level.
7
This view was reinforced by the fact that the security apparatus of the regime had imposed a light-weight businessman, Alhaji Bashir Tofa, as the candidate of the other party, the NRC. For, while Chief Abiola is giant among Nigerian businessmen, Alhaji Bashir Tofa remained, up to his nomination, essentially an errand boy of Brigadier General Halilu Akilu, head of Babangida’s security services; as he has earlier been an errand boy of Kano NPN tycoons, who made him the National Financial Secretary of that party.
The election campaign was therefore heavily loaded in favour of M. K. O. Abiola, by this very fact of his personal and warm friendship with General Babangida and the light weight rival candidate produced for him by the military regime.
Not only was the campaign made easier by the puny status of Alhaji Bashir Tofa, as against Chief Abiola, even in Kano, but the security apparatus of the regime promoted a campaign against Alhaji Bashir Tofa publicising accusations of dishonesty in the oil business against him.
Chief Abiola, meanwhile, continued to bask in his aura of belonging to the magic circle of the closest personal friends of General Babangida, A few months before he joined the SDP to contest for the presidency, General Babangida sent him a warm message of congratulations on the occasion of his 55th birthday, on 25th August, 1992. The National Concord of 26th August, 1992, the former editor of which was a close aide to Chief Abiola, Mr. Duro Onabule, who became General Babangida’s Chief Press Secretary, reported that the message was unique. In it, General Babangida said, : “…you have not stalled in your philanthropic activities for which I assure you history will duly reward you most appropriately. It is also noteworthy that your business continue to widen, all aimed at providing job opportunities and enhanced standard of living for our fellow countrymen. May Allah grant you more years of useful service to the nation and humanity.”
The Conduct of the Election
The conduct of the election of June 12th did not make it the freest and fairest in Nigeria. In the first place, it is well known that Chief Abiola used massive amounts of money to bribe election officials and security personnel to ensure his victory. For, in spite of the way the campaign had greatly favoured him, he was not the one to take any chances with his wily friend, General Babangida. Everybody knows that with regards to the bribing and corrupting of election officials and security personnel, the 1993 presidential election was worse than the 1979 presidential election. As far as the turn out of voters was concerned, the number of people who came out to vote in 1979 was 16.8 million, while in 1993, with a larger population, only 13.6 million voted in the presidential election.
There was no time for election petitions, since the results were annulled before they were formally announced. Therefore, it is very difficult to assess the freedom and fairness with which it was conducted and with which the judicial machinery for it operated.
8
The Conspiracy
The fact that the results of 12th of June Presidential election were annulled by the military regime of General Babangida cannot by itself make the election free and fair. The evidence available clearly establishes that, right from the way the two parties were imposed by military diktat, funded, housed and controlled by the regime, and had their primaries and campaigns largely determined by the regime, there was very little that was democratic in the whole process culminating in the June 12th, 1993, election.
The only inference one can draw from the facts available, is that a conspiracy to install Chief M.K.O Abiola was, at the last minute, aborted by General Babangida and others, perhaps including General Abacha. This conspiracy may actually go back to the early 1980s, when these two generals began plotting with Chief Abiola, and others, against the democratically elected government of Nigeria; a conspiracy which successfully bore fruit on 31st December, 1983, when, the then Brigadier General Sani Abacha, announced the overthrow of the democratically elected governments of Nigeria and M. K. O. Abiola led in the campaign to support this act of treason, and General Babangida took up the strategic position of Chief of Army Staff, which in August, 1985 he relinquished to General Abacha on becoming Head of State.
Indications of such a conspiracy can be seen in the way Chief M. K. O. Abiola consulted very closely with General Babangida over who was to be his running mate, even after, according to him, he had felt that his friend was no longer with him. He, on the 14th August, 1993, said: “ We got to Jos, the first shocker for Babangida was that I won in Jos very narrowly but I won…the problem is that I need a Christian as a running-mate…The President (Babangida) was suggesting that I should pick Bafyau…So I went back to see Babangida the next day Friday. He was still insisting on Bafyau. It became very clear that we were on a collision course…I phoned the President at midnight before the announcement and told him that out of courtesy I must let him know that there is no way I can pick Bafyua. I was going to announce Babagana Kingibe in the morning.”
Other indications of Chief Abiola’s deep conspiratorial involvement with the military, particularly with the two generals most influential in the overthrow of our last democratic governments, also come out in the way he went to express such public confidence in General Abacha’s commitment to hand over power to him as soon as the latter had executed the November 17, 1993 military coup. Speaking at SDP Kaduna State office, at Kawo, Kaduna, on 28th September, 1993, he said: “I really commend General Sani Abacha because out of love of the country, he puts his common sense, experience, tact and intellect to ease out (the former President, General Ibrahim Babangida). I have no doubt that it is that common sense, that patriotism, that intellect that will enable him to ease out his Babangida surrogates..but for people like Sani Abacha this country would have plunged into bloodshed”.
If, what Mrs Titilayo Abiola told The Post Express in an interview on Sunday, 28th June, 1998, that Chief M. K. O. Abiola was so much looking forward to coming out and meeting General Abacha, that he cried when he heard of his death is
9
true, it further indicates that his connections with General Abacha, at least as far as he was concerned, remained a very important part of his life, even after the latter has locked him up for over four years.
It is difficult at this stage to fathom the depth and ramifications of the layers, upon layers, of conspiracy involved. But there can be no doubt that an election cannot, suddenly, become free and fair, just because a military President falls out with one of the candidates in a presidential election, with whom he had a long standing conspiratorial relations against democracy in Nigeria, and goes ahead to annul the victory of his co-conspirator.
The Facts and the Figures
The fact that those campaigning for the “actualisation of the June 12th election” refused to face is that out of 36.7 million Nigerians who registered to vote in that election, only 7.7 million voted for Chief Abiola while 5.9 million voted for Alhaji Bashir Tofa and 23.1 million abstained. In other words, 29.0 million Nigerian voters, equal to 79% of the registered voters refused to vote for Chief Abiola, either by abstaining, or by voting for the NRC candidate. How can a candidate, who fails to obtain the support of 8 out every 10 voters in a country, be made to appear to have obtained a special mandate to rule that country, irrespective of time, of laws and of the constitution? Certainly, in democratic elections of the type we have, a candidate can be validly elected, even with a smaller proportion of the registered voters voting for him, or her. But to claim that a candidate has a mandate to rule a country even five years after the election, there surely should be better evidence of solid electoral support, in fact, repeated over a number of elections.
It is not only when looking at the figures for the whole country, that we find that the overwhelming majority of Nigerians refused to vote for him but even in the South-western States of Nigeria, 61.1% of the voters either abstained, or voted, for Alhaji Bashir Tofa, thus effectively refusing to vote for M. K. O Abiola. In Lagos State, where it is claimed he has his main support base, 63% of the registered voters refused to vote for him by either abstaining or by voting for Alhaji Bashir Tofa. The table below brings out these facts clearly.
