CRITERIA TO EVALUATE NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 000200

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2017
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM NI ELECTIONS
SUBJECT: CRITERIA TO EVALUATE NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTIONS

ABUJA 00000200 001.2 OF 003


Classified By: Ambassador John Campbell for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) This cable suggests the criteria by which USG might
evaluate the credibility of Nigeria's 2007 elections. The
criteria take into account relevant international standards
such as the ECOWAS Democracy Charter, SADC Principles and
Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, and the
Inter-Parliamentary Union Criteria for Free and Fair
Elections. Use of the same criteria over time would help us
to be consistent in our evaluations of Nigeria's preparation
for and eventual conduct of the crucial presidential,
legislative, and gubernatorial elections scheduled for April

2007. These elections are an historic moment for Nigeria and
should mark the country's first successful transition from
one elected, civilian government to another. Therefore, it
is vitally important that the USG and the international
community support Nigerian democracy by urging the
government, civil society, candidates and political parties
to play their part and to make the 2007 elections as credible
as possible.


2. (C) There are at least three overriding principles by
which we suggest judging the success of Nigeria's 2007 polls:

-Were the elections conducted in accordance with the Nigerian
constitution and related laws?

-Was the election (including pre-election preparations,
conduct of the polls, tabulation, and announcement of
results) deemed acceptable by the Nigerian people?

-Was the judicial system allowed, per the Nigerian
constitution and supporting laws, to be the final arbiter on
disputes and other legal issues arising from the organization
and conduct of the elections? Did the judiciary rule in a
timely manner on the issues brought before it for
adjudication?

The draft criteria are outlined in greater detail below, with
citations to relevant sections of the ECOWAS Charter on
Democracy and Good Governance where appropriate. A separate
cable will follow with post's evaluation of where Nigeria
stands at present and subsequent cables will continue to
evaluate Nigeria's progress up to and after the April
elections. Post notes that these criteria must be taken
holistically and that no one criterion will make or break the
election. Rather, we expect that the Nigerian elections will
succeed in some of these areas and fall short in others. We
will have to make a contextual judgment about the importance
of each success or failure to come to an overall judgment
about the credibility. That final judgment will be made in
large part with reference to the three overarching criteria
above.


3. (C) The criteria by which U.S. Mission Nigeria proposes
to judge the success of Nigeria's 2007 election are:


A. Pre-election technical preparations (see ECOWAS Charter
Section II, Article 2-5)
(1) Is the revised electoral law considered to be
acceptable and legitimate by the Nigerian people?
(2) Were the voter registration timetables in the
constitution and electoral law adhered to?
(3) Was an amendment to the 2006 Electoral Act passed
to legalize continued voter registration after December 14,
2006?
(4) Did INEC conduct a public information campaign to
educate the public on voter registration sites and
timetables?
(5) Does anecdotal evidence show that a majority of
those so desiring were able to register?
(6) Is the total number of registered voters at least
comparable to the number registered in 2003 (given Nigeria's
rapidly growing population)?
(7) Were voter registration cards issued?
(8) Was the voters roll produced in digital form? Was
the final voters roll published and widely available?
(9) Was a process in place (and publicized) to allow
for correction or challenge of the data on the voters roll in
sufficient time to make corrections before the election?
(10) Was information on the date and time of polling
and location of polling sites readily available in print and
broadcast media?
(11) Did INEC have the necessary funds for training,

ABUJA 00000200 002.2 OF 003


supplies and logistical issues associated with elections?
(12) Were ballots, ballot boxes and other materials
procured on time?
(13) Were the voting materials stored securely ahead of
the polls in order to avoid fraud and manipulation?
(14) Was a process established and well-publicized to
accredit domestic monitors and international observers?
(15) Did INEC publicize guidelines for party polling
agents, domestic monitors, and international observers?
(16) Were legitimate civil society groups registered
and allowed to serve as election monitors?
(17) Were all requesting international observer
delegations accredited?


