Nigeria’s 2023 general elections, which included the presidential, National Assembly, governorship, and state houses of assembly elections, may have already taken place, but their reverberations have not yet subsided.
Tongues have been wagging and discussions about the process have continued in the wake of the results of the elections, particularly the presidential election, and the eventual declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the then-candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, as the victor.
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, the presidential candidates for the two main opposition parties—the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP)—along with about three other political parties—did not agree with the election’s results and have since petitioned the Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal to overturn them.
Recall that the amount of violence that characterized the process disappointed many Nigerians, especially the youths who came out in large numbers to vote for the first time.
According to certain local and international observation missions, the elections did not meet the bare minimal requirements for free, fair, and credible elections.
The APC, however, continues to believe that the exercise was valid and accurately reflected popular sentiment.
With the recent release of the final report on the findings by one of the foreign elections observer missions, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM), on the February 25 and March 18 elections, the hornet’s nest surrounding discussions on the outcome of the elections appears to have been stirred once more while the tribunal’s ruling is awaited.
110 accredited observers from 25 EU member states, as well as Norway, Switzerland, and Canada, worked for the EU-EOM in Nigeria between January 11 and April 11, 2023.
It’s interesting to note that they were in Nigeria at INEC’s request, the country’s electoral supervisor.
The Mission was glad to offer its findings and suggestions following a three-month observation across Nigeria, according to the Chief Observer of the Mission and member of the European Parliament, Barry Andrews.
He claimed that the study followed the standard procedure followed by the EU-EOM, which recognized that flaws in the legal system and electoral administration made it difficult to hold fair elections that included everyone and eroded confidence in the INEC.
However, as part of its effort to enhance Nigeria’s next elections, the Mission provided 23 recommendations for the government of Nigeria to take into account.
“We are particularly concerned about the need for reforms in six areas, which we have identified as priority recommendations, and we believe, if implemented, could contribute to improvement in the conduct of future elections,” Andrews stated.
The report lists six priority recommendations, including the elimination of legal ambiguities, the implementation of a transparent selection procedure for INEC members, the guarantee of real-time publication and accessibility to election results, increased protection for media professionals, addressing discrimination against women in politics, and addressing the impunity of the electoral officers.
Andrews emphasized that engagement between all stakeholders on electoral changes remained vital and that political will was still required to achieve improved democratic practices in Nigeria.
“The European Union stands ready to support Nigerian stakeholders in the implementation of these recommendations,” he submitted.
Reactions to the news were conflicting.
While the study was denounced as biased and dishonest by the presidency and the majority of the ruling APC’s supporters, other well-meaning Nigerians welcomed it, claiming it just confirmed what the majority of Nigerians already knew about the elections. Since the report’s publication a few days ago, it has been apparent that different people are being affected differently by it.
In a statement responding to the study, the administration denounced it as an effort to make fun of the Nigerian electoral system and its arbiter, the INEC. This was done through the Special Adviser to the President on Special Duties, Communication, and Strategy, Dele Alake.
The statement made notice of the flawed processes used to create the report as well as the body’s shortcomings and incapacity to carry out reliable monitoring.
Alake described the study as predetermined and claimed that the EU-EOM had previously shown bias against the system in the months prior to the elections. He claimed that the paper was simply put together to support the group’s already-expressed bias.
In light of the report’s incapacity to accurately depict the overall and truthful image of the election, particularly the presidential election, the President rejected it.
Even as it recognized that the report was based on incidents from fewer than 1000 polling units out of 176,000 polling units, it stated that the organization was only able to send 40 observers throughout the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Additionally, it stated that the general elections in 2023 will be the freest and most trustworthy to take place in the nation since the start of the current democracy in 1999.
The presidency made the following statement, which was excerpted in full below: “With the level of staff deployed, which was only an average of one person per state, we question how EU-EOM independently supervised elections in over 176,000 polling locations across Nigeria.
“We would like to know and even ask the EU how it reached the conclusions in the submitted final report with the very limited election coverage by their observers who, without a doubt, relied more on rumors, hearsay, cocktails of prejudiced and uninformed social media commentaries, and opposition talking heads.
“We are certain that the EU-EOM’s so-called final report on our most recent elections was the result of a shoddy desk job that primarily depended on a few incidents of skirmishes in fewer than 1,000 of the more than 176,000 polling places where Nigerians cast their ballots on Election Day.
“We have numerous reasons to think that the slanted assessment, based on the opinions of fewer than 50 observers, was just intended to uphold the same premature denunciatory stance included in the EU’s preliminary report released in March.
“We vehemently reject, in full, any notion and idea from any organization, group, and person even remotely suggesting that the 2023 election was rigged.”
