publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

The 2003 elections in Nigeria were seen as very significant on the international stage, and donor government and intergovernmental organizations provided considerable financial and technical assistance.

Several foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations and other international groups sent delegations to Nigeria to observe the elections. These included the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Commonwealth, the European Union (EU), the US-based National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute, and the non-governmental organization Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA). Of these, the EU fielded the largest number of observers (more than one hundred). However, the number of observers deployed by any of these organizations was very small compared to the thousands fielded by Nigerian groups; for example, the TMG alone deployed 10,000 observers.

Nigerian and international observer groups produced reports on their observations of the elections. On the basis of these reports alone, it would be difficult for foreign governments to claim credibly that they were not aware of cases of violence during the elections, or to dismiss them as isolated incidents. However, this violence was not accorded the same emphasis in all the observer reports, and even when documented by observers in their written reports, was rarely mentioned in public statements by representatives of the same observer delegations. Some of the reports also contained internal contradictions, in some cases reporting serious incidents of violence, yet concluding that the elections were generally peaceful.

The most critical reports from among the international delegations came from the EU observers. Unlike the other delegations, most of whom arrived in the country just in time for the elections, the EU observers were deployed several weeks beforehand, and may therefore have had a better sense of the build-up of violence in the pre-election period. Their reports highlighted serious irregularities and rigging in a number of states, especially in the elections of April 19 and May 3, and questioned the credibility of the elections in these locations. Referring to the presidential and gubernatorial elections, they stated: “in a number of States the minimum standards for democratic elections were not met.” 130 The EU final report stated that EU observers recorded 105 election-related deaths. However, even this report stated that “a positive feature of these elections was that levels of election related violence was significantly lower than feared […] While this [105 deaths] was not due to a large scale violent outbreak it remains a worrying figure.” The report also notes: “During all election days, political thugs were used to intimidate voters and/or INEC officials. These acts often turned violent resulting in death to voters or officials. […].”131

The statements of the National Democratic Institute were also fairly critical. They reported that “during the National Assembly polls, instances of ballot stuffing, rigging, voter intimidation, violence and fraud – particularly during the collation process – were so acute in certain parts of the country, particularly the South-South and South-East regions, that we have serious concern about the legitimacy of the results in certain constituencies. A similar and equally worrisome pattern is emerging from the April 19 polls.” The report comments on the use of armed militias by political parties and notes incidents of violence or intimidation in several states.132

In contrast, the statements issued by the Commonwealth and the African Union were more positive. The report by the African Union observers stated: “On the whole, the elections of 19th April 2003 were conducted in a congenial atmosphere” and did not mention incidents of violence.133 The Commonwealth observer group’s interim statement on the National Assembly elections described the voting as “generally peaceful. There were violent incidents in certain places but the most pessimistic predictions were confounded.”134 Their interim statement on the presidential and governorship elections described the elections as “historic” and “a landmark transfer of power from one civil administration to another,” even though it noted some “shortcomings”. It stated: “In most states where we observed, the election was credible”. However, the same report also noted serious irregularities, vote-rigging and intimidation.135

The Commonwealth observers’ final report provides examples of incidents of violence, particularly during the National Assembly elections, and stresses the level of intimidation in Rivers State during the presidential and governorship elections. However, the gravity of these incidents is not adequately reflected in the overall conclusions: “Despite some incidents of violence and intimidation, the elections throughout the country were generally conducted in conditions of order and security, making these the most peaceful elections in Nigeria’s history.” The following conclusion—“There were particular problems in Enugu and Rivers State which effectively denied some Nigerians the opportunity to participate in the democratic process”—creates the impression that these problems were limited to those two states, despite the fact that the report itself mentions violence in several other states.136

