By Kenneth Maduagwu & Ndu Nwokolo
A significant proportion of Nigerian election stakeholders had anticipated various challenges in the build-up to the country’s presidential and national assembly poll held on Saturday 25th, February 2023. The elections came against security and economic challenges. In recent years, violence has increased nationwide with new actors, demands, and an ever-increasing casualty tally. Security experts and policy reports, such as those from Nextier, warned that this violent trend could impact the polls through voter apathy, political assassinations, and attacks on voters, electoral officers, and other election stakeholders.
Even the campaign season was dotted with instances of electoral violence across the country, suggesting a much-more fierce competition during the actual voting process nationwide. These scenarios posed a significant concern for violence-free polls. Beyond safety, millions of Nigerians strive to survive the rising inflation and current cash crunch caused by the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) changing of 1000, 500, and 200 Naira notes with newly designed notes. These realities trailed Nigeria’s keenly contested and anticipated general elections. This edition of the Nextier Policy Weekly examines cases of violence and malpractice during Nigeria’s presidential and national assembly polls and recommends ways to guard against post-election violence and further terror incidents during the March 11 2023, gubernatorial and state assembly elections.
PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE
On the eve of the presidential and national assembly elections, Nextier published a timely report titled “How Violence Could Affect Nigeria’s 2023 Elections”. Drawing from the Nextier Violent Conflict Database, which tracks mainstream media-reported violent incidents in real-time, and reports from previous election cycles, the report presented a regional analysis of violence indicators and proffered solutions to addressing them. The report also predicted several ways violence might be deployed across the regions with significant considerations to each region’s security realities. On a broad scale, the report posited that low voter turnout could be likely given the ubiquity of existing violent threats and past incidents of electoral violence.
Furthermore, the report highlighted several potential hotspots of electoral violence and recommended solutions to mitigate them. With over a dozen years of insurgency in northeast Nigeria, the report predicted that terrorist attacks were likely given the jihadists’ distaste for western values and the Nigerian state. On Saturday, February 25, 2023, five people were injured in an attack on voters by Boko Haram insurgents in Gwoza, Borno state. In Lagos state, a notorious spot for electoral violence, there were several incidents of disrupted voting, ballot box snatching, and attacks on voters and INEC officials. The INEC office in Kano was reportedly set ablaze by suspected political thugs. In Gwagwalada, Abuja, hoodlums attacked some ad-hoc staff of INEC, destroying ballot boxes. Also, in Abia state, two people were killed during the election process.
Days after February 25, 2023 elections, new violence cases emerged as results collation occurred nationwide. In Rivers state on February 28, 2023, the state collation officer adjourned the collation of results due to an alleged threat to his life by unnamed party supporters. In Jos, Plateau state capital, reinforcement of security personnel at the collation centre prevented thugs from gaining access to the hall. INEC officials and some party agents were reportedly evacuated after about ten hours of being siege by the thugs. The chart below shows the cumulative incidents and casualties recorded since Nigeria’s Saturday, February 25 2023, presidential and national assembly elections, according to tracked mainstream media-reported election-related violence.
LOW VOTER TURNOUT: FEAR OF VIOLENCE OR DISTRUST WITH THE SYSTEM?
In the 2023 general elections build-up, starting with the presidential and national assembly, widespread fears of voter apathy heralded Nigerian elections as in previous years. However, the record registration of over 93 million voters and an apparent increase in political consciousness, especially among the youth, fuelled new hopes of a politically-vested voting public. However, the collated election result shows that only about 24.97 million voters showed up to vote. In How Violence Could Affect Nigeria’s 2023 Elections, Nextier posited that ongoing security challenges across various regions would significantly threaten voter turnout during the polls. The scenario-building by the Nextier report suggests that any region with a violent-free election would increase the probability of a high voter turnout, benefiting political contenders with strong support bases, as shown by Nextier, Bloomberg, Stears, and ANAP polls. On the other hand, the report warns that political contenders with weak support bases in such regions might be incentivised to use violence to discourage voter turnout or disrupt voting procedures.
