SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTION -

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 000597 SIPDIS SIPDIS DOE FOR CAROLYN GAY E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/22/2017 TAGS: PGOV PHUM KDEM NI ELECTIONS SUBJECT: SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTION - PART A REF: A. (A) STATE 26383 ¶B. (B) 06 ABUJA 3216 ¶C. (C) 06 ABUJA 2917 ¶D. (D) 06 LAGOS 1313 ¶E. (E) 06 ABUJA 3154 ¶F. (F) 06 ABUJA 3061 ¶G. (G) ABUJA 403 ¶H. (H) ABUJA 182 ¶I. (I) ABUJA 44 ¶J. (J) ABUJA 462 ¶K. (K) ABUJA 272 ¶L. (L) ABUJA 233 ABUJA 00000597 001.2 OF 003 ¶M. (M) ABUJA 123STATE 26383 Classified By: Ambassador John Campbell for reasons 1.4. (b & d). ¶1. (U) Following is an assessment of the current state of Nigeria's election preparations, keyed to REF A approved criteria. This is the first of four initial responses and updates as required. ¶A. Pre-Election Technical Preparations (1) (U) Is the revised electoral law considered to be acceptable and legitimate by the Nigerian people? Anecdotally, we have no indication that the Nigerian people find the electoral law unacceptable or illegitimate. NGOs do not raise concern about the laws legitimacy, but rather the level of compliance with the law on the part of INEC and other government agencies. (See also A3) (2) (U) Were the voter registration timetables in the Constitution and Electoral Law adhered to? If not, were alternative arrangements made that were acceptable to the main political forces in the country and broadly responsive to international standards? According to the law, the voter registration timetables were not adhered to. An alternative schedule was adopted by INEC to continue registering voters after the legally mandated cutoff date. This alternative schedule, anecdotally, had broad political acceptance and, as announced, was broadly responsive to international standards. (See also A3) (3) (U) Was an amendment to the 2006 Electoral Act passed to legalize continued voter registration after December 14, 2006? Amendments to the May 2006 Electoral Act were passed by both houses of the National Assembly in early 2007. The amendments would legalize (after the fact) the extension of the voter registration exercise beyond December 14, 2006 by permitting registration until 60 days (rather than 120 days) prior to the election (REF B). As of March 23, according to �0A;government sources, the amended bill has not yet been signed by the President. Until the amendment is signed into law, the potential for challenges to the legality of the voters register (and potentially therefore to the election itself) remain. (4) (U) Did INEC conduct a public information campaign to educate the public on voter registration sites and timetables? If not, what efforts were made to make this information publicly available? In late 2006 INEC did conduct a publicity campaign using print ads, radio jingles, and television spots urging Nigerians to register to vote (REF C). However, many contacts report that information on registration procedures, locations and timetables was not widely available in many parts of the country (REF D, E, F). International and local NGOs as well as the Nigerian media and the National Assembly have all made this observation. (5) Does pre-election monitoring data by government sources or international or local NGOs/civil society groups show that ABUJA 00000597 002.2 OF 003 a majority of eligible voters was able to register? As indicated by much anecdotal evidence, the registration process was opaque and unpredictable, and therefore, impossible to monitor. According to GON sources, nearly all eligible voters were registered (REF G). Chairman Iwu has told the Embassy that "everyone who wanted to register had done so." Local and international NGOs have raised concerns about the voters register, but since INEC has yet to make a copy of the list available, they have been unable to conduct a robust analysis of the number of registered voters or the quality of the list (REF H). (6) (C) Is the total number of registered voters consistent with what was expected, given previous voter rolls and recent census data? Given the difficulties with previous voter rolls as well as the recent census data (REF I),this is difficult to assess. Additionally, there is no final number on the voters register count as the register has not been released. The most recent census found that there are approximately 140 million Nigerians, and demographic data indicates that 54% of Nigerians may be under the age of 18 (and thus not eligible to vote.) We could expect a population of approximately 64 million eligible voters. INEC's announcement of 61 million registered voters would imply that 95 percent of eligible voters were registered. Given that our most optimistic anecdotal information from around the country, including contacts with NGOs, local traditional rulers, and political parties, is that "80 percent of those who tried to register succeeded," it seems that at least 20 percent (12 million) of these registered voters are