A DIFFERENT PICTURE OF GOVERNOR DUKE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LAGOS 001025 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR AF/W STATE FOR INR/AA E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/25/2016 TAGS: PINR PREL KDEM PGOV NI SUBJECT: A DIFFERENT PICTURE OF GOVERNOR DUKE Classified By: Consul General Brian L. Browne for Reason 1.4 (D). Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) Cross River State Governor Donald Duke is intelligent, young and charismatic. The Nigerian media is overwhelmingly favorable, portraying him as one of Nigeria's ablest governors, a bona-fide economic and political reformer capable of higher office in 2007. However, opposition figures in Cross River use less salutary adjectives when describing Duke. They claim he helped rig the 2003 elections and that he brooks no dissenting counsel, despite his superficial affability. Also, these opponents claim the much-publicized Tinapa project is a massive waste. End summary. Governor Duke Applies "Typical" Tactics to Retain Power -------------- -------------- ¶2. (C) Consul General and Conoff met opposition leaders in Calabar on June 15, 2006. Several of the politicians were visibly nervous about meeting. One commented that if noticed by the wrong people, the meeting would prompt a late-night visit to their residences from security officials the next day. Because of this, the venue was shifted from a popular hotel to a more out-of-the-way local restaurant. ¶3. (C) The opposition openly questioned Governor Duke's commitment to democracy. One participant claimed Duke told a gathering of the state PDP that the people of Cross River were not quite ready for participatory democracy. Thus, the party would not pick its 2007 candidate by open primaries. The primary would be mere window-dressing; the candidate would be selected in camera and out of public purview, akin to a papal conclave. Another opposition leader claimed Duke engineered his ejection from the state legislature for opposing Duke on certain matters. This former lawmaker, who left the PDP for the ANPP, said he fought election rigging in 2003 by organizing his local community to pressure INEC to count ballots fairly, but still had the race stolen from him. He pursued the matter through the justice system to win a decision in the lower court only to have that defeated at the appellate after intervention by Governor Duke, he claimed. ¶4. (C) While some of the opposition leaders asserted that active public involvement and vigilant monitoring at every stage of the election process could make the 2007 elections better than the 2003 edition, others saw little hope. The naysayers claimed Duke and his People's Democratic Party claque were keen on holding power. The opposition asserted that Duke would resort to violence if PDP control of the state were threatened. They shared examples from 2003, in which security forces used violence against voters and domestic monitors in Cross River. ¶5. (C) The men acknowledged the opposition was disorganized and weak, lacking in resources and a positive rallying point. Notably, this was the first time they had met as a group, and many did not know each other despite the rather finite universe of politicians in this small state. However, the group asserted, if the elections were massively rigged in 2007, they would engage in civil disobedience. If the government used force to douse their protest, they would meet force with force. The more ardent among them claimed they would link with Ijaw militant groups in the Niger Delta to bring oil production to a standstill. (Comment: Much of this was puffery, as unlikely to happen as it was irresponsible to utter. Cross River has very little oil as a matter of fact and none of these chest-thumpers were Ijaw. However, their comments did reveal a level of frustration both genuine and palpable. Some of the opposition's injuries are self-inflicted and some of their biliousness is the result of envy at Duke's popularity. Yet, their criticisms were not manufactured from whole cloth. Their complaints about Duke's superficial commitment to electoral democracy cannot be disregarded. End comment.) Public Perception Not Quite Economic Reality -------------- ¶6. (C) The opposition leaders criticized Governor Duke's efforts to reform the Cross River economy, asserting he would have better focused on agriculture than tourism. Several of them asserted that life was now harder, with less money and few jobs for the average citizen of Cross River than when Duke came into office. They claimed people went hungry and unemployment was high. More particularly, they criticized the highly publicized Tinapa resort project as being out of LAGOS 00001025 002 OF 002 touch with the pressing needs of a basically agrarian populace. They believed the great investment placed in Tinapa should have been earmarked for rural and general infrastructure development. (Comment: In a June conversation with the Consul General, the Ooni of Ife, a close political ally of Obasanjo, was dismissive of Duke's chances for high office stating the Cross River governor had purloined huge amounts of money from the Obudu Ranch Resort and Tinapa Resort projects. End comment.) Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) Given the relative free pass Duke has gotten from the usually cynical, often caustic Nigerian press, it was good to hear directly from his critics at home. Again, their complaints did contain a predictable gruel of envy and exaggeration. However, their portrait of his complicity in 2003 election engineering and his attempt to closely control the state chapter of the PDP bear consideration. In short, Duke is probably not the saint his fine-tuned publicity campaign highlights nor is he the unregenerate sinner the opposition figures claim him to be. He is probably better than most of his gubernatorial colleagues but not as fresh a breath of democratic air as one would have hoped. End comment. BROWNE