Furthermore, a few days before the elections, videos of various security agencies purportedly deployed for election security circulated across mainstream and new media platforms. About 310,973 police officers and 1,240 patrol vans from Nigeria’s various security organisations were said to be deployed for the election. Nextier’s scenario-building model also indicated two outcomes for this deployment. First, the model posits that increased militarisation may lead to low voter turnout, as a high-security presence may indicate the possibility of shootouts or face-offs with armed groups. Recall that Nigeria has many active violent hotspots. Armed groups such as Boko Haram, the Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP), separatist groups and yet-to-be-identified gunmen have targeted and killed dozens of security agencies. Three hundred thirty-nine security agents have been killed by violent armed groups nationwide, according to the Nextier Violent Conflict Database. Civilians have also become victims of violence in several locations across the country. The intensity of violence in some locations nationwide led many voters to assume the possibility of violence during elections. For instance, some separatist agitators in a hitherto relatively peaceful Southeast Nigeria had issued sit-at-home orders on election days and maintained that elections wouldn’t hold in the region. Such scenarios will breed fear among residents in the zone.
Second, the Nextier model hinted that increased militarisation might lead to high voter turnout as voters feel safer due to security presence. However, after Saturday’s polls, this scenario appeared more unlikely. Nigeria already needs more police personnel to the population size. The Nigerian Police Force has about 371,800 active personnel as of 2020, although there have been recruitments recently. A good percentage of this number guards political office holders, VIPs and other private citizens. Since other agencies, such as the military and paramilitary forces, were deployed for election security, there exists a sense of public distrust for security agencies. Hence, a heavy security presence may mean little to many voters. For instance, security personnel stationed at polling units were unarmed, as most patrol teams were allowed to bear arms for election security.
Also, previous election securitisation efforts did not fully prevent electoral violence. This is also evident in places where violence was reported during Saturday, February 25, presidential and national assembly elections. Therefore, the Nigerian security agencies for election security arguably operate in an environment where they are rightly or wrongly perceived to be partisan, ineffective, and not to be trusted. These narratives play out in how they conduct their affairs and how the public reacts or collaborates with them. Although they had acted very professionally while interacting with voters at the polling stations, their inability to either stop or deter political thugs from disrupting voting processes in many parts of the country was considered partisan and ineffectual.
MUCH MORE THAN IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE
The incidents of violence across many polling units and collation centres nationwide are probably icing on the cake. Deeper issues lie within public perceptions of the election process. Nextier’s report predicted that the failure of the newly introduced Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machine and the perception of INEC’s bias and incompetence might result in violence during and after the polls. Many news reports and anecdotal accounts claim that the BVAS machine, which was expected to transmit results at the end of voting and counting at the polling units, failed to do so across many locations, especially the Presidential results. Other reports held that some INEC ad-hoc staff were held hostage in their defiance or inability to electronically transmit election results before leaving the polling areas. Therefore, while pockets of violence were recorded in several polling units nationwide, other challenges that did not lead to immediate violence may pose problems later.
Current agitations against announced results revolve more around INEC’s perceived incompetence and partisanship than recorded violence. Social media are inundated with several accounts of results from polling units, local government areas and states and dozens of people bemoaning INEC’s negligence and hinting at a possibility of a protest. This potential rabbit hole feeds into the deepening perspective among millions of social media users that INEC’s credibility and non-partisanship are to be questioned. Furthermore, these scenarios are heralded by hate speeches, misinformation and disinformation, which Nextier’s report had stated as one of the potential causes of post-election violence.
The situation is largely the same among the political class, if not worse. A joint press briefing of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are demanding a fresh election, describing the February 25, 2023, polls as “irretrievably compromised”. APC’s Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) has slammed opposition parties over their calls to cancel the presidential polls. Specifically, the PDP presidential campaign organisation has asked INEC to cancel collated results and declare the election inconclusive. The All Progressive Congress (APC) national assembly candidates in Rivers state are also calling for the cancellation of the keenly contested Saturday polls.
