CURBING ELECTORAL VIOLENCE AND PROTECTING PEOPLES MANDATE IN NIGERIA: THE ROLE OF CITIZENS BY DR A. M. ASHAFA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY KADUNA STATE UNIVERSITY KADUNA Being a Paper @ a Workshop Organized by The Centre for Development Research and Advocacy (CRDA) on Thursday 5th April 2007 Sokoto Guest Inn Sokoto. INTRODUCTION Curbing electoral violence and mandate protection are very important issues in Nigeria’s democratic processes. This appears to be the oldest or longest republic since the country became independent. As the General elections comes near, the polity has become highly tensed and this further makes it the most topical issue in the political landscape even as there is genuine concern on whether the elections would hold at all and if it were held the likely negative response that might follow. Our concern also is that none of our neighboring countries can cater for a handful of Nigerian refugees further to any negative outcome of the elections in the form of violence. The truth is that the Independent National Electoral (C)omission INE(C) is undoubtedly ill prepared for the gigantic responsibility of organizing an election of this magnitude. The way and manner it handled the voters registration exercise was to say the least shoddy and questionable. The claim by INEC in the media that it displayed the names of registered voters as required by law was rather myth as no one could vouch to have seen such names displayed and then verified anywhere. Therefore the claim by INEC to have registered over 61 million voters is a farce, a claim not supported scientifically by facts of verification. In fact, nobody is even sure whether his name is included, whether he will vote at all and where to actually cast ones vote. INEC’s claim of authority of screening and disqualifying candidates submitted by the individual political parties as recognized by law even as competent courts responsible for interpreting of laws has pronounced to the contrary has remain an issue of litigation further. The dead of Chief Adebayo Adefarati, Alliance for Democracy’s presidential candidate and the federal government’s request from the court on the elections as it is in Rule 37 of the Electoral Act 2006 (amended) further goes to suggest that INEC’ eleventh hour hiccups are meant to abort the elections by anti-democracy elements. As we are here in the workshop, INEC is being expected to make pronouncements on whether the elections would hold or not, which goes to show the level of uncertainty and apprehension the elections is bedeviled with. A government that could not supply the police with the required arms to face the gang of armed robbers now suddenly found it expedient to procure AK-47 with millions of ammunition to intimidate genuine democrats calling mandate protection to ensuring free, fair and credible elections must certainly be joking. The 2007 elections must not be like the garrison elections of 2003 that blocked our democracy. INEC never appears to be an impartial umpire as far as the 2006 elections were concern. But the fact remains that that there are other stakeholders out there that could ensure that the elections are not only held, but that it be free, fair, credible and acceptable. In the preparation of this elections neither INEC, the political parties, Civil Societies Organizations, the Academia nor traditional ruler are cheerful about it. Elections in Nigeria today are not unpredictable unlike pregnancy were in the good old days when the technology of scanning machines was not available, which made it impossible. Today parents can know the sex, weight and even the genotype of their unborn babies. INEC is not transparent and has never claim to be. It has not provided any level playing ground for all the parties and contestants. But as responsible citizens, we must know that a free, 2 fair and credible election does not solely lies with INEC nor governments, all of which ab initio are biased against some parties and candidates. The onus lays on us the citizens. There are very many forms of violence that features in the contemporary global set up. In Nigeria today, the current nature of politically motivated violence, its tempo, spread and forms have increasingly been permeating through the States, Local Governments and even remote areas. During the military era for example, though many other forms of violence were witnessed, the most pronounced was that organized by the State with the full knowledge or tacit approval of the junta. The return to democracy in 1999 rather increased the many forms violence than otherwise. In this discourse, we are only concern with political violence as it relates to elections in Nigeria vis a vis the role expected of citizens in protecting their mandate in an election especially that we are in elections year and the much awaiting General Elections is in the corner. Electoral violence takes different form and occurs or even unfortunately becoming a culture, if not a cancerous in our body politics. Largely occurring during election periods, electoral violence is being organized by politicians against one another or by parties against members of other parties or even fellow party members etc. From Nigeria’s political history, it is not factual to say that electoral violence started in 1999. Instead, it has always featured in the country’s democratization processes, especially during political transitions characterized by elections and electioneering processes. And this violence was what largely contributed to the failure of our previous experiments with democratization processes in the 1st and 2nd Republics, which were issues this paper has taken for granted that we generally know and needs not be revisited. There are different reasons why electoral violence occurs and why people and groups have been talking about