DURING the inaugural press briefing of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) in Abuja on Tuesday, questions were asked as to the essence of such missions.
The Chief Observer of EU EOM in Nigeria, Maria Arena, had told journalists that the EU had been involved in Nigeria’s elections since 1999. She said that the 2019 election was the sixth mission the EU would be deploying to the country. Questions then arose as to the essence of it all. Was it all a jamboree or something that could help Nigeria and any other country for that matter deepen democratic practices and principles?
The questions arose as a result of the usual diplomatese the reports are couched at the end of it all. If bodies like the EU, United Kingdom and United States of America among others deploy election observation Missions to major elections, what should come out of it at the end of the day? Should the observers just sit by, observe all shenanigans where they occur and only report them and they end up as part of the election observation reports? Or what should give at the end of such exercise?
Those were the questions that agitated the minds of the newsmen at the briefing and they were asked in different forms.
In the usual cautious and diplomatic culture, Arena was evasive as she declared that the EU Mission was not out to take over the roles of the organs of the country that are saddled by law to conduct the elections.
“We are here in the spirit of cooperation with Nigeria. We stand ready to deliver an impartial, objective assessment of the electoral process,” she said.
Her words did not offer any succour to those who were apprehensive about the possibility of a rigged process in Nigeria. Stakeholders across board have expressed concerns about the impartiality of the security and even the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
With pointers to the conduct of security men during the Governorship elections held in Edo, Ekiti and Osun in recent years, many in the polity are already concluding that the votes would not count. The general belief is overwhelming that the results would be determined by security operatives. The key opposition structures, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) have been very loud with protestations indicative of a lack of trust in the system.
In several elections in recent times, whoever was in control of the security would only seek to be declared winner first and then challenge the opponent to head to court. With the unwinding nature of the court system, not many are hopeful of getting redress,
But the statements coming from the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) also last week provided some succour to contestants who are of the view that they would be rendered powerless if the security agencies decided to misbehave.
With both countries threatening election riggers or merchants of violence with visa ban amidst other sanctions, it’s looking like election observation would no longer be jamboree.
Hear the US: “The conduct of the upcoming elections in Nigeria is important not only for Nigeria, but for the African continent.
“The United States government does not support any specific candidate or party in Nigeria’s upcoming elections. The United States supports the Nigerian democratic process itself. We support a genuinely free, fair, transparent, and peaceful electoral process.”
The US added: “We will not hesitate to consider consequences – including visa restrictions – for those found to be responsible for election-related violence or undermining the democratic process. Under U.S. immigration law, certain violations may also lead to restrictions on family members.”
The UK has this to say: “Our monitors will in particular be looking out for any attempts to encourage or use violence to influence the elections, including on social media. We would like to remind all Nigerians that where the UK is aware of such attempts, this may have consequences for individuals. These could include their eligibility to travel to the UK, their ability to access UK based funds or lead to prosecution under international law.
“The UK is a friend and partner of Nigeria. We hope our continued support will play a role in helping Nigeria take a further step towards consolidating the progress made since democracy returned in 1999.”
Though some Nigerians may raise issues of interference in internal affairs of a sovereign country as an excuse to object to the planned sanctions, the steps already highlighted by the two countries are highly welcomed by me.
With impunity rising to the hilt and law enforcement officials turning themselves to demi-gods, especially during the rerun election in Ekiti, the fear of the international sanction could provide some sanity.
It has come to the point when public office holders have to be taught the gamesmanship in electoral contests. Too many politicians are seeing public offices as birth rights. When a governor is in his first term, he sets up a structure that usually dovetails well into the second term as if the other term is there for the asking.
Rather than see the planned sanctions as affronts, the political stakeholders should only learn to obey the rules of the electoral contest, the opposite of this is to trample on the will of the people, a strange find in democracy.
and then