ENSURING SECURITY BEFORE, DURING
AND AFTER THE ELECTIONS
While
the electorates are jostling around up and down the country for their PVCs the
authorities are in battle over election logistics which has escalated to the
point of calling for the removal of the chairman of the electoral umpire Prof.
Attahiru Jega. This scenario is not
strange in Nigeria’s political lexicon.
One
of the logistics issues that has been raising dust even to the legislature is
the deployment of military for security during the election. The minority
leader at the house of Representatives moved an unsuccessful motion to declare
the move unconstitutional. I would not subscribe to the view that mobilizing
the military for security before, during and after the election as
unconstitutional. The reason is because
s. 14 of the 1999 Constitution made security and welfare of the people the
primary purpose of government. It is an
experiment that has proved successful at
Ondo, Ekiti and Edo state elections. The
presence of adequate security personnel in their numbers is even more
compelling and reassuring in an election year such as 2015. The atmosphere has been charged beyond other
election years when the terrorists had not appeared on the scene.
Provision
of security hitherto had been the role of the police during normalcy. You do not need an oracle to know that
Nigeria, since the activities of terrorists commenced is passing through normal
times. In fact if need be the president should mobilize all
security outfits to assist in the two-day national event that would not be
repeated until the next four years, with the exception of five exempted states.
The
terrorist activities in the 3 North Eastern states no doubt delayed the
progress made by this administration on the provision of security. Bornu state governor sometime ago warned that
no one should make comments and insinuations that demoralizes the field
officers as if they were not competent.
I think it is a critical comment coming from the governor on the hot
seat.
That
is why General Chris Olukolade upped his game on 24th February 2015
when he raised the morale of Nigerians and the Army by declaring that the
terrorists had retreated, fled and some drowned in Lade Chad basin. It was soothing for the military spokesman to
air to already despondent Nigerians that military hardware and combat skills of
the soldiers have improved tremendously.
And the question that readily comes to mind is why did the military
descend so low that the nation have to
wait for years to flush out a hand full of militants? Suppose it was a full
fledged invasion?
Therefore
with the declining fortress of the terrorists and increased preparatory
activities for the 2015 polls, one can visibly notice substantial silver lining
on the horizon. A situation when
sustained will ultimately return Nigeria to a stable democracy; a condition
precedent to all means of livelihood we
undertake, including inflow of foreign investment to flourish,
With
this improved security situation the burden is now on the politicians and their
supporters not to do anything that could subtract from the level already
attained. A former Attorney-General and
Minister of Justice, Alhaji Ibrahim Abdullahi, SAN who had seen it all having
been minister at three different occasions was quoted as saying that politicians
use security agents meant to assist Electoral Commission and protect the masses
to achieve their own selfish purposes against electoral rules.
No one is sure how many people would be
disenfranchised because they would not be able to get their PVCs before the
D-day. Added to those who possess only
TVCs i.e those whose cards were not printed at all, could they be huge enough
to constitute a threat, like protests? In one of the suits filed at the Federal
High Court, Abuja to compel INEC to postpone the February election to enable
all registered voters collect their PVCs, the plaintiffs insisted that TVCs
should be used against PVCs recommended by INEC and the Electoral Act, because
once a voter is registered
and data found in the voters register,
he/she becomes eligible.
lives and
properties could be used to persecute citizens on civic duties or enjoying
constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Against the
background of National Human Rights Commission’s Report that more than 50
persons have fallen victim to election violence, in spite of non-violence pact
and elections not yet held, one can see that without these safe-guards the 2015
election would have been very bloody.
However, it is not yet late to continue with voter education especially
within the remaining days to the election.
Voters should
expect rubbing shoulders with all and sundry,
including security officers on duty.
It is pertinent to remind you that they are wearing the aura of
protection by the law. S.356(2) of the
Criminal Code protects police officers (including other security personnel on
duty and those acting in their aid) from assault. The law is a bit strict because whether you
know that they are security men or police officers on duty may not be available
as a defense. A conviction may earn as
much as one year imprisonment. Where the
accused person feigns ignorance, innocent mistake or provocation it appears
that s. 24 would offer a defense of accident.
But it is advisable to control your movements with patience, in the
midst of the crowd and while queuing on line, waiting to vote or for the votes
to be counted and declared.
Even if
incidents lead to the police station remember that we have constitutional
guarantee of personal liberty, including taking the arrested person promptly to
the station; giving information as to the crime/offence committed; access to
legal advice and granting facilities for bail and preparation for trial in
accordance with s.36 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as release on bail where
it become impractical to arraign the accused within 24 hours as provided by the
law, It is also within the powers of the
DCO or the IPO to release the accused unconditionally under s.19 of the
Criminal Procedure Act if there is no prima facie evidence of any offence
committed.
The absence of
Electoral Offences Commission as being proposed does not condone nor justify
violation of electoral rules and criminal offences on election day. Voters should also be educated to avoid or
resist violence prone comments discussion or conducts to avoid such
post-election violence that occurred in Kenya in 2007 and in Nigeria in
2011. The aftermath of that incident
indicted president Uhuru Kenyata and his vice at the International Criminal
Court. Although INEC outlawed these
conducts in s. 7 Code of Conduct for political parties, politicians seem to
observe them in breach.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O.
ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate
Attorneys/Consultants