them and are so much concern with. Truly, the phenomenal spread and tempo of violence in relation to our electoral processes is truly speaking a major issue for concern to all concerned Nigerian citizens and their well wishers elsewhere. That is why we must commend CRDA for organizing this workshop and particularly Hussaini Abdu the Project Director and his indefatigable team who are visibly worried about the cases of violence in relation to our transitions in democracy particularly during election periods and why they thought it wise to conscioustize our people on how to curb the problem for the good of our democracy and for our betterment as a nation with a future to build on a firm democratic ethos. This presentation is divided into two sections and both provides a descriptive than theoretical context for looking at the two key issues: Curbing Electoral Violence and then Mandate Protection, while also looking at the inner logic of their inter-relationship and dynamics within the context of our political experiences and the future of our democratic struggle in a manner as to stabilize, strengthen and defend our democracy and the good expectations we hope to reap there from. The Paper is an advocacy towards our goal in achieving political sanity which in CRDA’s deliberate judgment and concern is meant to construct durable democratic structures for good governance and the search for good leadership at all levels of governance in the country. 3 It should have been noted ab initio that we Nigerians are going to polls this year to elect those persons to occupy various offices to be vacated by most of the incumbents. This includes the President, most of the State Governors, members of the States and National Assemblies and lastly Local Governments in April and then June 2007. In these, there are fears and anxiety that 2007 elections like most of those preceding it may be fundamentally flawed, or perhaps be accompanied by violence or even that its outcome may not necessarily represent the genuine will and wishes of the Nigerian voters. These fears and anxiety are to say the least, founded on our past experiences with elections; especially the 1999 and 2003 General Elections or we can best refer to as acceptable imposition, and the 2004 Local Government Elections. But most especially that the outgoing President was reported to have said it loudly and clearly and without ambiguity that the 2007 elections as far as the ruling PDP was concern is a do-or-die affair. The fear, anxiety, support or opposition and frustrations that greeted the aborted attempt to amend the 1999 constitution to elongate the tenure of the incumbent President and by extension the other ‘elected’ office holders and the President’s desperation and undemocratic statement about the 2007 elections may likely combine to define the attitudes of the Nigerian people, perception and responses to the process and perhaps outcome of the 2007 General Elections. This is where violence may likely come into play and this is also where mandate protection is very significant for the moment and for our future and that of our democracy. SOME QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION In this scenario therefore, it is important that we ask ourselves some pertinent questions, the answers, which might be found immediately or we think and react to them as appropriate. Why is that elections are periodic and therefore where do we place the relevance of the 2007 elections in the history of elections in the country? What are our expectations from the elections? Why does violence occur during and after elections and would this ugly cancer infect the 2007 elections? Why do people want to manipulate elections and defraud the electorates of their mandate? How do we curb this violence? Why and how do we protect our mandate in a civilized manner as a process towards laying a sound democratic culture in Nigeria? Why Periodic Election? One very important element of democracy is election, not just any kind of election but one that must be seen to be genuinely free, fair, credible and acceptable. This is on the recognition of the fact that in a democracy political authority must originate from the people through elections. It is also axiomatic that after all sovereignty lies with the people. Thus, election is an exercise of sovereignty and freedom of choice by citizens of who shall represent the people through casting of votes among various competing candidates. The process must be free and fair and must be in an atmosphere of freedom, fairness that must be impartially guided by the rule of law for people to choose whom in their deliberate judgment, they consider to possess the best qualities they require of their leaders or representatives. 4 Election is made periodic or over a given period in order to avoid autocracy by government. The mandate given to any elected leader is made terminal or to terminate over a given period so that the electorates will continue to exercise their sovereign power of choice and putting in their leaders as they so chosen. This is to make government accountable, abide by the rule of law, transparent and legitimate. Knowing that after a given period the mandate lapses and must be renewed, create competition among candidates for the votes of the electorates, who also have time to assess the performance(s) of their representative and then determine whether or not such representative(s) has or have delivered the expected dividend of democracy based on the qualities they possesses and the manifesto placed before the electorate in the previous elections. Thus, a periodic election ensures that the contract between the government/representatives and the electorates is reviewed, renewed or changed. This is what makes democracy and politics interesting and appealing against autocracy. The Place of the 2007 