The Nigerian government’s sensitivity to international “approval” of the elections was demonstrated in its reactions to the reports published by the various observer delegations. It tried to discredit the EU report, while expressing satisfaction with the more positive statements of the Commonwealth and other groups. President Obasanjo was quoted as saying: “The Commonwealth report was a neat job compared to the report of the EU and other foreign observers.” He also tried to attribute some of the problems during the elections to cultural differences: “The Europeans should not think that we are Europeans. Our culture and environment are different from theirs.”137 INEC spokesperson Sam Okpo described the EU’s interim statement on the elections as “excessively negative” and a “deliberate attempt to create confusion for the electoral process and thereby destabilise the country.”138 These comments were later echoed by the ECOWAS parliament, which reportedly said that “the irregularities observed are not of a magnitude to adversely affect the conduct of the elections and therefore cannot invalidate the elections.”139 The speaker of the ECOWAS parliament was quoted as saying that there was no justification for the unhelpful conclusions of the EU election monitors.140

The official reaction from Rivers State illustrated most starkly the way in which Nigerian government officials seized on positive international reactions to the elections, while disregarding the more nuanced criticisms. Peter Odili, the governor of Rivers State, told journalists: “The final position of the Commonwealth is a vindication of what has happened in Nigeria, that we have democratically come of age, that we can conduct credible elections.”141 Yet the Commonwealth observers had singled out Rivers State for its harshest criticism, stating in their final report: “Although there were other pockets of violence and malpractice elsewhere, conditions in Rivers State seemed to be in a different league from those observed by our teams in other parts of the country […] in Rivers, and a few other places, there was serious violence, intimidation and vote-rigging.”142

Statements made by individual foreign governments once the elections were over also failed to reflect the true picture. Although they acknowledged that a certain level of fraud and rigging had taken place, many governments rushed to welcome the elections, and few made any mention of the violence.

As Nigeria’s most important foreign partners, the U.S. and U.K. governments had a particular interest in the outcome of the elections. Statements issued by these two governments typified the strength of international support for President Obasanjo and the willingness to overlook human rights abuses.

For example, in a statement put out by the White House, “the United States congratulates the people of Nigeria for what was largely a peaceful expression and exercise of their right to vote […] The widespread violence predicted by many did not happen.” The statement expresses concern about reports of voting irregularities, but does not mention incidents of violence. It states: “President Bush looks forward to working with President Obasanjo on our common interests and to deepen the strong and enduring friendship between the United States and Nigeria.”143

A similar statement was issued by the U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw following the presidential elections. In a press release on April 29, 3003, he described the elections as “a landmark in the advancement of Nigeria’s democracy. We welcome the relative calm in which the elections took place. […] The British Government believes that President Obasanjo now has a clear mandate for his second term. […] The UK will continue to work closely with President Obasanjo and his Government to tackle the challenges facing Nigeria and the rest of Africa.” The press release states that the U.K. government is “disturbed by reports of serious fraud and irregularities in some States” and urges those pursuing grievances through the tribunals to avoid “any provocation towards violence.” However, it does not mention the many incidents of violence and intimidation that had already marred the elections in several states.144

Human Rights Watch wrote to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on May 2, expressing concern that this kind of statement could send the wrong signal to the Nigerian government by giving the impression that the U.K. government was prepared to overlook certain human rights abuses in the interests of maintaining good relations.145

Bill Rammell, Foreign and Commonwealth Minister with responsibility for human rights, replied to Human Rights Watch, acknowledging that “there were many instances of violence in the run-up to the elections. We have never condoned such violence. On the contrary, in the months preceding the elections the British High Commissioner in Nigeria spoke on a number of occasions with President Obasanjo and other political figures about violence. The message he gave was clear: Nigeria must do all it can to avoid election-related violence.” He gave the example of the British Government’s condemnation of political violence following the assassination of Marshall Harry, a prominent ANPP politician, in February 2003.146 The letter describes the elections as “a vital milestone in the country’s journey to a fully functioning and sustainable democracy […] This is why, alongside our negative criticisms of election irregularities, we focused on positive aspects such as the relative calm of proceedings.”147

The 2003 annual human rights report of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office states: “The elections in Nigeria were not perfect.” It refers to instances of fraud reported by the EU observers and bias in the media, but does not mention the use of violence. It concludes: “Despite its flaws, it was important that the EU supported the attempt by Africa’s most populous country to make the difficult transition to civilian rule, after decades of military juntas.”148