Elsewhere, past and present political administrations are not on the same page as regards the presidential and national assembly elections. Through an open letter, former president Olusegun Obasanjo rejected the manual transmission of the election results and warned INEC not to set Nigeria on fire. The federal government of Nigeria has reacted to the letter asking Mr Obasanjo not to truncate the electoral process. On the other hand, the public display of the leading presidential candidates does not immediately show support for or resort to post-election violence. However, reckless remarks by them and their loyalists may incite tensions leading to escalating violence. Nextier’s report predicted that unmet electoral expectations, perceptions of INEC’s bias, voters’ intimidation and disenfranchisement, and inflammatory statements by the political class and other influential people are all tipping points of post-election violence, which can cascade into a nationwide breakdown of law and order.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE
Post-election agitations in Nigeria may come off the heels of issues encountered during the polls and collation of results and may be experienced beyond demonstration of dissatisfaction in the polls. Elections in Nigeria are keenly contested along identity lines. Hence, post-electoral violence in Nigeria may snowball into identity-related violent clashes fuelled by decades of broken national and social cohesion and unrelenting political gladiators on each side of the divide. Furthermore, post-election violence can be hijacked by hoodlums to perpetuate criminal activities, as argued with the 2020 protests against police brutality. Therefore, the outcome of post-election violence will weaken what is left of the nation’s social fabric in terms of national and social cohesion needed to keep the country stable.
The slippery slope of post-election violence is the complication of violent conflicts in Nigeria. Nigeria’s current security efforts have been perceived as ineffectual, and the personnel are too overwhelmed to respond to the avalanche of issues. Hence, a further breakdown of law and order will reduce the gains recorded in different areas. Also, non-state armed groups may cash in on the public disorder to lay claim and dominance over different sections of the country.
A less violent and long-term impact of post-election violence is the distrust it brews. State-society partnerships are often built on the basis of public trust in government and the absence of a crisis of confidence. If Nigerians perceive the electoral system as flawed, it may fuel voter apathy and disinterest in political affairs. Furthermore, if there is a predominant perspective that a candidate has emerged from a rigged system, the candidate’s legitimacy in the eyes of a significant proportion of the public may always be lacking. There is no gainsaying a government perceived to be legitimate enjoys public support in collective security, the performance of civic duties, payment of taxes, and loyalty to the state and government. Some actions are necessary for peace concerning the Saturday presidential polls and the possibilities of post-election violence and issues.
MANAGING TENSIONS, REALITIES AND POSSIBILITIES
Tensions that characterised the build-up of the 2023 presidential and national assembly elections have remained strong. New tensions are on the basis of unmet electoral expectations, allegations of electoral malpractice and voters’ disenfranchisement. These are potential rabbit holes for violence if not carefully avoided and managed. Due to past incidents of post-electoral violence, current agitations and security realities, there is a need to deploy some tactical solutions.
INEC should maintain non-partisanship and stick to the electoral laws: many disgruntled election stakeholders have been accused of incompetence and malpractice in Saturday’s presidential and national assembly polls. INEC should ensure it is neutral in the performance of its statutory duties. The commission should strictly adhere to and consistently demonstrate its commitment to all electoral laws and provisions, especially regarding using the BVAS, declaration of votes and results. Current tensions revolve around the use of the BVAS and INEC’s position on the allegations of rigging, electoral violence and deliberate disenfranchisement. These are issues that can culminate into fragmented violence nationwide.
Election Tribunal as the last hope of the common man: many dissatisfied political contenders often seek redress in the judiciary. Therefore, the judicial system plays a role in interpreting the law and demonstrating neutrality and objectivity while at it. The judiciary’s role in Nigeria’s democracy is crucial in discouraging people from seeking resolution through unorthodox means, especially resorting to violence and public disturbance. Some recent rulings by the supreme courts have not gone down, with many Nigerians now seeing more judgment than justice in the rulings of the Apex court.
Securitisation efforts should be increased in the hotspots: the deployment of security organisations for election security is not enough if it does not lead to a violence-free election and post-election. There is a need to protect INEC officials and other election stakeholders who are threatened by violence in different states. It is also essential to monitor the tensions closely to prevent attacks on people who may be targeted for identifying with a particular tribe, religion or political party. Nigeria’s security agencies must commit to safeguarding lives and properties at risk of election-related violence. Security agencies with the responsibility of providing security on election days should do their mappings on possible and known hotspots and work towards protecting the likely victims of such attacks.
Political candidates and public figures should desist from making inflammatory remarks: inciteful comments by political candidates and blocs can trigger pockets of violence, which will threaten law and order across the board. Results announcements may be an emotive period for many aspirants and their supporters. There is a need to sue for peace and calm. However, this condition can be significantly driven by the election stakeholders such as INEC, security agencies and the judiciary efficiently playing their statutory roles in the entire electoral process.
(Kenneth Maduagwu is a Senior Policy Research Analyst at Nextier; & Dr. Ndu Nwokolo is an Honorary Fellow at the School of Government and Society, University of Birmingham, UK)