Elections in Nigeria’s political History. The importance of the 2007 elections in Nigeria cannot be over-emphasized especially as we have noted already this is the longest Republic in the history of democratic rule in the country and which we must work assiduously to make it last longer and forever. This can only be achieved if the April 2007 elections are conducted freely, fairly, peacefully and credibly. While it gives Nigerians the opportunity to review the mandate they initially gave to their representatives occupying government offices at various levels, the elections will further provide us with the leverage to exercise one of our fundamental constitutional role or element of democracy since sovereignty lies with the people. The 2007 elections will go along way, depending on many factors and issues that must be resolved or addressed in assuaging our fears, in determining our concern and commitment to the stability of our country, the stability of democracy, strengthening our culture and positive attitudes towards better governance and what role shall democracy and our ‘democrats’ place us within the comity of nations, especially in Africa. It has always been said that 3 issues are beyond the capacity of Nigerian politicians, namely: transition from one civilian to another civilian democracy, the conduct of an acceptable National Census and then States creation/boundary re-adjustment exercise. However, Nigerians appears to have grudgingly accepted the outcome of the recently announced National Census figures, despite Lagosians lamentation and unconstitutional counter announcement of its own census figures. The attempt at the defunct National Political Reform Conference to create states failed rather woefully. The 2007 elections then remains to be seen if civilians will hand over power to fellow civilians peacefully and with less rancour that led to our sad experiences in the past in the dethronement of democracy by the military. That is why all hands must be put on deck to ensure peaceful elections are conduct and are successful. 5 What are our Expectations from the Elections? This issue is very important and has always been subjected into two debatable issues. These are polemical and then productive debates about elections and democracy in Nigeria depending on our ability to make informed choices and measures taken to protect the sanctity of those choices or otherwise. Again politics not only in Nigeria and Africa, but across the globe has so many adherents and investors, some for good and some for bad. It is a game where every participant and even onlooker has an opinion, even as it is not all of them that might have the knowledge of what should be the better expectation for the good of all and that of the system. Prior to the inauguration of democracy in 1999, Nigerians who have been traumatized by military regimes for over 15 years had searched and struggled for the institutionalization of democracy. Throughout that period, the collective psyche of Nigerians was tormented; their individual or group physical bodies brutalized; their souls sapped; their loved ones murdered by the tacit approval of the state; their national heritage as resources was siphoned, or sold to imperialists or bought by merchants parading themselves as leaders; while their national treasuries and institutions were plundered, debased and demeaned. In fact, their values were warped by these lords of debauchery that called themselves leaders. This was the condition on which the bugle for the democratization process was sound and democracy inaugurated in May 1999. Unfortunately, Nigerians in their deliberate judgment either over-rated the abilities of those they voted into offices or under-rated their stupidity and incapacity to perform and deliver the instrumentalities of democracy. Sadly however, this militarized-packaged democracy or what others view as ‘Garrison’ democracy has left us to wonder if democracy has any thing to do with the social contract between it is all about between the electorates and the elected representatives. Though hitherto possessing some wonderful credentials of being a statesman; Obasanjo was prior to being elected as President was then ‘cooling’ off in prison serving a prison term or sentence over charges for conspiring to violently overthrow the military regime of late General Sani Abacha. Recognized as a former statesman, he was released, given a speedy State pardon, registered in to the PDP and made to contest a pre-determined election he won and sworn-in as President in 1999. But the political class that conspired to sell Obasanjo’s candidature and the Nigerians that voted for him including this presenter were in a haste to expect Obasanjo to shed-off overnight, habits, attitudes and mannerism about governance and life acquired over long years as a member and later Head of a military junta. In spite of his record of performances as a Head of State from 1975-1979, Obasanjo must have acquired new but negative habits, attitudes and perception about life and governance while out of power and as a prisoner. Naturally therefore, some of these negative attitudes were bound to intrude from time to time, in Obasanjo’s actions towards people and governance, perhaps unconsciously but often deliberately in running a democratic regime he nether trained for nor dreamt of. But even though he had often demonstrated genuine efforts to be a ‘born again’ democrat, he at the same time assiduously remains an 6 unrepentant dictator and elected autocrat. All these attitudes and manners Obasanjo subjected democracy and Nigerians impacted in the running of this government and it equally served as a role model for most State Governors and Local government Chairmen to copy from. All these partially tell us why the governments have failed to connect with true democracy and with the