Politics
2019 Polls: The Allegations And Realities
Accusations and counter-accusations after an election have no doubt become the hallmark of Nigerian politics. In most cases, the loser does more of the accusations, while the winner eulogizes the process leading to his/her success, even when there are glaring cases of misnomers.
In fact, but for President Goodluck Jonathan, who conceded defeat in 2015 to Muhammadu Buhari, it is difficult to name any other person who lost an election, organised by the country’s electoral umpire and accepted the results in Nigeria. It has become normal, so much that even when there is good reason for the loser to feel cheated and hence aggrieved, he is widely seen as following the band wagon.
Unfortunately, this stance has become a major Achilles’ heel of Nigerian politics, one that has, election after election, either bemusedly present-ed those who say all is well in the face of clear unwell as the real destroyers of the country’s yearnings for democracy, or made the losers (who are tagged mere complainers) as troublemakers.
Ironically, this aspect of the country’s politics is the part that makes each subsequent election stand out on its own. In the history of Nigerian politics, for instance, critics will always point to 2003 as the period when politics of gunrunning found its way into Nigerian politics. Since then, the situation has only been as good or bad as the focus of the sitting president, and in the interpretation of the interest of the one talking.
Worthy of note is the fact that at each point, most of those who dish out these bitter experiences, or receive same, have either been direct or indirect key players when it started, or supported it as the norm they came into play, even when they may have known at some point that it wasn’t right for the polity.
The difference between political gunrunning when it started and now is that while in the beginning the key players were civilians whose briefs was to protect the interest of their principals, currently those commandeering with the aid of the gun are trained military personnel who have sworn to protect the interests of the people.
The result is that while those who are on the receiving end of the alleged excesses of the military, which, like in the Abonnema experience of February 23, 2019 Presidential and National Assembly elections, allegedly claimed over 50 lives at the end of the day, those who it has favoured see it as their time to shine. This is all there is to the allegations and counter allegations over the 2019 elections.
In the midst of all this, however, there is the need to think out of the box, if one would truly want to be seen as being patriotic, as most of the key players claim to be, about what Nigeria has been thus far as a Republic, and what it should be in terms of development.
When viewed from the perspectives of the realities as they emerge, which come up almost as frequent as the brains of those who concoct their works, and placed side-by-side with what the leadership claims to be focused on for the good of society, it becomes very easy to clearly separate the real allegations, the reality of it, and the ideality of the situation which everybody seem to lay claim to.
What could perhaps be regarded as one of the first allegations of the 2019 Nigeria’s general elections occurred in Rivers State in Ikwerre and Emohua Local Government Areas (LGAs): The Returning Officers of both LGAs alleged military invasion, intimidation, molestation and carting away of collation materials, as the case may be, hence there was no result to declare at the LGA collation centers.
The reality of the allegations is that it does not change the fact that from the point of the polling units, where results are first declared, up to the Wards level, agents of political parties and virtually all concerned and their cronies have direct access to the real figures of each result.
On the other hand, ideally, whether the results were delivered at the LGA Collation Centers or not, it will be easy to get the results in bits from the Units or Wards and still arrive at the correct result, in perhaps slightly adjustable time, if the electoral umpire had worked out enough contingency plans as backups, and also earned the trust of the voters.
Even when such contingencies may not have been foreseen, if after the killings in Abonnema and the collation disruptions in other areas, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could ignore them and announce the Presidential and National Assembly elections, what else could stop elections in areas where voting had successfully taken place in a peaceful atmosphere, counted at the Units and Wards, only to be disrupted at the LGA?
But for that it shows the reality that INEC is less concerned (or interested) about getting genuine election results, and so places more attention on getting any result from persons other than the ones they officially appointed to get the results from, the Mahmood Yakubu-led INEC can hardly have genuine reason to let the one characterised by fatalities go, and stamp its feet on a better option.
In its second interim report on the Governor-ship and State House of Assembly elections of March 9, 2019, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) said in part that, “The political parties had a field day inducing voters with money, food items, soaps and various other items to vote for their partie’s candidates. These acts of inducement right before security agents within the voting precincts have the propensity to destroy the citizens’ confidence in the entire election process.
“There were several reports of electoral violence from all over the country. Party thugs and hoodlums had a field day invading voting centers to snatch polling materials, destroy voting materials, harass, molest and intimidate voters and, in some instances, INEC officials”.
The report, credited to the Chairman of the NBA Election Working Group, Afam Asigwe, stated that, “Surprising in most places where these dreadful acts were recorded or reported, security agents were either complicit or indifferent”.
The Chief Observer of the European Union Observation Mission to Nigeria, Maria Arena, summed up when she said,” Observers, includ-ing EU observers, were denied access to collation centres in Rivers, apparently by military personnel. This lack of access for observers compromises transpa-rency and trust in the process.
“In Rivers, INEC suspended until further notice the elections due to violence in polling units and collation centers, staff being taken hostage and election materials, including results sheets, seized or destroyed by unauthorised persons.
“There is no doubt that the electoral process there was severely compro-mised.”
While these allegations have not been able to encourage INEC and the Federal Government to take deliberate steps in ensuring that the military is only involved in securing the environment for peaceful elections, it only proves the reality that as far as these elections are concerned, the military has been given the power to do everything they deem fit, including taking as many lives as they can, even in a non-war situation.
Another key reality is the phrase, “people dressed in Army uniforms”, used to describe Army personnel who are blamed for carrying out all the stated allegations before and during the 2019 elections. While these allegations are sometimes backed by video footages, the military seem to be unperturbed, as it seems with the Federal Government too. With each subsequent denial of the allegations, it seems to be business as usual.
In all of these (and many more), all key players claim ideality: they want the people to see them as saints; people who are doing everything for the interest of the country; that they are the best thing to happen to the people, even when they do not have the least regard for the people, by their actions.
Leadership seem to forget in a hurry that by its actions and inactions, it has done a pretty good job doing in a more grievous manner what it had professed against just about four years ago. The APC-led Government seems only to be bent on improving on the same things it allegedly fought against, and for which it got the people’s Presidential mandate in 2015.
Soibi Max-Alalibo
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