THE JUNE 12 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
WAS NEITHER FREE NOR FAIR
By
Abubakar Siddique Mohammed,
Director,
Centre for Democratic Development Research and Training,
P.M.B 1077, Hanwa, Zaria,
Nigeria.
Was the June 12th, 1993 presidential election free and fair? Was it the “freest and fairest election” in Nigerian history? If it was free and fair and it was actually won by Chief M.K.0 Abiola, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party, what electoral mandate did it give him? Did it give him the mandate to become the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Commander - in - Chief of its Armed Forces, for a period of four years, from 27th August, 1993, to 26th August, 1997, under the relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution of 1989? Or, did that election and its results, give him a special mandate, higher than the mandate given by any previous or, subsequent, Nigerian election, to become the President of Nigeria for four years, from any day he is installed, during his life time? That is, did Chief Abiola, on June 12th 1993, obtain a mandate from the electorate of Nigeria, which is not defined, or limited, by any time framework, any constitution, any laws, and even the existence of the other essential political institutions of civilian democratic government in a federal Nigeria, like the federal legislatures and the state executives and legislatures?
These are some of many questions millions of Nigerians are asking as their response to the deafening media campaign, since the death of General Sani Abacha, to have Chief M. K. O Abiola installed by the present military regime as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Commander - in - Chief of its Armed Forces, heading a "Government of National Unity", outside the provision of any constitution, for the next four years. These questions are, not only not receiving any answers, but are even being shut out of the media coverage of the current political debate about what to do with the current transition programme to return Nigeria to civilian democracy on Thursday, 1st October, 1998, with the swearing - in of a democratically elected President on that day.
These questions cannot be avoided, because they address some very important political issues, which go far beyond the fate of Chief M. K. O. Abiola and what is called "his mandate". These issues are central to the building of democratic civilian rule in Nigeria on solid foundations. Nigeria cannot start rebuilding democracy without a clear public understanding of, what actually is a free and fair election and the meaning and the basis of the electoral mandate derived from such an election.
The campaign for what is called “the actualisation of June 12th” is promoting the false impression that the freedom and fairness of an election is determined solely by what happens on the day of the election; and has nothing to do with the whole political process of party formation, party control, the nomination of candidates, the election campaign and the extent of the democratic space within which these are conducted.
There are six aspects of an election which determine whether, or not, it is democratic, free and fair. The first aspect has to do with the composition of the electorate. The second aspect has to do with the formation and control of the political parties putting up candidates for the election. The third aspect has to do with the nomination of the candidates. The fourth aspect has to do with the election campaign. The fifth aspect has to do with the polling, the counting and recording of votes and the announcement of results. The sixth aspect has to do with the operations of the judicial system in its handling of the election petitions.
The Parties and the Electorate
The extent to which an election is free and fair, is determined by the freedom with which the adult citizens of a country can participate in it as voters. In an electoral system in which primaries are conducted by political parties for members of each party to elect their candidates, this freedom of participation has to include the freedom to form political parties which can contest elections and to vote for, or against, candidates in the party primaries. This freedom was denied to the citizens of Nigeria in the presidential election primaries of 1993 which produced Chief M. K. O Abiola as one of the two presidential candidates. The convention of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) which was held in Jos on Saturday, 27th March, 1993, in which 5,215 delegates voted and Chief Abiola won with a majority of 272 votes, cannot by any democratic standards be regarded as free and fair. This is because the S.D.P itself was decreed into existence in 1989 by the Armed Forces Ruling Council. In fact, the formation of the SDP and the National Republican Convention (NRC), violated all universally acceptable democratic principles of party formation.
Before the SDP and the NRC were imposed on the people of Nigeria, by the then ruling military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, 38 political parties and associations had been freely formed to contest for the elections which were to return the country to civilian rule. These parties and associations were, for the avoidance of doubt:
1. People’s Liberation Party (PLP)
2. People’s Front of Nigeria (PFN)
3. Nigerian Peoples Welfare Party (NPWP)
4. Nigerian National Congress (NNC)
5. Peoples Solidarity Party (PSP)
6. Nigerian Labour Party (NLP)
7. The Republican Party of Nigeria (RPN)
8. National Union Party (NUP)
9. Liberal Convention (LC)
2
10. Patriotic Nigerian Party (PNP)
11. Ideals Peoples Party (IPP)
12. All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP)
13. Peoples Patriotic Party (PPP)
14. United Nigerian Democratic Party(UNDP)
15. Democratic People’s Congress (DPC)
16. People’s Party of Nigeria (PPN)
17. Black But Beautiful Party of Nigeria (BBBPN)
18. Welfare Party of Nigeria (WPN)
19. Liberal New Movement Party (LNMP)
20. Movement of Nationalists And Dynamos (MONAD)
21. Brotherhood Club of Nigeria (BCN)
22. United Front Party of Nigeria (UFP)
23. Abuja United Front (AUF)
24. New Democratic Alliance (NDA)
25. People’s Alliance Party (PAP)
26. The All People’s Party (TAPP)
27. People’s Progressive Party (PPP)
28. National Development Party (NDP)
29. People’s Convention Party (PCP)
30. Oriental Progressive (OP)
31. Nigerian Emancipation Party (NEP)
32. The Voice Group (Bendel) (THVP)
33. Commoners People’s Party (CPP)
34. Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC)
35. Nigerian Farmers Revolutionary Council (NFRC)
36. Northern Youth Council (NYC)
37. Socialist Party of Workers, Farmers And Youth (SPWFY)
38. Nigerian Republican People’s Party (NRPP)
Of the 38 political parties formed, 13 had applied for registration by 6 p.m of July 19th, 1989, the deadline fixed for the submission of application. These were:
1. Peoples Front Party of Nigeria
PFN
2. Nigerian People’s Welfare Party
NPWP
3. Nigerian National Congress
NNC
4. People’s Solidarity Party
PSP
5. The Republican Party of Nigeria
RPN
6. National Union Party
NUP
7. Liberal Convention
LC
8. National Labour Party
NLP
9. Patriotic Nigerian Party
PNP
10. Ideal People’s Party
IPP
11. All Nigeria People’s Party
ANPP
12. People’s Patriotic Party
PPP
13. United Nigeria Democratic Party
UNDP
3
Among these parties, were several which in the words of General Ibrahim Babangida himself, had “deep roots” in Nigeria politics. Indeed, veterans of the National Council for Nigeria and Camerouns (NCNC), Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), Action Group(A.G), and United Middle-Belt Congress (UMBC) of the First Republic, many of whom had played active roles in the struggle for Nigerian independence were found in these parties. Also found, were activists of the People’s Redemption Party (PRP), the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP), the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), the Nigerian People’s party (NPP), and the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) of the Second Republic.