people, to ensure their security of lives and properties, welfare and the development of the country, while also strengthening democratic values and structures for the most populous country in Africa. Should the Elections mark a continuity or Change? Since the welfare, security, well being of the citizens, the stability, peace and development of democratic system and values all points to the idea of true to type democracy and good governance, can we candidly say between 1999 and 2007 we experienced good governance and enjoyed the instrumentalities of democracy in Nigeria? What happened to the oil revenues accrued to the country in millions of dollars since 1999 in addition to those accrued from debt forgiveness and recovered looted monies in relation to an improved standard of living and poverty alleviation and employment opportunities etc? And since 2007 is the year of reviewing and renewing mandate by assessing what was done with our previous mandate, our expectations are two: We either change for the better or these sorts of leaders we presently have and who have cheated us for 8 years or we vote their types or those they are foisting on us to succeed them for the worse! This further tells the importance of the 2007 elections in the history of elections in the country: It will either launch Nigeria into a stable and developing democracy and a virile economic nation or otherwise. Certain issues are impelling on us to see the 2007 elections as a period of change for good, among which includes the following: ➢ It is a fact that the existence of vibrant opposition and civil society in any country strengthens the frame work of democratic governance. In Nigeria under the incumbent regime these are lacking as those perceived to be in the opposition including most civil society that protest against unpopular government policies suffer from the hammer of the public order Act to legitimize denials of legitimate rights of association. ➢ Though we have over 50 political parties, yet the PDP-led government is making Nigeria to drift into a one-party State. Our party system and electoral democracy remain weak and as institutions for building and nurturing democracy, they are muzzled. The manipulation of elections in the spirit of ‘god fatherism’ and the attitudes of those occupying executive offices as ‘patriarchal democrats’ render the search for power to rely on manipulation. ➢ Here is a government that says it is democratic but rather disrespects due process and the rule of law leading to what many describe the President’s attitude as ‘Executive lawlessness’. The Executive has it as its mannerism to always want to dominate the executive against the principle of separation of powers. For example, during the passage of the Electoral Act 2001, the Executive ii obvious impunity and disregard for due process single-handedly amended certain provisions of the law without referring to the Legislature by introducing more stringent conditions for the registration of new political parties to continue to constrict the democratic space. 7 ➢ Under a democratic regime, the Nigerian state could be said to have failed. The regimes’ so-called reform policies within the framework of National Economic Empowerment Developments Strategies (NEEDS), the auctioning of national assets and resources to visible thieving politicians and public office holders and bureaucrats and their foreign collaborations in the name of ‘Privatization’ and ‘blind trust’; the selective anti-corruption crusade through the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), have all failed to stem tide under-development and pauperization of the Nigerian people. Transparency international, the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) and the World Bank have all factually shown how corruption index under the Obasanjo regime have reached the apex level ever especially at all levels and branches of the Presidency and government. ➢ One can hardly say with any sincerely that the present democratic regime for almost 8 years as to have represented the interest of the majority Nigerian people. While it is capable to turn political, economic and social institutions, culture, values, structures and infrastructure, questions the Legitimacy of that regime. The government across all levels failed to design and implement simple policies to address the concerns of the poor who for 8 years remain excluded and marginalized. The inability to implement national budgets to overcome poverty ensure accountability and development is a sound judgment of a failed a party that should even be ashamed of contemplating seeking people’s mandate. ➢ At the national level, the PDP- led government in May 1999 was greeted with high hopes to redirect fading hopes of Nigerians. It is sad that for almost 8 years of democracy we are in this mess. It is equally absurd and akin to irony of fate that the PDP refused to realize that as a party that form a government, it has a sacred duty to redress the deepening hunger, diseases, unemployment and general state of despondency in the country. While it failed to empower the populace, it never seemed to know that governance is all about responsible leadership that positively responds peoples’ problems. Can we say with all sincerely that the PDP-led government at the national level translated its mandate towards positive socio-economic justice and hygienic democratic culture? What in all sincerely should be the fate of a party in government that for 8 years detached itself from the interest of the majority, a government that frustrates its workers in the name of down/right sizing, a government that dealt a death blow to environmentalists, a government that hike prices of petroleum resources or the slightest prompting of the IMF/World Bank, a regime that never operate at the same frequency with the interest of