Editor, Politics/Features, EMEKA ALEX DURU, chronicles major political issues in the country in 2015.
With the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC) successfully concluding their primaries for the various elective positions in December 2014, it was apparent that the battle line for the 2015 general elections had been drawn.
PDP set the stage for the ensuing encounter by advertising the then President Goodluck Jonathan as the arrowhead of its attack. At an impressive affirmative primary that lasted from December 10 to 11, 2014, it formally adopted the then President as its candidate for the poll.
The development, however, did not come to many as a surprise, given that the entire organs of the party had earlier in October adopted him as the party’s sole presidential candidate.
In fact, in a bid to ensure that the agenda did not in any way go awry, feeble efforts by the first son of the late Prime Minister, Dr. Abdul Jhalil Tafawa Balewa, at running against the President were effectively extinguished, as he surprisingly announced his withdrawal from the race, after selling the dummy of offering stiff challenge.
Similarly, Professor Akasoba Duke-Abiola, who also had indicated interest in the race, later chickened out. With the obstacles dismantled, Jonathan picked the PDP ticket, almost effortlessly.
But not so for Muhammadu Buhari, a retired General and former Head of State, who emerged APC presidential flag-bearer at its primary. His was a gruelling encounter that featured stiff challenge from former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso of Kano, Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo and Sam Nda-Isaiah, a newspaper publisher.
The issues, the campaigns
Jonathan, in accepting the PDP nomination, gave indications that he would anchor his campaign on consolidation of his transformation agenda which his foot soldiers claimed had resulted in fixing the country’s infrastructure, job creation, enhanced security and boost in the country’s global perception, among others.
Buhari, on the other hand, aside his traditional disposition to transparency and zero tolerance to corruption, pledged that he would lean on the APC roadmap to woo voters.
The party had, in what it presented as a 10-point agenda for a new Nigeria, listed areas it would focus on to make life meaningful if elected to power.
Highlights of the presentation included job creation; anti-corruption fight; free, relevant quality education; agriculture; housing plan; and healthcare plan for children and adults.
The party also listed social welfare scheme for the less advantaged as well as road and power plant construction, among its priorities, adding that it would strengthen peace, security and foreign policy.
Thus, with PDP flagging off its presidential campaign in Lagos, early in January, the battle line for the general elections was finally drawn. APC had earlier kicked off its campaign in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
Buhari mounts the soapbox
APC flag-bearer had commenced his campaign with a promise to fight insecurity and corruption as well as reviving the ailing economy of the country. In this regard, he remarked that his party had already assembled capable hands that would work towards improving the economy as soon as he was sworn in on May 29.
He said: “The major problems we are facing in Nigeria today is the problem of the economy and insecurity. We have arranged competent hands to manage the economy once we come on board on May 29, 2015… We have lined up programmes on how to tackle unemployment. We are going to assemble team of professionals for wealth creation and employment for our teeming youths. We will put mechanism in place to fight insecurity and improve the country.”
The emphasis by Buhari on tackling corruption, unemployment and insecurity was hardly surprising. Mid way into Jonathan’s presidency, for instance, public perception of the administration on these key indices had been contentious.
While supporters of the government scored it high in fixing abandoned infrastructural facilities in the country as well as steering the economy on the path of recovery, his opponents disagreed, dismissing him as lacking the initiative to tackle the challenges before him.
Insecurity, occasioned by the Boko Haram challenge in some parts of the North, readily provided an index in the low performance rating of the administration. The terrorist group, which had increased its offensive on the country since the inauguration of the administration, had put the country in bad light among Nigerians and international observers.
In its murderous onslaught, churches, mosques, schools, communities, markets and other public places had not been spared. As it launched its odious campaigns, it left in its trail sorrow and blood.
What, perhaps, exposed the audacity of the sect to the international community was the Monday, April 14, 2014 abduction of about 276 students of Government Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State, by a group suspected to be made up of its members.
The abduction, which totally laid bare the fault lines of the nation’s security network, saw some countries signifying interest in the efforts to rescue the girls. United States of America (U.S.A.), United Kingdom (UK), France and China were among the countries said to have made the offer. The girls are, incidentally, still in captivity.