B. Political Issues-- Is there a level playing ground for
all parties/candidates? (See ECOWAS Charter Section I,
subsection (i)-(k) and Section II, Article 3,6,9,and 10.)
(1) Were political parties registered by INEC without
prejudice in accordance with the electoral law?
(2) Was the use of INEC, EFCC or other government
agencies to "screen" or disqualify candidates, particularly
opposition candidates, limited and reasonable?
(3) Were any leading opposition candidates disqualified
in the immediate run-up to elections?
(4) Did all parties/candidates have reasonably fair
access to the media (including government-owned media) for
campaigning purposes?
(5) Were political rallies and meetings generally
allowed to take place (in accordance with Nigerian law)? Was
there any evidence of discrimination in the ability of
parties to hold rallies and events?
(6) Were all parties equally prohibited from
campaigning at polling stations and placing campaign
materials on polling site grounds?
(7) Was there any use of police or other security
agents to disqualify candidates, particularly opposition
candidates? Were any leading opposition candidates jailed in
the immediate run-up to elections?


C. Election Day: Execution of the Polls and Tabulation of
Votes (See ECOWAS charter Section I and Section II, Articles
3,5,6-10)
(1) On election day, are the majority of voters cards
considered valid and used without problems?
(2) Do most individuals appear to know where to go to
vote?
(3) Can most irregularities observed be attributed to
inadequate training of polling officials or simple logistical
problems (lack of power, infrastructure) rather than attempts
to influence the outcome of the elections?
(4) Did political party observers, domestic monitors,
and international observers have unhindered and equal access
to polling stations and counting centers?
(5) During the election, were polling officials
sufficiently trained and present in sufficient numbers to
operate most polling stations? Were they able to carry out
basic voter registration verification and allow polling to
take place?
(6) Were voting materials (ballots and boxes) present
in sufficient number and ready on time at a majority of
polling sites?
(7) Were there many instances observed of lost ballot
boxes, tally sheets not arriving at the collation point, or
other overt attempts to completely falsify the count? Were
the number of such incidents observed sufficiently few to
likely have little overall effect on the final vote count?
(8) Did the majority of polling stations observed hold
a count attended and observed by party polling agents, with
all parties allowed equal access to the counting exercise?
Did the parties sign the collation sheets and keep their copy?
(9) Were there observed incidents of ballot box
stuffing (i.e. more votes cast than registered voters in the
ward)? How prevalent were such instances?
(10) Was data transferred in a timely, consistent and
transparent fashion from polling stations to collation
stations? (Data should be available almost immediately upon
release of the results.)
(11) Were votes cast in secret ) without interference
or observation by fellow voters, polling personnel or
security officials ) in an overwhelming majority of the
sites observed?
(12) Were police, military or other security officials
used to influence or intimidate voters on election day?


ABUJA 00000200 003.2 OF 003



D. Dispute Adjudication: Did the courts rule in a fair and
timely manner? (See ECOWAS Charter especially Section II,
Article 7 and Article 9)
(1) Were court cases on issues of harassment or
disqualification of candidates or parties resolved reasonably
and expediently?
(2) Were disputes or challenges to the election results
handled fairly, expediently and transparently in the Nigerian
courts?
(3) Were the decisions of the courts implemented by the
government?


4. (C) Post will send a separate telegram evaluating the
current state of Nigeria's preparedness for credible
elections based on the criteria above. We suggest use of
this cable and subsequent assessments to determine what
actions the USG can take, both in Abuja and in Washington, to
urge the GON and other actors to take necessary steps to
improve the likelihood of credible polls in April. Such
actions could include letters, demarches, public statements,
and speeches, as well as increased technical assistance if
appropriate.


5. (C) ACTION REQUEST: Post requests that Department reply
to this cable to indicate acceptance of the evaluation
criteria and strategy outlined above.
CAMPBELL