questionable. Further, the distribution by state of registered voters (as announced) is significantly different than the population distribution by state in the census data. Until better figures for the voters register are made available, further analysis of the data is impossible. (7) (U) Were voter registration cards issued to eligible voters whose identification was properly verified and recorded? If not, were alternative arrangements made? No permanent voters' registration cards have been issued as of March 23. Most persons who registered were given a paper receipt. According to INEC, alternative arrangements to deliver voters cards will be determined in the near future, once the cards have been produced. According to both INEC and NGO sources, identification was neither required nor uniformly verified and recorded during the voter registration process. (8) (U) Was the final voters roll published and widely available for review as per the election law? If not, what, if any, arrangements were made to make the voters rolls available for review? As of March 23, INEC says it is preparing the final voters roll for each of the 36 states and the FCT and INEC hopes to distribute it to the 50 political parties "soon" (REF J). Until today, the roll has not been made available to the public. (Note: INEC has no plan to compile a comprehensive nation-wide list. It will remain disaggregated at the state level.) INEC announced that the voters roll was available for display nationwide between February 5 and 10. However, as reported reftel (REF K),international and national NGOs reported they were unable to find any evidence the list was posted in most of the nation. (9) (U) What process was put 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? INEC reported that some 10,000 corrections were requested to the 61 million registrations, and both INEC and international NGOs noted that this number was low. NGOs also expressed concern that no formal process to correct or challenge the voters' register data had been created or publicized (REF L). ABUJA 00000597 003.2 OF 003 (10) (SBU) Was information on the date and time of polling and location of polling sites readily available? How was this information made available? To date, this information is not available publicly. A UNDP funded project to digitize the list of polling stations was completed on/about March 23, and the Embassy expects to receive a copy of the digital list from UNDP in coming days. (11) (SBU) Did INEC have the necessary funds for training, supplies and logistical issues associated with elections? If not, was there a deliberate attempt to deny election officials the necessary resources? INEC Chairman Maurice Iwu has repeatedly told the international community, including foreign diplomats, that INEC has sufficient funding. However, he has also made public statements claiming that the GON has not provided enough funding to ensure credible elections. Embassy's assessment is that sufficient funding is available if deployed appropriately. (12) (C) Were ballots, ballot boxes and other materials procured on time and in sufficient number? If not what is the reason behind these inadequacies and were they overcome. The INEC Chairman continues to assure the international community that procurements are "on track," but international NGOs remain unconvinced of this (REF M). For example, according to contacts at the National Assembly, printing of the ballots has not yet begun and the vendor has not yet been paid the customary "advance fee." Updates will be provided as warranted. (13) (U) Were the voting materials stored securely ahead of the polls in order to avoid fraud and manipulation? INEC has yet to provide information on this question. (14) (U) Was a process established and well publicized to accredit domestic monitors and international observers? At present, no guidelines have been issued. It has been impossible to get a clear answer from INEC on this issue and rumors abound as to new restrictions being contemplated for both domestic and international observers. NGOs voiced concern over the current lack of an accreditation for domestic monitors (REF H). (15) (U) Did INEC issue and publicize guidelines for party polling agents, domestic monitors, and international observers? INEC has yet to provide information on this question. (16) (U) Were legitimate civil society groups able to register or allowed to serve as election monitors? INEC has yet to provide information on this question. (See question 14) (17) (U) Were all requesting international observer delegations accredited? Was accreditation done in an appropriate and timely manner? No accreditation process is in place yet. (See question 14) COMMENT -------------- ¶2. (C) As can be discerned in the answers to these questions, the pre-election technical preparations have been woefully inadequate. The lack of clarity on outstanding issues remains troubling this close to election day. While failure is not inevitable, as election day looms closer, the possibility of a success is, indeed, slipping away. CAMPBELL