In similar vein, social life and economy of the ravaged states had been in doldrums. It was, thus, not out of the ordinary for APC to list eradication of insecurity among its priorities.
The party also flaunted Buhari’s zero-tolerance for corruption as an agenda that would sell it to the people. The retired General had, in his first coming as a military ruler, embarked on measures that indicated that with purposeful leadership, corruption could be exorcised from the country considerably. Though some of the approaches by his administration in tackling the menace were considered unconventional and draconian, they were seen in some quarters as imperative in repositioning the country by the average Nigerian. Buhari had also, at that time, not lost that charm and admiration, at least among his supporters that were mostly drawn from the down-trodden and unemployed youths. It was to this people that the APC agenda of fixing the economy if elected into office registered enormous impact.
Jonathan preaches consolidation
PDP, however, did not seem intimidated by the issues raised by the APC flag-bearer. For instance, at the Lagos campaign kick-off of the party, Jonathan had reminded his audience how his government had put in place legal and institutional frameworks for tackling corruption and putting the country on the path to economic prosperity. He also recalled efforts by his administration in repositioning the country.
Enter the toxic campaigns
The parties, in marketing their agenda, also threw punches at one another, in most cases, employing uncomplimentary expressions. While the trend continued, it was obvious that the political space was steadily getting charged with incidences of derogatory and inflammatory campaigns from both camps.
At a point, in fact, Governor Kwankwaso allegedly hit hard at Jonathan, describing him as an “incompetent commander-in-chief”.
But in a swift reaction, the PDP National Secretary, Wale Oladipo, hit back at APC with what could be likened to a bombshell, describing Buhari, its flag bearer, as a “semi-literate jackboot”.
Director of Media and Publicity for Jonathan Campaign Organisation, Femi Fani-Kayode, raised the bar by pronouncing Buhari as representing darkness while Jonathan typifies light.
The tension generated by the volatile electioneering cut across all the nooks and crannies of the country. In fact, as the verbal missiles reverberated from the parties, there were reported instances of their foot soldiers engaging in clashes that left some wounded or dead.
Abuja accord to the rescue?
While the growing tension inched into the process, enlightened observers were hardly amused. Apparently concerned with the humanitarian crisis that could result from creeping trend as well as in pandering to their huge economic interest in Nigeria and West African sub-region, the international community reached out to the leadership of the parties on the need to play by the rules.
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Jonathan, Buhari and 12 other presidential candidates signed accord for violence-free polls.
The pact, among others, emphasised the need for credible polls as well as the imperative of issue-based campaigns.
Known as “Abuja Accord” by the organisers of the event, the pact barred the contestants from making inciting speeches in whatever guise that could lead to violence before, during and after the elections.
At the event, which was witnessed by eminent personalities including Kofi Annan, a former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Emeka Anyaoku, a former Secretary General of Commonwealth, Jonathan and Buhari embraced each other to the admiration of all.
But the ink with which the accord was signed had hardly dried when the combatants and their lieutenants literally made a return to the trenches. At Jonathan’s rallies in some parts of the North, there were reports of his convoy being pelted with stones and sachet water. The most dastardly of the attacks on him was the bomb blast in Gombe at which he escaped by the whiskers.
APC had also suffered violence in various forms, including blasts at its Rivers State offices.
Uncertainties of the polls
What, however, constituted the gravest threat to the polls was the kite of postponement flown by some individuals and interest groups, at the time.
Before then, there had, on occasions, been insinuations of the government plotting an agenda to stall or shift the elections.
At such moments, senior officials of the government had put a lie to the charge, arguing that the polls would hold as scheduled.
But the statement by the then National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, in London, in January, seeking postponement of the elections, had added weight to the suspicion on the government acting out a script.
Dasuki had explained his call on the need for the distribution of permanent voter cards (PVCs), arguing that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) needed more time to ensure that all qualified Nigerians received cards for the vote.
APC and some Nigerians, however, kicked against the suggestion. Jonathan, on his own, assured that the May 29 hand-over date was sacrosanct, but without emphasis on the polls taking place on February 14 and 28. The then INEC Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, even pledged that there would not be any shift on the dates.
INEC reverses self, shifts polls
Contrary to his earlier stance, Jega, on Saturday, February 7, announced that the national and state elections, earlier scheduled to take place on February 14 and 28, had been shifted to March 28 and April 11, in that order.
