C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 001323

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/26/2012
TAGS: PGOV KDEM NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS POSTPONED


REF: A. ABUJA 1159

B. ABUJA 1232

C. ABUJA 1029


Classified by DCM Andrews; Reason 1.5 (d).



1. (C) SUMMARY: Demonstrating a degree of pragmatism in the
face of an incipient political emergency, President Obasanjo,
the 36 governors, speakers of the state houses of assembly,
leadership of the three registered political parties and INEC
agreed to hold local government elections on August 10
instead of May 18, 2002. It was agreed that state houses of
assembly would pass enabling laws to allow the naming of
caretaker local councils for the period between May 29 to
August 10. This political solution allows INEC time to
update the 1998 voter rolls and register new political
parties. While pragmatic, the decision to allow appointed
local government councils or the extension of present local
councils' tenure is likely to be contested in court, and it
is uncertain whether it can withstand judicial scrutiny. END
SUMMARY.



2. (U) President Obasanjo hosted a meeting at the Villa on
April 24 to seek a political solution in the wake of the
Supreme Court's March 28 decision invalidating the National
Assembly's attempt to extend local government officials'
tenure to 2003 (Ref C). After that decision, state governors
had set the local government elections for May 18, 2002.
However, it was clear the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) could neither register new parties nor
update the 1998 voter rolls by that date. May 18 elections
would have disenfranchised millions who had turned 18 since

1998.



3. (U) The 36 governors, speakers of the state houses of
assembly, leadership of the three registered political
parties and INEC attended the April 24 meeting. The day
before, the President had hosted the speakers discuss the
same issue, but that meeting was rolled over to the following
day after the Speakers' Association dug in their heels,
demanding the local government polls hold on May 18.



4. (U) With the wider group of attendees at the meeting,
particularly the governors, the participants agreed to hold
local government elections nationwide on August 10, giving
INEC time to update voter rolls and register new parties.
Still, present local government officials mus

t vacate their
posts by May 29. According to Enugu State Governor Chimaroke
Nnamani, who spoke after the conclusion of the meeting, state
houses of assembly must now enact enabling legislation for
the appointment of the caretaker bodies.



5. (C) The Kano State House of Assembly, viewing May 18
elections as unrealistic (and apparently in anticipation of
the agreement at the Villa), had on April 23 passed a bill
authorizing the State government to appoint five-person
caretaker committees for each local government area for a
three month tenure. The same week, the Kwara House of
Assembly extended until September 1 the tenure of the local
government councils in the state at the request of the
Governor. (COMMENT: The provision to empower states to
appoint caretaker local governments must have been an
attractive enticement for the governors and state speakers to
delay the elections to August. Now the state officials can
appoint their followers in the local governments for that
important period immediately before elections. This probably
buoys their hopes that they will be better placed than they
were before to dictate the outcome of the local elections.
END COMMENT.)



6. (C) PolOff spoke April 25 with Dr. Musa Musa, a Bauchi
State Commissioner. Musa confirmed press reporting of the
agreement. Bauchi planned to abide by it; the State
Government had not considered itself able to hold the polls
in May anyway, he stated. Musa opined that lawsuits against
the agreement were possible, as was the prospect that some
states might not abide by the pact (i.e., might seek to hold
elections on May 18 despite not having an updated voter
register).


=======
COMMENT
=======



7. (C) On the face of it, aside from the present local
government councilors and the National Assembly (who had
hoped to reduce the electoral base of the governors), there
are few losers as a result of this agreement. The state
houses of assembly stood in objection to the delay until the
agreement gave them the power to define the caretaker
councils. The Governors will get their new local government
councilors long before they must run the gauntlet themselves.
The political actors who made this agreement hope to use
both the caretaker councils and the new local governments as
political machines to protect incumbents at the state level.
Given the close ties between political power and wealth in
Nigeria, and an absence of differing political ideologies,
"gentlemen,s agreements" that promote mutual protection for
incumbents are likely to be a recurring theme of the 2002-03
election season.



8. (C) Because the fulcrum of the agreement appears to be the
provision giving the states the easement to appoint
caretakers at the local level, the agreement could unravel if
that portion is successfully challenged in court. While
current incumbents in the local government positions would
have an interest in making such a challenge, their term ends
May 29, and they do not appear to have a case. However, the
federal constitution states that the people's right to
democratically elected local government is "guaranteed." A
plausible argument could be made that appointment of
caretakers and even the extension of serving local
councilors' tenure abrogates that constitutional assurance.
Therefore, while it is not clear who might make a legal
challenge or even which court would have jurisdiction,
someone will likely sue, and the agreement could unravel.



9. (C) Moreover, some state governments could choose to
abrogate the agreement and attempt polls on May 18. Such an
act might be within the bounds of the constitution, but would
rekindle the controversy regarding registration of voters and
parties, which carries with it the specter of disorganized
elections and potential violence by those voters and
political partisans who feel disenfranchised.



10. (C) Aside from the state governors and state assemblies,
the other winners from this agreement are the young potential
voters who would have been disenfranchised by a vote using
the old rolls. The decision was also a victory for the new
political parties. They could not have been registered in
time. The threat of lawsuits from these quarters will likely
recede. In the meantime, the primary burden has shifted to
INEC. It must update voter registration, certify new
parties, and issue millions of voter ID cards, all within
less than four months. This is technically feasible, but
INEC cannot tarry in its assignment, and the Federal
Government must provide the necessary resources. If INEC can
do its job, and the courts do not scotch the deal, this
agreement will probably minimize chances for disorder and
enhance the quality of elections over what would have
occurred May 18. However, if INEC falls asleep at the
switch, the deal would have served only to delay the
confusion and lawsuits.
JETER