War Rhetoric? Not Again, Pat Utomi

In the run-up to the 2011 presidential election, political tension in Nigeria was intense. President Olusegun Obasanjo had done eight full years in office, and power had gone to the north in 2007. The zoning policy of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) envisaged that the north would also keep power for eight years. But President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Obasanjo’s successor, died less than three years into his tenure, and Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan succeeded him, as required by the 1999 Constitution. Yar’Adua’s death in May 2010 truncated that understanding, and power was back to the south by default. There was intense internal strife in the ruling party over power rotation.

In some quarters, Jonathan was not expected to run in 2011 — so that a northerner would complete what was considered the north’s allotted eight years. The people of the Niger Delta insisted that they too deserved to produce the president, and this was a rare opportunity in Nigeria’s history. Gen Ibrahim Babangida, the former military president who spent eight years in power, Lt Gen Aliyu Mohammed Gusau, a former national security adviser (NSA), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, former vice-president, and Dr Abubakar Bukola Saraki, then governor of Kwara state, entered a process within the PDP to produce a northern consensus candidate to confront Jonathan in the presidential primary.

The political tension intensified as soon as Atiku was picked as the consensus candidate. Speaking at the THISDAY Dome, Abuja, in December 2010, during a conference organised by the Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF), the body that picked him as the northern candidate, Atiku attributed a famous JF Kennedy line to philosopher Frantz Fanon, warning: “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.” He cleverly added a caveat: “This is not what we want for Nigeria.” As it turned out, Jonathan still defeated him to win the PDP’s ticket. Gen Muhammadu Buhari, candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), became the sole northern hope.

The ensuing tension along our fault lines was choking. And as results showed Jonathan heading for victory over Buhari, violence broke out in the north. Ten youth corps members, who were part of INEC ad hoc staff, were murdered in Bauchi for allegedly rigging for Jonathan, even though he got only 16 percent of the votes in the state. More than 800 people were killed in 12 northern states. Mr Abubakar Malami, then CPC national legal adviser, condemned the violence but said it was a reaction to the “determination” of the PDP to win the election “by any means”, citing the post-election riots of 1965 and 1983 as precedence. Malami later became the attorney-general of the federation.

Meanwhile, Boko Haram, which had been carrying out deadly attacks since 2009, revved up its terror campaign, leading to unsubstantiated allegations that northern politicians were taking their pound of flesh over the zoning dispute. In April 2012, at a summit in Asaba, Delta state, Gen Andrew Owoye Azazi, then NSA, said: “The extent of violence did not increase until when there was a declaration by the current president that he was going to contest. The PDP got it wrong from the beginning by saying Mr A can rule, Mr A cannot rule… according to PDP’s convention, rules and regulation and not according to the constitution and that created the climate for what has manifested itself this way.”

Why this excursion into history? Because I am beginning to hear echoes of 2011 as we approach another presidential election. And, disturbingly, one of those raising the spectre of violence is Prof Pat Utomi, a man I respect very highly and to whom I devote an entire chapter in my forthcoming book. In an X post last Sunday, he wrote: “I am in the middle of an accidental town hall meeting in Manchester… They were energized to ask for how they could own fighting rigging. The determination to do whatever will prevent election malpractice suggest we may see a civil war if power tries to muscle the will of the people this time.” Notice the phrase: “will of the people”. Which people?

For some people, if their preferred candidate is not declared the winner, then the election must have been rigged. True, rigging is a fact — it is undeniable — but it is not always the reason people lose elections. For instance, until his death, Buhari believed that he won the 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections but was rigged out. In 2011, he even alleged that a software in INEC’s computers reduced his votes by 40 percent. He was convinced his huge popularity in the core north was enough to make him president. But no candidate has ever won the presidential election by being popular in just one section of the country. You need other sections as well — as Buhari eventually realised in 2015.

It is worrisome that many people do not countenance the fact that Nigeria has 36 states, the FCT, six geopolitical zones and 774 local government areas. More than 20 million Nigerians regularly vote in presidential elections. Different interests motivate them. Some are moved by ethnic and religious sentiments; some, political affinity; some, party affiliation; some, ideals and policies; and some, “stomach infrastructure”. Moreover, voters in rural areas, semi-urban towns and big cities behave differently when it comes to voting. Social media and WhatsApp cannot capture every sentiment. But many voters project the voices of thousands as the choices of millions. The stuff of echo chambers.

