EVALUATION OF NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTION - PART B

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 000682 SIPDIS SIPDIS DOE FOR CAROLYN GAY E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/30/2017 TAGS: PGOV KDEM NI SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF NIGERIA'S 2007 ELECTION - PART B REF: A. STATE 26383 ¶B. ABUJA 597 ¶C. 06 ABUJA 2077 ¶D. 06 ABUJA 2337 ¶E. 06 ABUJA 2524 ¶F. ABUJA 322 ¶G. 06 ABUJA 2349 ¶H. 06 ABUJA 3061 ¶I. 06 ABUJA 2555 ¶J. ABUJA 630 ABUJA 00000682 001.2 OF 003 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 approved criteria (Ref A). This is the second of a series of four responses to Ref A and an undetermined number of follow-up reports. Ref B is the first cable in the series. ¶B. Political Issues (1) (U) Were political parties registered by INEC in accordance with the electoral law? Fifty political parties have been registered (Ref C). In two instances, INEC has intervened to arbitrate factional disputes and in two instances, INEC declined to intervene. (2) (SBU) Was the use of government agencies to "screen" candidates applied evenly across all parties? The process of screening candidates was not applied consistently either within parties or across parties. The inconsistencies have formed, in part, the basis for numerous lawsuits among aspirants of various parties. Despite its questionable legal authority, the process of screening started with the submission of an advisory list by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to the Presidency (Refs D, E). Numerous inconsistencies as to who was included and excluded from the EFCC,s final list, and whether consistent criteria were applied, led to seemingly inconsistent pronouncements by the EFCC Chairman benefiting numerous sitting PDP governors (Ref F). The list was also used to block competitors for specific seats important to the Presidency for family and political reasons, including the opponent of President Obasanjo's daughter's senatorial bid and his special adviser's gubernatorial bid. (3) (SBU) Were opposition candidates disqualified in the run-up to elections? If so, was their disqualification appropriate given the evidence as determined by due process under the electoral law? The use of government administrative panels to codify indictments, which under the electoral law led to the �A;disqualification of a number of candidates, was likewise applied inconsistently. The President's administrative panel, which "indicted" (in this case, more like accused) Vice President Atiku Abubakar, was accepted by INEC (Ref G). The Gubernatorial administrative panels that "indicted" PDP Presidential candidate Umar Yar'Adua and Oyo gubernatorial candidate Alao Alaka, among others, have been ignored by INEC. On the list disqualified by the President's administrative panel, there were many more opposition politicians than ruling party politicians disqualified. Given that ruling party incumbents likely had more access to government funds, this would seem on the surface to be unbalanced. Further, many candidates (most of them from the opposition parties) who had never held public office and had not engaged in government contracting were also disqualified for unspecified charges of official corruption. While the disqualifications are arguably within the law, none of these panels followed a process that would allow the accused individuals to defend themselves against the charges or challenge any evidence against them. In no instance has a person accused under these panels been charged to a court, whether the judicial system, the Code of Conduct system or the ICPC or EFCC prosecution systems. Several court cases related to these elections remain to be decided and updates will be provided. ABUJA 00000682 002.2 OF 003 (4) (U) Did all parties/candidates have reasonably fair access to the media (including state-owned media) for campaigning purposes? All parties and candidates had fair access to the predominately privately-owned media, although candidates willing to pay to place stories fare better than the others. State-owned television coverage favored the ruling PDP, but that medium is small compared to radio. Private television provides fair coverage. (5) (U) Were political rallies and meetings generally allowed to take place (in accordance with Nigerian law)? Is there evidence of discrimination in the ability of parties to hold rallies and events? Current Nigerian law places almost no restrictions on rallies or demonstrations. The Public Order Act was declared null by a Federal court and neither has the ruling been challenged nor has the law been replaced. The only rallies allowed to take place unhindered have been the ruling PDP rallies. The ANPP and its Presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari have been banned from holding rallies in many locations, purportedly because the "crowds are too big." Several of their rallies have also been broken up by police accompanied by unnamed "hired thugs." The AC and its presidential candidate Vice President Atiku Abubakar are somewhat more successful at avoiding security interference than the ANPP and Buhari, but their rallies have also been broken up by purported "PDP thugs." Events planned by support groups for the political opposition as well as indepdendent Civil Society organizations over the past year have also been broken up by police and State Security operatives who each time claim to "have orders to halt" such meetings, even in private residences or public locations (Ref H). (6) (U) Were all parties equally prohibited from campaigning at polling stations and placing campaign materials on polling site grounds. No information is available on this question as of yet. (7) (U) Was there any use of police or other security agents to disqualify candidates? Were any leading opposition candidates jailed in the immediate run-up to the elections? Yes. The primary method of disqualifying candidates was the use of accusations made by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC),an arm of the security services (see item 2, above). Some leading opposition candidates at the gubernatorial and senatorial level have been jailed (see item 8, below) . Updates will be provided as the election draws nearer. (8) (SBU) Was there an evident pattern of politically motivated violence, being directed from the federal level, to prevent candidates from campaigning or otherwise communicating with potential voters? Politically motivated violence tends to fall into a few discrete categories (Refs I, J). The pattern of attacks on PDP motorcades carrying the President and the PDP's presidential candidate Umar Yar'Adua in Katsina, Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi, Nasarawa, Enugu, Rivers, Delta, Oyo, Osun, Kwara and Lagos states appears to be one of spontaneous expressions of disapproval of the ruling party in general. It is difficult to ascribe a federal level pattern of coordination for these attacks. Reports of attacks on AC and some ANPP rallies suggest they are generally carried out by both police and thugs, sometimes armed, who profess ties to the ruling party. Invariably, the reports say that "thugs," sometimes identified as PDP by campaign material and slogans, are given free rein while the police stand by observing. At times, the police also take part and in at least one instance, the target of the attack was arrested by the police for "causing tension in the area." These attacks, taken as a whole, seem to be designed to impede the campaigning of these parties especially in areas deemed vital to the PDP's interests. A case has been made by ABUJA 00000682 003.2 OF 003 various civil society organizations that these attacks are part of a coordinated attempt by the PDP and the government to limit the political space available to the opposition. Clashes among supporters of the various parties (most often but not limited to the AC and PDP) and the volume of low- to mid-level violence against politicians is more often attributable to local conditions than to a coordination at the federal level. ¶2. (C) COMMENT: A pattern of manipulation can be gleaned in both the use of security services to disqualify candidates and in attempts to prevent opposition rallies. The incidents reported appear to suggest that the government is acting in a coordinated fashion to limit the opposition's activities. Overall, the pattern points a finger at a nationally coordinated effort to limit the effectiveness of opposition parties and candidates. It is unclear who gives the orders, but this level of coordination would suggest someone very high up in the party structure was coordinating the various legal efforts by the EFCC and the police. On the other hand, violent activities by the opposition aimed at the government's candidate do not appear to be so well coordinated, leaving one with the impression that the national elements of these parties are not actively coordinating, although they likely endorse or acquiesce in the activities. Like Ref B, the sum of this assessment does not preclude a successful election, but serious steps would need to be taken in the seven working days left before the April 14 state elections to ensure a successful rating in this category. END COMMENT. CAMPBELL