As Nigerians vote this week, the world and its legal institutions warn Nigerian politicians on the dangers of election and post-election violence, writes SAM NWOKORO.
Last week, the helmsman of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands, an arm of the United Nations Security Council, which adjudicates on international matters, gave Nigerian politicians order to conduct themselves peaceably during the forthcoming general election slated for March 28 and afterwards. Prosecutor of ICC, Fatou Bensouda, gave the warning following reports of violence between supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC).
Bensouda pointedly said that reports about the conduct of some Nigerian politicians since the campaign season, which kicked off in November last year, is still keeping the world in tense mood as the election nears.
She said: “Nigerian politicians, who instigate political violence and make incendiary speeches that threaten the security of their people, are liable for prosecution by the International Criminal Court.”
The warning comes sequel to the ones already issued by the United Nation’s Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon and United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, who said that U.S. authorities would deny visa to any political aspirant found fomenting trouble before, during and after the election.
ICC and political cases
The need by UN Security Council to get nations conduct their affairs, including elections, in accordance with conventions that guarantee peace and security of humanity informed the setting up of the ICC.
According to Wikipedia, “the International Criminal Court is an international organisation and tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. It has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes of genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems, and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to courts.”
The ICC began functions in July 2002, the day that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Rome Statute preamble states: “Conscious that all people are united by common bond, their cultures pieced together in shared heritage and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time, mindful that during this century, millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, recognising that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and wellbeing of the world (among other resolutions), an international criminal court is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern as referred to in this statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction and functioning of the court shall be governed by the provisions of this statute.”
To date, the ICC has intervened in about 22 cases in nine situations brought to it in line with the Rome Statute which many member countries, including Nigeria, have subscribed to.
Nigeria’s raucous politicking
Nigeria’s current electioneering has somehow unearthed some unsettling issues about her past and present leadership questions which have rattled not only Nigerians, but the whole world. Her problematic structure bequeathed to her by British colonialism and attendant post-Independent crises has not helped her forthcoming election as that which could come and go without complaints, as events since the last elections in 2011 has shown. This makes the warning from the ICC prosecutor sound emphatic, though such warnings have been coming for the politicians from both the UN and her friends the world over.
The following scenario highlight the susceptibility of the forthcoming election resulting in some of the ugly consequences the world harbours fears about:
Boko Haram: Since the last general election in 2011, there have been disturbances in two regions of the country, North East and North West. Muslim fundamentalists had risen against the government of President Goodluck Jonathan. The group had started as a purely youth group, which local politicians had used at various times in the past to win elections. As time went by, the group metamorphosed into a sect pushing for an Islamic state of Nigeria. Some prominent politicians from that part of the country had at various times been linked with the group which later grew out of their control, having access to arms provided by some unidentified global terror groups.
Politicians have been making a huge propaganda of the insecurity problems the group has created in the past six years. The opposition APC has variously accused the incumbent government of weakness in dealing with the insurgents, while the federal government led by Jonathan approached the African Union (AU) which assembled a multinational force the continent complemented with some scaled-up armoury from South Africa, Russia and some powerful western nations against the insurgents.
Consequently, the heat seems to have turned to the terrorists, who were said to be slaughtering their spouses as the take on their heels. For them, that is to prevent ‘infidels’ from having what they would leave behind. In the past few weeks, though, sporadic disturbances still come from the group.
Raunchy campaigns: The issue of economy of the country has also been a source of disquieting discourses that seem to give credence to the ICC warning that anyone who provokes violence after the election must be prosecuted. Nigeria’s economy has, in recent times, come into serious threat due to fall in oil prices in the international market. Some austerity measures have already been packaged and this has also polarised the campaigns. There is also the issue of unruly behaviour of the politicians. Somewhere in the North, the president’s campaign train has been attacked, while APC’s campaigns in the South are attacked by thugs suspected to be PDP supporters.
However, the APC Presidential Campaign Council (APCPCO) has taken Mrs. Patience Jonathan to the ICC for allegedly mobilising a hate campaign against Muhhamadu Buhari. A petition to the criminal court claimed that Mrs. Jonathan, whose husband is the presidential candidate of PDP, asked supporters of her husband to “stone” anyone who chants the APC’s change mantra.
The letter was signed by the Director General of APCPCO, Rotimi Amaechi, and copied the Inspector General of the Nigeria Police (IGP) Suleiman Abba and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), among relevant authorities.
A statement by the campaign organisation quoted Amaechi as saying that “Change, as the entire country must know by now, is the slogan of the APC – the rallying cry of a political party that wishes to bring hope of greater and better things to come for Nigeria and Nigerians. By her statement, Mrs. Jonathan was clearly calling on PDP supporters in Calabar to attack supporters and campaigners of the APC in the state.”
APCPCO’s statement likened some of Mrs. Jonathan’s inciting comments and conduct during this political campaign season, to those of Mrs. Simone Gbagbo – wife of the former president of Cote D’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, prior to that country’s 2010 election – who has been jailed 20 years.
ICC in international crises
To date, the ICC has intervened in political situations in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Mali. Also, the UN Security Council has referred situations in Dafur, Sudan, and Libya, both non-state parties to the ICC.
On March 31, 2010, ICC pre-trial chamber granted the prosecution authorisation to open an investigation into the situation in Cote d’Ivoire. In a paper delivered by Professor Gabrielle Lynch of the University of Warwick, England, and an Associate Fellow of the prestigious Chatham House, London, some fundamental implications that are knotty abound in the event that any unsavoury event comes to attend the Nigerian election.
The don noted: “The ICC indictment of presidential candidate, Uhuru Kenyatha, and his running mate, William Ruto, has boosted their popularity among parts of Kenya electorate that dispute ICC allegations that the post-election violence of 2007-2008 was pre-planned by organised ethnic networks. And that the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, removes the immunity that a serving head of state might otherwise enjoy under national or international laws. As Kenya is party to the Rome Statute, Kenyatha and Ruto are still subject to the ruling of the court.”
She also noted that ICC’s requirement for defendants to attend hearing at The Hague on a full-time basis would severely impede the ability of an indicted elected official to deploy the duties of their offices, and that it is not possible to predict how long ICC trials take.