The presidency did, however, express delight that other observers of the polls from respected local and international organizations had confirmed that the most recent general elections had been the most free since 1999.
Although he did not oversee the elections, some observers believe President Tinubu shouldn’t have bothered to read the EU-EOM report.
As an election participant, they feel that INEC and former President Muhammadu Buhari, rather than Tinubu, would have been in a better position to respond to the findings because they were the ones in charge of overseeing the election.
Journalist and public affairs analyst Lemmy Ughegbe is one among those who share this opinion.
He expressed amazement at Tinubu and his team’s response to the study, claiming it was merely a restatement of what the situation room of a Nigerian civil society organization had previously revealed as its findings on the election.
“I am concerned because Tinubu was a candidate rather than the election’s director. So why would he even attempt to enter this debate when he should leave it to Buhari and the INEC, of course? Because he didn’t oversee the elections, it is not his concern. He need to just focus on matters of governance,” he remarked.
The concern in all of this, he continued, is that Tinubu spoke on the day of his inauguration and afterwards as if the election had been flawless. This is dishonest and a smack in the face to Nigerians who took part in the polls and were present witnesses, as well as a slap to honesty.
“The elections for the National Assembly and the presidency took place on the same day and at the same time. The INEC staff were able to submit real-time election results for the National Assembly, but an issue unexpectedly surfaced with the results of the presidential elections.
The risk of Tinubu and his supporters calling the election perfect is that it will make the elections in 2027 worse because if you don’t acknowledge the shortcomings and gaps, then there is a problem. No human endeavor can ever be perfect, but Tinubu and his men insist that theirs is.
“I am also concerned that individuals like Dele Alake do not see that by responding to this, they are even ensuring that this dispute continues to fester. It would have just passed if they had remained silent.
“It is worrying and brings back memories of Nigeria’s patriot, the fine and noblest of gentlemen, late Umar Musa Yar’adua; a man who on his inauguration day in 2007, on the podium on a day when he should have just basked in the euphoria of his inauguration as president, said that the elections that brought him to the presidency were rife with irregularities and was ready to start electoral reforms.
“That is the noble’s manner of speaking in situations like this. While Tinubu and his henchmen, including Alake, claim that the elections were flawless, no human endeavor is ever really perfect. They were never entirely reliable because of several irregularities, such as voter suppression.
The LP has also responded, characterizing the report as flawless and a reflection of the genuine position of the majority of voters, through its national press secretary, Obiora Ifoh.
He called the White House’s effort to discredit the report a futile attempt to save face.
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the PDP’s presidential candidate, has also lent his support to the claim that the election was rigged in Tinubu’s favor by issuing a statement via his Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
He supported the assertion that the election was tainted by anomalies and fell short of minimal requirements for credibility.
Shaibu claimed in a statement that “even the dead recognized the past elections lacked credibility. Nearly five months after the election, the electoral authority still hasn’t been able to explain why it hasn’t allowed the full results to be uploaded to its viewing portal. Even primary school students who did not cast a ballot are aware of INEC’s appalling failures and Tinubu’s election-rigging schemes.
Shaibu questioned the EU’s decision to give the government billions of dollars as an electoral money but disregarded their response.
He stated: “The EU contributed equipment to the INEC to conduct the elections in addition to providing training for the INEC workers. Given that the EU was the greatest single donor to the INEC, why would Alake assert that it has no right to speak? Instead of trying to defend the uncontainable, Mr. Alake should remain silent.
Publisher of CNK News and Public Affairs Analysts Chris Nwandu did not find the president’s response surprising because he expected it.
“You shouldn’t expect the government to applaud the findings; they are, after all, the winners of the contentious election that was conducted in a fraudulent manner.
The situation room, which was led by Madam N. Obi and included a number of CSOs, condemned the elections as being “late.” Practically all of the organizations that monitored the elections agreed.
What were their words? They asserted that despite INEC’s assurances, the presidential election results were not uploaded in real time, and that is a truth because even INEC has not denied that.
“However, the Federal Government is asserting through the presidential spokesperson, Alake, that the violations in around 10,000 polling places cannot be used to cast doubt on the outcomes of more than 176,000 polling places.
Therefore, he believes that 10,000 is insufficient and that the actual number is higher still. The election was flawed, and anyone who argues differently is merely attempting to bury his head in the sand like an ostrich, he claimed.
He continued to argue with the administration, stating, “These are independent observers; the EU observers are not Nigerians, who came to monitor the election and they published their report after the elections.
“I expected the administration to accept the verdict and consider how to make sure that a similar transgression doesn’t occur again.
“The INEC should also sit down and take a comprehensive look at the report given, not just by the EU, but also by other election observers who have also turned in their reports,” the statement continued.