Impossible conditions were set by the military for the registration of political parties. Satisfying the conditions for registration did not only require the parties to spend hundreds of millions of naira, it also required them to put in place elaborate organisation, logistics, equipment and personnel, which even the military government could not fulfil, even when they later banned these parties and decreed the SDP and the NRC into existence. It was clear that the regime had imposed these impossible conditions because it had no intention of handing over to a democratically elected civilian government. This was known to Chief M. K. O Abiola as he himself said in a lecture he gave in a public meeting in London, on 14th August, 1993, to justify his anger at what Babangida later did to him. He said, “Yes, Babangida is my friend. We have been friends for quite a long time. The first time he started this democratic race of his, I asked him whether indeed there was a vacancy, since I do not like applying for a job which is not vacant”. When he satisfied himself that the office was not vacant, that means General Babangida had no intention of handing over, Chief Abiola issued a statement to the effect that “over the last few weeks, thousands of people have urged me to stand for the presidency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whilst some have counselled otherwise. Having carefully considered both sides of the argument, I have decided that I will not offer myself for this great office at this time”
In a broadcast to the nation, on the 8th of October, 1989, General Ibrahim Babangida announced that “the thirteen political associations are dissolved with immediate effect.” Not only were these parties banned, they were also forced to close their offices and stop all activities, or risk having their members being arrested and detained by the military regime. The military regime then created two political parties, the SDP and the NRC, and directed all those who were interested in politics to join either of the two.
Thus, the SDP, the primaries of which Chief Abiola won to become the candidate in the June 12th presidential elections, and the NRC, had their constitutions and manifestos produced by the military and formally launched by General Babangida at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Press Centre in Dodan Barracks on Monday, December 4, 1989. In his broadcast to the nation, on October 9th, 1989, General Babangida said that “The draft constitution of these parties as approved by the Armed Forces Ruling Council shall be identical. The National Electoral Commission shall submit (these) draft manifestoes to the Armed Forces Ruling Council for preliminary approval within two weeks from today…The draft manifestoes may be amended at the national conventions of each party subject to NEC guidelines. They shall then be sent to the Armed Forces Ruling Council, which
4
shall approve the amendments, after which the draft becomes a party manifesto”. Thus, not only had the parties no independence whatsoever, their members and even the ordinary Nigerian voter were denied even the choice of programmes, as the parties had “identical manifestoes” which they cannot in reality amend.
This undemocratic situation was captured by the editorial in The Guardian newspaper of Friday, 22nd December, 1989, which states that : “Whether it is in the area of the economy, education, health, etc. that one takes, we find that there is little fundamental difference between the manifestoes of the parties. Even their preambles, which should reveal the basic philosophy and the nature of social order they want to construct, fail to provide any meaningful differences between the two parties. And if parties do not differ in their basic philosophy of society, then, differences over strategies become cosmetics. Their language, uniformly bland, is bereft of the commitment and dedication to goals and ideals that should inform manifestoes,.”
The SDP and the NRC were not only creations of the military regime, but they were also funded by that regime. Their state, local government and national offices were built by the military government. The Federal Military Government alone voted N676.5 million for the construction of 21 party offices in the state capitals, while the state military governors were ordered to construct two offices each for the parties, in each of the local government areas of the country. They budgeted a total sum of N546.6 million for this, making the total expenditure on the offices of these two parties, to come to the huge sum of N1.22 billion, equivalent, at that time to US$111.2 million.
Even the membership cards of the two parties and their symbols and colours were dictated by the military regime of General Babangida. What is very significant with regards to the status of the June 12th election is that the adoption of the two-party system was what Chief M. K. O Abiola had canvassed for since 1985. In an interview in the New Nigerian of 31st May, 1985, Chief Abiola, “commended a two-party system and described the five party system as a ‘ridiculous rubbish’ because it was expensive to run and did not guarantee a better government.”
Clearing the Field for Abiola
Clearing the field for the emergence of Chief Abiola as the SDP presidential candidate by the military government of General Babangida started since 1991. First, General Babangida announced a ban on most people who had held public offices and who wanted to become presidential candidates. When some of these politicians refused to accept such a ban and continued with their political activities, they were arrested and detained on 2nd December, 1991, and later arraigned before the Transition to Civil Rule Tribunal, in order to frighten and intimidate them. These politicians were:
1. Major General Shehu Musa Yar ‘Adua (rtd)
2. Alhaji Lateef Jakande
3. Chief Bola Ige
4. Chief Solomon Lar
5. Alhaji Muhamadu Abubakar Rimi
6. Chief Christian Onoh
5
7. Dr. Olusola Saraki
8. Chief Francis Arthur Nzeribe
9. Alhaji Bello Maitama Yusuf
10. Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu
11. Mr. Paul Unongo
12. Alhaji Lawal Kaita
After this, the effort of clearing the field for General Babangida’s best friend moved to the organisation of the party presidential primaries. One of the conditions for free and fair election is the conduct of free and fair election of candidates by members of the political parties in the primaries. These primaries must be organised by the elected officials of the parties concerned. This was the case with the presidential primaries in the two political parties conducted in October, 1992. However, these primaries which were won by the late Major General Shehu Yar Adua, in the SDP, and Alhaji Adamu Ciroma, in the NRC, were annulled on 16th October, 1992, on the spurious ground that they were not properly done. The candidates, together with all other contestants, were banned again from contesting for the office of the president. Many others were cowered into silence.
It was no other person but Chief M.K.O Abiola who rose to defend this brazenly unfair decision by General Babangida saying in The African Guardian of 10th March , 1993 that “ I do not agree with those who believe that it was the government that sabotaged the presidential primaries.”
When Chief Abiola joined the SDP to contest for the presidency, the ground had been further cleared for him. First, all the elected officials of the parties, from the federal down to the state and local government levels were dismissed by General Babangida. In their place, the military regime appointed administrators at the national and state levels, on the 26th of January, 1993 to administer the parties. In all, 88 sole administrators and executive secretaries were appointed to run the parties in all the states of the federation, including Abuja. All the officials were answerable not to the members of the parties they were administering but to the Armed Forces Ruling Council headed by General Babangida through the National Electoral Commission.
The undemocratic, and regimented, nature of the parties is even more glaring in the case of the SDP. For, in the period 26th January to 27th March, 1993, when the party’s primaries which produced Chief Abiola as presidential candidate took place, the party was administered by a retired air force general, and former military governor of Kano State, Air Vice Marshal Stephen Shekari. This airforce general presided over the Jos convention of 27th March, 1993, which produced Chief Abiola as the SDP’s flag-bearer.