Not every allegation of rigging is backed by evidence. Sometimes, allegations arise from genuine irregularities. At other times, they are driven by an exaggerated sense of a candidate’s popularity. Electoral fraud is real, but so is political delusion. In an emotionally charged atmosphere, many find it difficult to believe that a candidate so overwhelmingly popular in their region could lose in another region. That was part of what happened in 2011. Buhari was hugely popular in the north. He polled 1,315,209 votes in Bauchi, while Jonathan had just 258,404. To his supporters, rigging was the most convenient explanation for him not being declared the president-elect, and violence was the redress.

To be clear, we must stamp out rigging. We must talk tough and act tough. But there is a line we must not cross. We must never make bloodshed an acceptable response to electoral disappointment. Nor should those in power think they can rig with impunity. Those who rig elections and those who resort to violence in response are both enemies of democracy. One steals the people’s mandate; the other threatens their lives and property. Neither deserves our sympathy. No candidate is worth dying or killing for — in my opinion. As Jonathan would say, “My ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian.” Politicians should spend more time canvassing for votes instead of inciting violence.

I am for free and fair elections any day, anytime, anywhere. I am for one person, one vote. I am against the manipulation of figures, voter suppression and vote trading. While I accept that voters cannot tell who will perform best in office, at least they can assess the candidates and their records and weigh their promises. Nobody has a crystal ball. Theirs is to vote. They cannot guarantee what the winner will do in office, but they can hold the government accountable and vote out the incumbent at the next opportunity if they have the numbers. The reality of electoral democracy is that everybody may have their say, but not everybody will have their way. Life is not fair, is it?

Utomi would say he did not explicitly call for civil war but was only warning about the possible consequences of rigging, but reckless language has consequences too. Putting ideas in people’s heads has consequences. Those who use the language of violence are hardly victims in the end. Even their family members are hardly affected. It is the people on the street who bear the scars. Some families have not recovered from the violence of the past that led to killings and destruction of property. I am troubled by the ease with which some people invoke the possibility of another civil war in a delicately balanced country like Nigeria. Such wild language can take on a life of its own.

Indeed, the Ahmed Lemu panel that investigated the 2011 post-election violence identified inflammatory political statements among the factors that fuelled the killings. Words matter, especially when the political atmosphere is already combustible. INEC, the security agencies and the political authorities must be put on their toes to ensure a free and fair election in 2027. They are not doing us a favour by ensuring a credible process. And politicians must learn to handle defeat rather than attribute every electoral failure to rigging. It is so predictable and has almost become part of the formality. Nobody should threaten us with civil war or bloodshed over an election. Not again, please.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

EBOLA ALERT

The wife of a Swiss diplomat has become the index case of Ebola in Nigeria, 12 years after the first incident. She had just returned from Uganda when she started showing symptoms of the deadly disease, which kills about half of those infected on average. The comforting part is that Ebola does not spread through the air like COVID-19. It is transmitted mainly through direct contact with the bodily fluids of infected people who have developed symptoms, or with contaminated materials. The scary part is that early Ebola symptoms look like malaria or flu, so they can be easily seen as normal. I must commend the federal government for its prompt public enlightenment campaign. Kudos.

AAC VS APC

I was surprised that many laughed off the request by the African Action Congress (AAC) to use the State House banquet hall for the inauguration of its presidential campaign council. The party, which is fielding Comrade Omoyele Sowore as its presidential candidate, also requested the provision of food, drinks, and logistical support for an estimated 5,000 participants attending from Nigeria and abroad. Why? The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) used the same hall, which belongs to Nigeria and not to any party, to inaugurate its own campaign council. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. The request may be ignored but AAC has made its point. Simple.

VALUE DECLINE

I fly ValueJet regularly and I have always recommended it to my friends because of its promptness and efficiency. I am now forced to admit that its standards have been falling for a while, which I can live with for now. What I cannot live with is to book an Abuja-Lagos flight, only to find myself in Iperu, Ogun state, as I did on Wednesday. No indication there would be a stopover during booking. No such information on my ticket. No such announcement when the flight was called. I believe some people just think Nigeria is a jungle where anything goes, where they can do anything and get away with it. This is quite unprofessional and I suppose it is actionable in a court of law. Impunity.

NO COMMENT

Chief Samuel Ortom, former governor of Benue state, has been complaining about the failure of his successor to give him befitting benefits. “I was supposed to be provided with a house,” he said, with the sense of entitlement that has become a culture for our politicians. “You have seen me here in my Games Village house. Which ex-governor is living in Games Village? The whole of this country, in Abuja here, which governor is living in Games Village?” Can you imagine a whole former governor, His Excellency, living in Games Village when his mates have mansions in Banana Island, Maitama, Asokoro, New York, Dubai, Tokyo, Doha, Acapulco, Bahamas and Cairo? What a pity. Hahahaha…