With the announcement, the nation entered into a new regime of apprehension. The uncertainty was not sudden. For example, two days before Jega’s announcement, the National Council of State (NCS), the highest advisory body in the country, had ended its meeting in Abuja, with a resolution that was interpreted along party lines and interests.
While some had claimed that the Council had encouraged INEC to go ahead with the polls, others insisted that it rather advised the electoral body to shift the exercise.
Another interpretation of the outcome of the meeting was that INEC should consult with relevant bodies and agencies on the feasibility of holding the elections on the scheduled dates.
The confusion arising from interpretation of the NCS meeting was further compounded by agitation from various groups on the propriety or otherwise of holding the elections.
In one of the instances, 16 out of the 26 registered political parties had canvassed the shift, threatening to pull out of the poll if INEC forged ahead.
The groups angling for the postponement had based their points on insecurity and shoddy distribution of PVCs. There were other individuals and groups who had made case for INEC proceeding with the election, arguing that any postponement would engender distrust in the system.
It was against the backdrop of these conflicting positions that Jega’s intervention became instructive. The INEC chair, in making the announcement, had argued that the shift in poll dates was in pandering to advice by the relevant stakeholders, including political parties, security chiefs, civil society organisations (CSOs), the media, among others.
Nigerians decide
Many had thought that the shift in the poll dates was going to provoke ugly reactions in the land. But going by the conduct of Nigerians, there was no doubt that the people were determined to save their country.
In fact, despite the inadequacies of INEC as regards late delivery of election materials and non-delivery in some areas, inadequate materials, late decision to revert to manual accreditation hours after the smart card readers (SCRs) were not meeting expectations, the situation did not produce the agitations that many feared would disrupt the election.
The SCR challenge
There was the challenge of SCRs, the late arrival of materials at polling stations and non-arrival of materials in most polling booths.
Even Jonathan and his wife, Patience, were not spared the hitches. The former President was later issued with Incident Form for accreditation after five SCRs failed to read his thumbprint.
The story of non-functioning of SCRs, late arrival of INEC officials, non-availability of materials in many centres, insufficient electoral materials, the hacking into the website of INEC by a group which called itself the ‘Nigerian Cyber Army’ were all part of the reasons the election dragged to Sunday.
Some polls witnessed pockets of violence.
The election, to political commentators, took ethnic dimension as voters voted according to candidates from their zone.
While the South West zone voted for APC, given that the running mate to Buhari, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, is from the area, the South East and South South went for Jonathan who they saw as their own. The three zones in the North (North East, North West and North Central) voted Buhari their Northern candidate.
Big names lose
Results collated in different polling units revealed shocks as some perceived political heavyweights lost in their areas.
The list included Musiliu Obanikoro, Olabode George, Isah Yuguda, Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, Gabrial Suswam and Smart Adeyemi.
The compilation of the results of the election at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, was also not without its drama.
Aggrieved by what he described as bias against Jonathan, former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe, had, while the collation was going on, created a scene as he accused Jega of being “selective and partial” in dealing with issues of irregularities raised during the poll.
The situation was handled maturely by both the security agents present and Jega who clarified the issues raised as false.
Jonathan concedes defeat
Results of the election were yet to be officially released, when Jonathan, exhibiting political statesmanship which was applauded by Nigerians and the international community, put a call to Buhari to concede defeat and congratulated him on the victory.
In doing that, he recalled in his statement that nobody’s ambition was worth the blood of any Nigerian.
Eyes on the President
With the rare feat, the ululation of victory and celebration took over the land, with congratulatory messages pouring in from all quarters.
But six months after Buhari’s inauguration, mixed reactions trail the performance profile of his administration. In line with his pledge of frontal attack on the incidence of corruption, he has put up actions that give impression of seriousness on the agenda. There are however allegations of selective prosecution of the war, especially as none of his party men had been taken in by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other sister anti-corruption agencies. Buhari has also embarked on diplomatic shuttles, obviously intended to rebrand the country.
But Nigerians lament the biting economic situation that has enveloped the country, especially in the face of what seems an absence of clear-cut economic blueprint by the administration.