As far as the composition of the party electorate which voted for Chief Abiola to become the SDP’s flag-bearer is concerned, there was nothing free or fair about it. There was also nothing democratic, or free and fair, about the formation and control of the party which nominated him. Therefore, Chief Abiola’s candidature had its roots in the military regimentation of the electoral process, in violation of all the norms of freedom and fairness in democratic elections.
6
The Election Campaign
Any attempt at honestly, and rigorously, understanding the June 12th, issue, cannot ignore the role of Chief M. K.O Abiola in the campaign for the perpetuation of military rule in Nigeria. Far from being a democrat, as we are now made to understand by those shouting for “the actualisation of June 12”, Abiola is one of the leading Nigerian civilian public figures who had always supported, and financed, military coups, as a means of changing governments. Thus, when he fell out with the National Party of Nigeria, in 1982, over his failure to get elected as the chairman of the party in order to be in a position to contest as its presidential candidate in 1983, he resigned from the NPN, claiming that he had left active politics, while in reality he was busy conspiring with the military to overthrow the democratically elected government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari. This, they finally did, with his financial and media support on the 31st December, 1983, with his bosom friend, General Ibrahim Babangida, emerging as the Chief of Army Staff.
When the sterility and repression of the General Buhari’s military regime became obvious and its draconian decrees widely hated, Chief M. K. O. Abiola came to the defence of the regime, adding that “Any body who is a threat to the government can be restricted”. As his newspaper, National Concord of 12th January, 1985 reported, he was “putting his full weight behind the curtailment of dangerous elements within the system” These “dangerous elements” were the 1979 and 1983 democratically elected civilian political leaders at the state and federal levels, who had been locked up in jail for over one year without proper legal trial. Those who were tried, were tried before secret military tribunals.
When the Buhari regime came under intense public pressure to allow people to discuss the political future of the country, Chief Abiola was one of the very few leading, civilian, Nigerians who gave yet another spirited defence of the military regime, by saying in the New Nigeria of 31st May, 1985 that, “we have a government headed by Major General Buhari, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. What is of concern to me is that he rules Nigeria well to the betterment of every Nigerian That is all. It doesn’t bother me how long he stay there. The longer he stays from my point of view the more stability we will have.”
When General Babangida seized power on 27th August, 1985, Chief Abiola became even closer to the military regime, because Babangida was his close friend and he also financed this coup. He defended almost every action of that regime , stating blandly that “there was nothing they have not done that I don’t particularly like”, as reported in the National Concord of 28th January, 1986.
In spite of some hiccups in his relationship with the regime, connected with the actions of some his journalists and his children, Chief Abiola was seen by the generality of Nigerians as General Babangida’s man. The main pillar of his election campaign was that he was so close to General Babangida and the military, that Nigerians thought, he should be voted for to get rid of the military, who would be willing to hand over to him, as he has been very close to them, at every level.
7
This view was reinforced by the fact that the security apparatus of the regime had imposed a light-weight businessman, Alhaji Bashir Tofa, as the candidate of the other party, the NRC. For, while Chief Abiola is giant among Nigerian businessmen, Alhaji Bashir Tofa remained, up to his nomination, essentially an errand boy of Brigadier General Halilu Akilu, head of Babangida’s security services; as he has earlier been an errand boy of Kano NPN tycoons, who made him the National Financial Secretary of that party.
The election campaign was therefore heavily loaded in favour of M. K. O. Abiola, by this very fact of his personal and warm friendship with General Babangida and the light weight rival candidate produced for him by the military regime.
Not only was the campaign made easier by the puny status of Alhaji Bashir Tofa, as against Chief Abiola, even in Kano, but the security apparatus of the regime promoted a campaign against Alhaji Bashir Tofa publicising accusations of dishonesty in the oil business against him.
Chief Abiola, meanwhile, continued to bask in his aura of belonging to the magic circle of the closest personal friends of General Babangida, A few months before he joined the SDP to contest for the presidency, General Babangida sent him a warm message of congratulations on the occasion of his 55th birthday, on 25th August, 1992. The National Concord of 26th August, 1992, the former editor of which was a close aide to Chief Abiola, Mr. Duro Onabule, who became General Babangida’s Chief Press Secretary, reported that the message was unique. In it, General Babangida said, : “…you have not stalled in your philanthropic activities for which I assure you history will duly reward you most appropriately. It is also noteworthy that your business continue to widen, all aimed at providing job opportunities and enhanced standard of living for our fellow countrymen. May Allah grant you more years of useful service to the nation and humanity.”
The Conduct of the Election
The conduct of the election of June 12th did not make it the freest and fairest in Nigeria. In the first place, it is well known that Chief Abiola used massive amounts of money to bribe election officials and security personnel to ensure his victory. For, in spite of the way the campaign had greatly favoured him, he was not the one to take any chances with his wily friend, General Babangida. Everybody knows that with regards to the bribing and corrupting of election officials and security personnel, the 1993 presidential election was worse than the 1979 presidential election. As far as the turn out of voters was concerned, the number of people who came out to vote in 1979 was 16.8 million, while in 1993, with a larger population, only 13.6 million voted in the presidential election.
There was no time for election petitions, since the results were annulled before they were formally announced. Therefore, it is very difficult to assess the freedom and fairness with which it was conducted and with which the judicial machinery for it operated.
8
The Conspiracy
The fact that the results of 12th of June Presidential election were annulled by the military regime of General Babangida cannot by itself make the election free and fair. The evidence available clearly establishes that, right from the way the two parties were imposed by military diktat, funded, housed and controlled by the regime, and had their primaries and campaigns largely determined by the regime, there was very little that was democratic in the whole process culminating in the June 12th, 1993, election.
The only inference one can draw from the facts available, is that a conspiracy to install Chief M.K.O Abiola was, at the last minute, aborted by General Babangida and others, perhaps including General Abacha. This conspiracy may actually go back to the early 1980s, when these two generals began plotting with Chief Abiola, and others, against the democratically elected government of Nigeria; a conspiracy which successfully bore fruit on 31st December, 1983, when, the then Brigadier General Sani Abacha, announced the overthrow of the democratically elected governments of Nigeria and M. K. O. Abiola led in the campaign to support this act of treason, and General Babangida took up the strategic position of Chief of Army Staff, which in August, 1985 he relinquished to General Abacha on becoming Head of State.
Indications of such a conspiracy can be seen in the way Chief M. K. O. Abiola consulted very closely with General Babangida over who was to be his running mate, even after, according to him, he had felt that his friend was no longer with him. He, on the 14th August, 1993, said: “ We got to Jos, the first shocker for Babangida was that I won in Jos very narrowly but I won…the problem is that I need a Christian as a running-mate…The President (Babangida) was suggesting that I should pick Bafyau…So I went back to see Babangida the next day Friday. He was still insisting on Bafyau. It became very clear that we were on a collision course…I phoned the President at midnight before the announcement and told him that out of courtesy I must let him know that there is no way I can pick Bafyua. I was going to announce Babagana Kingibe in the morning.”