Both Western donor countries and other African governments have been reluctant to criticize Nigeria’s human rights record publicly ever since President Obasanjo first came to power in 1999. Five years on, he has continued to enjoy wide international support. Among the factors that have motivated this alliance are the increasingly prominent role Obasanjo has played in promoting regional initiatives and institutions, such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and ECOWAS, and his leading role on issues such as African governance reform and regional peacekeeping. For governments such as the U.S and the U.K., whose international priority remains the “fight against terrorism,” Nigeria, with its large Muslim population and influential role in the region, also remains a key ally in Africa. The growing importance of Nigerian oil and the threat posed to oil production by communal violence—a problem entangled with politics during the election period—also added to the disinclination of Nigeria’s trading partners to criticize the elections.

The international response to the elections in Nigeria is also typical of a more generalized attitude at the international level towards elections in Africa. Expectations of the conduct of elections in African countries are generally low; governments are not prepared to be more demanding in terms of respect for international standards; and there is a willingness to accept a certain level of fraud as almost inevitable.

Nigerian activists and members of civil society have expressed their disappointment with the lack of response on the part of foreign governments to abuses during the elections. A member of an independent non-governmental organization in Abuja told Human Rights Watch: “The attitude of the U.S. government is so discouraging to NGOs. We wish they would make a harsher statement about bad elections.”149 A human rights organization in Ebonyi State noted: “Congratulatory messages by the American and British government to the PDP victors in this election have demoralized most citizens, since legitimacy has apparently been given to undemocratic practices by these western ‘champions’ of democracy.”150 A politician in Port Harcourt, despite being a member of the PDP, complained: “The height of disappointment to the oppressed people of Nigeria was the fact that the U.S., U.K. and others legitimized Obasanjo’s elections.”151



[130] European Union Election Observation Mission Final Report. The report mentions evidence of “widespread electoral fraud” in Cross River, Delta, Enugu, Kaduna, Imo and Rivers States, and “similar irregularities, to a lesser extent” in other states including Anambra, Benue, Edo, Katsina and Nasarawa.

[131] Ibid.

[132] Statement of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) international election observer delegation to Nigeria’s April 19 presidential and gubernatorial elections, Abuja, April 21, 2003.

[133] Statement by the African Union observer/monitoring team on the 2003 presidential, gubernatorial and National Assembly elections in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

[134] Commonwealth observer group, interim statement on the National Assembly elections, April 14, 2003.

[135] Commonwealth observer group, interim statement on Nigeria’s presidential and governorship elections. – 19 April 2003, April 22, 2003.

[136] “The National Assembly and Presidential Elections in Nigeria - 12 and 19 April 2003. Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group.” Commonwealth Secretariat, April 2003.

[137] “Nigerian leader slams EU,” BBC News online, 25 April 2003.

[138] “Nigerian poll agency accuses EU monitors of sowing confusion,” Agence France-Presse, April 29, 2003.

[139] “ECOWAS parliament endorses Nigeria’s election, chides EU,” ThisDay, June 17, 2003.

[140] “2003 elections – INEC could have done better – Obasanjo,” Daily Trust, June 13, 2003.

[141] “The EU got it wrong,” News Africa magazine, June 23, 2003.

[142] “The National Assembly and Presidential Elections in Nigeria, 12 and 19 April 2003. Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group.” Commonwealth Secretariat, April 2003.

[143] Statement on Nigerian Elections by the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House, May 2, 2003.

[144] Foreign and Commonwealth Office, press release on the Nigerian presidential elections, April 29, 2003.

[145] Human Rights Watch letter to Jack Straw, May 2, 2003.

[146] For details of the killing of Marshall Harry, see Human Rights Watch report “Testing democracy: political violence in Nigeria,” April 2003. Because of the political prominence of the victim, this was one of the rare cases that provoked public condemnation, including by some foreign governments.

[147] Letter to Human Rights Watch from Bill Rammell MP, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, May 30, 2003.

[148] Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2003.

[149] Human Rights Watch interview, Abuja, July 22, 2003.

[150] “The 2003 elections in Ebonyi State: a report by the Human Rights Centre, Ebonyi State.”

[151] Human Rights Watch interview, Port Harcourt, July 20, 2003.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>June 2004