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
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