Other indications of Chief Abiola’s deep conspiratorial involvement with the military, particularly with the two generals most influential in the overthrow of our last democratic governments, also come out in the way he went to express such public confidence in General Abacha’s commitment to hand over power to him as soon as the latter had executed the November 17, 1993 military coup. Speaking at SDP Kaduna State office, at Kawo, Kaduna, on 28th September, 1993, he said: “I really commend General Sani Abacha because out of love of the country, he puts his common sense, experience, tact and intellect to ease out (the former President, General Ibrahim Babangida). I have no doubt that it is that common sense, that patriotism, that intellect that will enable him to ease out his Babangida surrogates..but for people like Sani Abacha this country would have plunged into bloodshed”.
If, what Mrs Titilayo Abiola told The Post Express in an interview on Sunday, 28th June, 1998, that Chief M. K. O. Abiola was so much looking forward to coming out and meeting General Abacha, that he cried when he heard of his death is
9
true, it further indicates that his connections with General Abacha, at least as far as he was concerned, remained a very important part of his life, even after the latter has locked him up for over four years.
It is difficult at this stage to fathom the depth and ramifications of the layers, upon layers, of conspiracy involved. But there can be no doubt that an election cannot, suddenly, become free and fair, just because a military President falls out with one of the candidates in a presidential election, with whom he had a long standing conspiratorial relations against democracy in Nigeria, and goes ahead to annul the victory of his co-conspirator.
The Facts and the Figures
The fact that those campaigning for the “actualisation of the June 12th election” refused to face is that out of 36.7 million Nigerians who registered to vote in that election, only 7.7 million voted for Chief Abiola while 5.9 million voted for Alhaji Bashir Tofa and 23.1 million abstained. In other words, 29.0 million Nigerian voters, equal to 79% of the registered voters refused to vote for Chief Abiola, either by abstaining, or by voting for the NRC candidate. How can a candidate, who fails to obtain the support of 8 out every 10 voters in a country, be made to appear to have obtained a special mandate to rule that country, irrespective of time, of laws and of the constitution? Certainly, in democratic elections of the type we have, a candidate can be validly elected, even with a smaller proportion of the registered voters voting for him, or her. But to claim that a candidate has a mandate to rule a country even five years after the election, there surely should be better evidence of solid electoral support, in fact, repeated over a number of elections.
It is not only when looking at the figures for the whole country, that we find that the overwhelming majority of Nigerians refused to vote for him but even in the South-western States of Nigeria, 61.1% of the voters either abstained, or voted, for Alhaji Bashir Tofa, thus effectively refusing to vote for M. K. O Abiola. In Lagos State, where it is claimed he has his main support base, 63% of the registered voters refused to vote for him by either abstaining or by voting for Alhaji Bashir Tofa. The table below brings out these facts clearly.
Chief M. K. O. Abiola’s Performance in the June 12
Presidential Election in the South Western States of Nigeria.
State
Total number of registered voters
Total number of votes for Abiola
% of registered voters who voted for Abiola
% of registered voters who did not vote for Abiola.
Lagos
2, 397, 421
883, 965
36.9
63
Ogun
941, 889
425, 725
45.4
54.6
Ondo
1,767, 896
803, 024
45.4
54.6
Osun
1, 056, 690
365,024
21.0
79
Oyo
1,597, 280
538,001
33.6
66.4
Total
7, 761, 176
3,015,739
38.9
61.1
Source: Newswatch, June 28th 1993, p.10 10
Those leaders of NADECO, and the pro-democracy groups who threaten that if Chief M. K. O Abiola is not installed as President of Nigeria, because he won the 12th of June election, the Yorubas will break away, have to explain how the political fate of Abiola who 61.1% of the registered Yoruba voters refused to vote for can be used to legitimise the secession of the Yorubas from Nigeria. Is it because this majority does not have any rights because they choose to refuse to vote for Chief M. K. O. Abiola ? Clearly, this secessionist threat has nothing to do with justice, equity, and the democratic rights of the great majority of Yoruba voters, who refused to vote for Abiola on June 12th, 1993, and, therefore, cannot be expected to fight for “the actualisation of the mandate” which they never gave him.
Conclusion
Clearly, Chief Abiola did not obtain any democratic mandate through a free and fair election, for, no such election took place June 12th, 1993. But, even, granted that in spite of all its severe limitation, that election reflected the will of the Nigerian electorate, at that point in time, and in those special circumstances, it does not provide a basis for Chief Abiola to be installed as a civilian dictator, outside any democratic political party, without any elected federal legislatures, without any, elected, state executive and legislatures, or, elected, local government councils; leaving him effectively propped up by the military, in this so-called “Government of National Unity”. For, those who advocated that he should head this government are asking for this; including his taking the powers to appoint sole administrators over the states and the local governments, for the next two years.
If, as has been clearly established above, he received no genuine, democratic, mandate to rule Nigeria, in the years 1993-1997, how can he now have this mandate, after 1997? Is it because Chief Abiola is placed on a special pedestal of representing the Yorubas, even though 61.1% of voters in the Yoruba states refused to vote for him? Those advocating this, whether explicitly or implicitly, have to explain what it has to do with democracy or national unity. In fact, they have to explain what it has to do with any form of constitutional government under the rule of law. For, to install Chief Abiola to head a “Government of National Unity” simply because of his tribe, or race, is to actually establish a Government of National Disunity and National Confusion.
For, such an imposition by the present military regime, even for one month, as NADECO has been pleading in Abuja, has no basis in democracy, but amounts to an unprincipled and dangerous compromise with the military and civilian conspirators who, since 31st December, 1983, have taken our country backwards from where it had reached on the weak, but sound, democratic, system we were gradually building in the Second Republic, on the basis of the 1979 Constitution.
11
Those leaders of NADECO, and the pro-democracy groups who threaten that if Chief M. K. O Abiola is not installed as President of Nigeria, because he won the 12th of June election, the Yorubas will break away, have to explain how the political fate of Abiola who 61.1% of the registered Yoruba voters refused to vote for can be used to legitimise the secession of the Yorubas from Nigeria. Is it because this majority does not have any rights because they choose to refuse to vote for Chief M. K. O. Abiola ? Clearly, this secessionist threat has nothing to do with justice, equity, and the democratic rights of the great majority of Yoruba voters, who refused to vote for Abiola on June 12th, 1993, and, therefore, cannot be expected to fight for “the actualisation of the mandate” which they never gave him.
Conclusion
Clearly, Chief Abiola did not obtain any democratic mandate through a free and fair election, for, no such election took place June 12th, 1993. But, even, granted that in spite of all its severe limitation, that election reflected the will of the Nigerian electorate, at that point in time, and in those special circumstances, it does not provide a basis for Chief Abiola to be installed as a civilian dictator, outside any democratic political party, without any elected federal legislatures, without any, elected, state executive and legislatures, or, elected, local government councils; leaving him effectively propped up by the military, in this so-called “Government of National Unity”. For, those who advocated that he should head this government are asking for this; including his taking the powers to appoint sole administrators over the states and the local governments, for the next two years.
If, as has been clearly established above, he received no genuine, democratic, mandate to rule Nigeria, in the years 1993-1997, how can he now have this mandate, after 1997? Is it because Chief Abiola is placed on a special pedestal of representing the Yorubas, even though 61.1% of voters in the Yoruba states refused to vote for him? Those advocating this, whether explicitly or implicitly, have to explain what it has to do with democracy or national unity. In fact, they have to explain what it has to do with any form of constitutional government under the rule of law. For, to install Chief Abiola to head a “Government of National Unity” simply because of his tribe, or race, is to actually establish a Government of National Disunity and National Confusion.
For, such an imposition by the present military regime, even for one month, as NADECO has been pleading in Abuja, has no basis in democracy, but amounts to an unprincipled and dangerous compromise with the military and civilian conspirators who, since 31st December, 1983, have taken our country backwards from where it had reached on the weak, but sound, democratic, system we were gradually building in the Second Republic, on the basis of the 1979 Constitution.
11
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
2015: The Fashola-Kukah Joker
- Written by Suraj Oyewale.
The 2011 elections however saw me crossing my own line. Exasperated, like many Nigerians, on the evil PDP and its hawks had been inflicting on Nigerians since it gained power in 1999, taking active part in the attempt to dethrone the malignant PDP in 2011 was almost natural. I initially aligned myself with Nuhu Ribadu, who, warts and all, is a good man and no doubt passionate about moving Nigeria forward. Later, I pitched my tent with General Muhammadu Buhari, another man I believed can do the job of extricating Nigeria from the shackles of the behemoth that has continued to feed fat on Nigeria's collective patrimony while further pauperizing the hoi polloi that constitute the vast majority of the populace. I believed so much in the man Buhari and threw my full weight behind him, committing personal resources to the cause, including working with a number of anonymous online volunteers to raise close to one million Naira to campaign for him, most notably, sponsoring jingles in more than 5 radio stations in Lagos, Oyo, Osun and River states. I practically turned myself into Buhari's campaign manager, churning out articles almost on weekly basis in virtually all major Nigerian dailies, selling the Buhari candidacy. I did this much, never because of any direct personal gain, but because of the lamentably parlous state of things in this country. Unfortunately, Nigerians were not ready for change, as a PDP candidate that must have done a great job in Nigerians' psychology, sold the 'divine theory' dummy to them. The rest is history. The result has been unprecedented insecurity in the land and festering of wanton impunity. To my shelf I returned after the unsuccessful efforts to actualize a Buhari presidency.
Somehow, the outcome of 2011 elections sealed back my interest in active participation in Nigerian politics. Save a couple of write-ups I did post-elections, one to condole with the families of the slain youth corps members, the other an assessment of Jonathan presidency after 6 months, I had maintained a siddon look at Nigerian politics. But a recent political chat with a columnist and editor of a popular Nigerian daily may have reactivated my waning interest.
My columnist friend, like me, is fed up of PDP misrule and is yearning for change. To him, General Buhari is a great presidential material who should play active part towards dislodging PDP in 2015 but from the back seat. I reluctantly agreed with him. Reluctant for two reasons. One, I doubt any other candidate can garner massive northern votes, which is important even if insufficient to win the presidential election, like Buhari. Two, I have confidence in only a handful of other potential presidential candidates the way I do for Buhari. I however agree that the erroneous ethnic and religious baggage being unfortunately thrown into Buhari's aspiration will be extremely difficult, if possible at all, to assail. Add Buhari's age to that, it becomes harder not to agree with the columnist.
When I played the devil's advocate by telling my friend that I don't see any alliance upstaging PDP in 2015, he disagreed, quickly reminding me of the Senegal example. He strongly believes that an early alliance between Tinubu's AC and Buhari's CPC can be the joker, especially when the registered voters population is analyzed into the strongholds of the two parties. On paper, this looks feasible, but this is an oversimplified fact, as a number of considerations like northern PDP governors factor, PDP's financial war-chest and tendency to compromise electoral system, widespread post-election and Boko Haram violence- induced anti-north sentiments at the moment etc constitute real threats to that permutation.
In our discussion, a number of names came up as possible opposition consensus presidential candidate in 2015. He mentioned Nasir el-Rufai as possible CPC candidate. I am not too comfortable with el-Rufai, not because he is not a super performer, but because of some deficits around consistency and association. He it was who labelled Buhari perpetually ‘unelectable’ in 2010 and just few months later turned around to be Buhari’s loudest advocate. If I give him benefit of doubt over that, it is difficult for me to come to terms with his being a former active member of PDP that took very active part in the infamous installation of Umaru Musa Yar’adua as president, and his coming back later to hurl insults on Yar’adua when they fell apart. These don’t add up for me, and an el-Rufai candidacy is less than appealing to me. Performance, which I believe he has the capacity for as evidenced in his FCT ministerial tenure, should be combined with moral consistency, to make a good leader. If however he gets the ticket, he has my vote against the PDP candidate, which from all indications, will be President Jonathan.
My editor-friend, perhaps knowing me to be a huge admirer of Lamido Sanusi, also suggested Sanusi as a man opposition can present. I immediately interjected Sanusi candidacy is a Dead on Arrival (DOA). Sanusi is a man I believe will make a great president for his courage and passion, but you see, I am always being realistic. The same false issues people, southerners in particular, have with Buhari, also hang on Sanusi’s neck – you all know the issues, even though they are contrived. Plus a more liberal-minded Sanusi does not have the popularity of Buhari even in the north. In any case, I seriously doubt Sanusi will ever consider elective politics.
Nuhu Ribadu, in my opinion, has a more realistic chance of balancing the game as opposition candidate in 2015, if CPC and ACN come together, and Buhari and Tinubu actively and honestly work for him in their respective strongholds (core North and South-West). But having being used as a cannon fodder by ACN only in 2011, I doubt the Adamawa man will trust Tinubu again.
Bringing me to Babatunde Raji Fashola. After Buhari and Lamido Sanusi, Fashola is the another Nigerian political figure I have full confidence in in doing great works as president of Nigeria. Forget about his recent face-off with Lagos doctors and few similar cases in the past, the man Fashola is a visionary administrator par excellence. Perhaps South-West’s most visionary politician since Awolowo and Akintola, and he is fast surpassing the records of Lateef Jakande, the state’s action governor in the second republic. The pace of infrastructural development in Lagos is phenomenal. I have lived in Langbasa area of Ajah-Lagos for close to three years and that was an area I never thought the government was aware is existing until Fashola’s cranes and bulldozers arrived few weeks ago, to tar the entire road network in the area. This is one of the many capital projects the man is doing all over Lagos, even in the remotest of places, while other governors are celebrating grading of a 1 km road or constructing some white-elephant fly-over bridge – and that is those who do anything at all.
Fashola is a great presidential material anyday. If only Nigerians, especially our northern brothers, can sacrifice the undeniable regional balancing for political expediency and present Fashola as the CPC/ACN candidate, with Buhari and Tinubu vigorously working for him. Is a joker that can end PDP’s rule in 2015. Apart from a guaranteed performance, the man has considerable appeal in every region. Opposition should consider this option if truly their interest is not just about wresting power from PDP but providing good governance which has eluded the country. I would have suggested a Lamido Sanusi as running mate, to check the corruption and rot in the system while Fashola faces administration, but I’m not sure the Nigerian Christians will buy this, so I nominate Reverend Father Martin Hassan Kukah, a respectable northern Christian intellectual and priest as running mate. If this option is considered, I believe we may be in for an electoral el-Classico in 2015!
Nigeria's Unbroken Democracy at 13
By: Charles Ikedikwa Soeze.
The next attempt of democratic structure under Alhaji Aliyu Shehu Shagari, grassroots teacher and politician, first executive president of Nigeria ended after four years between 1979 and 1983. As a result, Nigerians waited for sixteen more years before democracy returned. Democracy is "a government of the people by the people and for the people". It is a truism to say that this definition has become a cliché, but it nonetheless encapsulated the very essence of democracy. It may be appropriate to say that there is hardly one commonly accepted and agreed meaning of the term. This is so because it means one thing to one person and quite another to someone else depending on each person's point, circumstances, economic and social positions. It is appropriate to say that this differing meaning of democracy is a 100 meters dash. In other words, it is a long distance race with different hurdles. The race demands stamina, sacrifice, skills and determination. We are to make sure that our democracy is well-guided so that it will not be controlled by individuals and groups who are bent on promoting their own selfish ideas and agenda. With the high level of corruption in Nigeria, bombings, maimings and killings, a popular musician (the late Fela Anikulapo-Kuti) definition of democracy may apply here that is "dem all crazy". Are we really not crazy? A situation where an individual will want to be richer than the country as a whole. Is this not greed of the highest order?
However, dubious human beings can do anything to get whatever they want. They do not mind embarking on people's destruction programme to achieve their aims. This is very common in the public service especially the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). Realizing this fact, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a one-time military head of state and eight years as an executive president wrote in his book, The Animal called Man "man is insatiable animal as far as quest for position, power, possession, popularity and pleasure are concerned". This is absolutely true especially in the MDAs.
In any democratic structure, the press must be free and responsible. This is because it must not be organ for the articulation of the interest of only those in power but should be advocates of higher national interests. The press need to be responsible in the sense that it should not articulate interest that retard, undermine or regress the social weal and the unifying bond that holds society together and guarantees its solidarity, integrity and sovereignty. I think and believe that was why in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, years before he became the third president of the United States preferred newspapers to government. When in 1901 Lenin might have preferred newspapers to the communist party having seen them as not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator but a collective organizer; when the 39th USA Vice President called journalists “nattering nabobs of negativism”, it was to the power of these gentlemen and women of the press that they were referring.
Surprisingly and disappointing to many Nigerians is that when some of these politicians get elected, they always feel that they are in office to amass wealth. In this direction, I wish to boldly and proudly quote a sage and elder statesman, Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo (of blessed memory) for the guidance of our politicians when he said “I must say, however, that in all conscience, I felt and still feel that a truly public-spirit person should accept public service not for what he can get for himself such as profit and glamour of office, but for the opportunity which it offers him of serving his people to the best of his ability, by promoting their welfare and happiness”. Recall the late sage’s free education in the defunct western region that produced a lot of intellectuals from that area. This could be termed “talk na do”. To this end therefore, the welfare of the masses need to be adequately addressed. In other words, our politicians should imbued with Mandela’s stoicism and Caesar’s bravery in services to the people.
It is no denting and denigrating image locally, nationally and internationally to say that corruption has eaten deep into the fabric of our nation and finally it is now endemic and epidemic. This, I think and believe our striking doctors in some parts of the country based their strike on improved conditions of service which is the main thing and on the surface, items of equipment to work with for the sake of excellence. It is the prerogative of all Nigerians to fight against the massive ongoing corruption in the country not only financially but other things like employments, promotions and postings that is about killing and maiming MDAs. This is a dangerous dichotomy.
It is sad and flabbergasting that in December 2011, Nigeria was ranked 143rd out of 183 surveyed countries in terms of public perception on corruption. This was widely reported on in a full assessment carried by global watchdog, Transparency International (TI). In 2010, Nigeria was 134th and astonishingly maintained its score of 2.4 out of a possible 10 marks for the 2011.
Furthermore, I know that Nigerians were flabbergasted when the Nigerian Compass newspaper in its front page of Sunday, March 6, 2011 carried on “=N= 12 bn fraud in pension office, Director General, deputy arrested”. What about the latest as published in National Mirror newspaper front page, permanent secretary, five others remanded in prison custody over =N= 32.8bn police pension fund. This is also surprising because most retirees who would have benefitted from such funds were out rightly denied because of the massive corruption of designated desk officers.
Nodoubt, Nigerian workers have been faced with series of problems, many of which arose from the oppressive and obnoxious policies of previous administrations. Happily, the current democratic administration, under the able and agile leadership of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan, GCFR popularly known as “GEJ” has looked into many issues including solving the problems of massive corruption.
On the massive rate of corruption, do we agree with the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Hassan Kukah who described Nigerian leaders as accidental leaders as reported in the Businessday newspaper of Friday 11 – Sunday, 13th May 2012 P. 24. He blamed the challenges currently facing Nigeria on the leadership of the country calling them “accidental toys” wielding power without legitimacy. Bishop Kukah made the disclosure recently at the Leadership forum organized by the First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) in collaboration with the Nigerian Leadership Initiative (NLI). In the words of the outspoken and versatile Bishop, “Our leaders are like accidental toys. This is a country where we have never had a president that had what we call name recognition”.
Continuing, he stated and I quote “with almost every president of Nigeria, we only hear them through television. Apart from its accidental nature, there is also something reluctant (about those chosen to be leaders)”. According to the Bishop, who is also a senior fellow of the NLI, the leaders who have ruled Nigeria starting from independence have usually come to power through accidental means as opposed to an organized and established process as with other countries.
Giving a chronology of Nigeria leaders, Kukah said the accidental nature of leadership was glaring. “When you start from Tafawa Balewa and you go to Aguiyi-Ironsi. You come to Yakubu Gowon, who had just returned from London. He had not even settled down. “Murtala in a book written by Joe Garba said (to the plotters of the coup that brought him into power), I may protect you but I am not interested in the coup. According to Bishop Kukah, “Obasanjo has not forgiven him for literary saying he cried his way to power… (I think this must be February 13, 1976 my own words when a one-time military head of state General Murtala Ramat Mohammed was assassinated in an abortive coup led by Lt. Col. Buka Suwa Dimka) like a sheep being led to the slaughter. Shagari said all he wanted to be was a senator. Buhari was sometime in Jos. Abacha comes along. Then Abdusalami Abubakar came and was penciled for retirement. Obasanjo was sitting in prison. The Catholic Bishop further opined that Nigerian leaders are not groomed. They attain power “just because they happen to have connections”. However, whatever the case may be, I think our current president, an academic, administrator, politician of the highest level, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan, GCFR, will be able to move Nigeria to the next level for the admiration of the international community. He needs the support of all of us which include members of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).
It seems to me that Nigerians’ should be congratulated as lovers of democracy since May 29, 1999 and for an uninterrupted democratic structure for further thirteen years. To this end therefore, one can boldly and proudly say that democracy can efficiently and effectively be practiced in Nigeria. Unfortunately, the past thirteen years has been characterized by desperation for power, political parties without identifiable ideologies, electoral violence, killings, bombings, kidnappings, prolonged and incessant electoral litigations and upturning of election results through judicial process.
Whatever the case may be, it is a truism to say that thirteen years is enough duration for a nation for effective administration. One of the biggest gains during this political dispensation is the true rebirth of the rule of law, with a freer judicial system that has restored confidence of the people in the Nigerian judiciary. Also, it is true to say that Nigeria’s democracy is still not perfect, though there is no perfection in humanity. However, one can happily say that the nation has suffered the imperfection for the past thirteen years having survived the imperfection so far and finding our ways on the road of imperfection. However, it seems to me that there is hope for democracy in Nigeria, especially if and when the political elites learn to use power for service not for destruction and respect strictly the opinions and views of the electorate as demonstrated or shared through the ballot box.
Furthermore, it is a sad commentary and abomination on our national affairs that the problem of corruption remains intractable. It has now been elevated to a prime position of a national culture. Astonishingly, corrupt officials direct our affairs and successive government appear incapable of arresting the free fall to the abyss of infamy. It is unfortunate that key functionaries, especially those under whose offices the burden rest to address the situation are its promoters. As a result, it is therefore no exaggeration to say that the key sectors of the economy have been run aground. For example, refineries are in abysmal state. Petroleum Minister, Mrs. Alison-Madueke cites mismanagement. Refer to the National Daily newspaper of May 7-11, 2012 front page. I think the issue of our refineries is not following professionalism. Federal character syndrome is a major factor in this direction, wa-oh! What about other sectors, if one may ask? Service delivery in the health sector is silly and laughable. Our trap and unpardonable mortality after the appropriation of trillions of Naira acts of criminality in different directions thrive while the issue of security weighs down Nigeria to the extent that some “big guys” in our society provide their own security.
Truly speaking, Chief Obasanjo proved his worth during his second coming, which many Nigerians saw as a cleansing operation. This is because Nigeria was seriously indebted to the Paris club and others. OBJ (Baba Iyabo) faced and tackled boldly the issue of Nigeria’s indebtedness to the Paris Club and others with a much determined vigour. He did succeed in a lot of them. He tried to fight against corruption through the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). These two organs, I am sure, have instilled some discipline into our system, we still have rooms for improvement. It is no longer the issue of the winner takes all. It is the view of some Nigerians that our democracy is steadily evolving and compared with other democracies around the world. I would add that there are a lot of prospects, too. However, at the leadership or top echelon, there is the need for additional work and proper interaction with the mass audience if not the talakawas.
What baffles one is that many Nigerian politicians believe that political power is a road to wealth and security in Nigeria, the struggle for control has been problematic seeing political power as warfare instead of translating into welfare economics for the electorates. It is therefore appropriate to say that the political elites should forget about selfishness and the quest for power through “do or die” politics and go through the democratic process that is the ballot box in a most transparent, intelligent and articulate manner. In conclusion, let all of us join hands, in fact, all hands must be on the pumps with the President, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan. GCFR to make Nigeria better and comparable to other developed nations. Nigeria will not continue to remain a developing nation after over fifty (50) years of independence. Like the Christians will say, “we reject it in Jesus name, Amen”.
Furthermore, President Jonathan has accepted to improve on the workings of the public service of the federation hence he declared during the Presidential Award Ceremony (PAC) for the first batch of winners of the National Youth Enterprise With Innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN) business plan competition on April 12, 2012 in Abuja. Consequently, he announced that all appointments to fill the leadership of tenured public agencies shall henceforth be based on merit. This is a welcome development to avoid inefficiency and ineffectiveness at the top echelon in the public sector. This is so because once the head is rotten, all other parts of the body will follow. In view of the arrangement, we should make it a sustained standard policy and be enshrined in the Public Service Rules (PSRs) for proper guidance and appropriate follow-up.
Nigeria dancing on wet grave – Kukah
by Olusola Fabiyi, Abuja
Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Bishop Hassan Kukah, has said that Nigeria is “dancing on a wet grave”.
Kukah warned that unless something was done urgently, the grave might cave in soon.
The cleric, who spoke in
Abuja on Tuesday at the inauguration of the Northern Reawakening Forum,
also wondered how Nigeria deteriorated to the level where it now finds
itself.
He said, “It is daybreak
for Nigeria. The country is currently dancing on a wet grave. We are not
moving forward. The war going on now is not between Christians and
Muslims or Muslims against Christians; it is a conflict between darkness
and light. This madness must end.”
Kukah recalled how a Muslim saved his sister in 2003 by advising her to run to army barracks because of an impending riot.
He, however, regretted that the said sister later lost her belongings when some people invaded the area in retaliation.
The cleric said he was
scheduled to be in Tunisia for a conference but had to cancel it when he
heard about demonstrations in the country.
He said, “So, how do I
explain to the people who begged me to come to Tunisia and I refused
because of what is happening now in Kaduna in particular and Nigeria as a
whole?”
Kukah regretted that about
95 per cent of Nigerians were not happy with politicians for their
failure to deliver on their promises.
Also speaking at the event,
a former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Chief Audu
Ogbeh, said he predicted the crisis in the northern part of the country
10 years ago.
Ogbeh, who was a former minister of agriculture would come when emirs would not be able to even sit in their palaces.
He said though he was not happy that his
prediction was coming to pass, Ogbeh said there were signs that the
situation could degenerate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)