the people it is claiming to have won their mandate? How do we describe the current state of affairs in the NigerDelta apart from been a clear evidence of state and regime failure? Why has that area continue to explode in violence? What did the PDP promised these people in the first that it was claimed to have gotten 100% mandate in the 2003 elections? Does such elections really involved the people or does the PDP won in spite of what the people had wanted? While we ponder on all these, it is instructive to note that even though Mr President said the election is a do-or-die affair for his party the PDP, we must eschew violence during the coming elections while we must prepare adequately and firmly to protect our mandate against the manipulation of those lacking fate in a free and fair contest in elections, an issue we no turn to. 8 Why does violence occur in Election periods? From the history of electoral violence in Nigeria, several factors contribute to violence during or after elections. The list is inexhaustible, but includes the following: ➢ The desire to continue or resist political domination ➢ Ethnic, religious or communal differences among the people of an area, state or Local Governments. All these can influence their voting patterns and often caused conflicts among them. ➢ The militarization of our political psyche and political processes. ➢ Election results often not reflecting the pattern of votes cast. ➢ The desire by incumbents to continue to rule even against the wishes of the electorates or they impose their plaints that they expect to cover-up the atrocities they might have committed while in office. ➢ The partial attitude of the Electoral bodies commissioned by the constitution to organize elections in the country. Thus be it FEDECO, NEC or INEC, these bodies hardly acted as neutral referees, which provokes the people into violence, because they lack the trust and confidence on the so-called electoral bodies. ➢ Manipulation and fraud during registration exercises as the first step towards rigging elections and manipulation of results. ➢ Lack of sufficient and well articulated voter/civic education so that people are being left with rumours that causes anxiety and later provoke violence. ➢ Unequal access of all candidates and parties to government machinery as state resources, media etc. Some governments thus restrict such media and resources for only their parties/candidates. ➢ As a means of dubious self-enrichment, dubious investment, politics is being viewed by some as a do-or-die affair. That is to say having invaded the political terrain, enjoyed the limitless access to state resources and other perquisites of power, most politician redefine the political process from being a service to the people through a legitimate elections into a battle of wit and arms. This is offensive to commonsense and unappealing to all known democratic norms. ➢ Delay in announcing result leading to suspicion, confusion and ultimate violence. ➢ Delays in conducting elections or arrival of electoral; officers/materials or their sudden exhaustion gives rise to uncertainly, suspicion and tension that leads to negative speculation, thus causing violence. ➢ Partisanship of the electoral officers and security officials posted to certain polling units where they either harass or intimidate candidates or their supporters. ➢ Lack of political will to enforce electoral laws or regulations. ➢ Lack of sufficient training for electoral officials and security agents concerning elections matters. Most of these hardly known what to do and how to respond to arrest nasty attitudes before it escalate into violence. ➢ Some of the violence are either intra or inter-party. ➢ Lack of unemployment and the prevalence of poverty, which gives room for unscrupulous politicians to recruit for party pay, youth to cause violence and disorder prior, during or after elections. 9 Ways to curb Electoral Violence. Having viewed why violence do occur, it is a fact that there are many ways by which the ugly trend of electoral violence could be curbed in our democratization processes. Few among these include the following: 1. The government, political parties, electoral bodies and the political class must work to build and restore confidence in Nigeria’s electoral system and laws. This is by ensuring openness and transparency in the process. 2. Aggressive campaigns towards civic education and re-orientation using the political parties, religious and ethnic based organizations, civil society organizations, traditional rulers the youths, security agents etc. All of them should also be consulted to make input in decision making concerning elections at least every other week for 6 months prior to elections and some months when the elections are over. 3. Inter-ethnic/ religious dialogues be encourage in all the states of the federation and this should permeates to the Local Government levels. These dialogues should disabuse people minds of the dangers associated with electoral violence and intolerance. 4. Electoral bodies must be seen to be neutral than supporters of a party or candidates. 5. Counting of ballots and conduct of election should generally be done by expert and trained personnel who must be adequately remunerated in good time in order to avert any temptation coming from desperate politicians lacking faith in a free and fair contest. The results must be documented and duly announced immediately at the voting centers and such results must never be changed or manipulated. INEC’s decision against all convention that results would only be declared in Abuja is an invitation of anarchy. 6. The law enforcement agents as the commissioner of police and Attorneys General of the State must show the political will to enforce sanctions against the violation of reported cases of electoral laws and violence. 7. Genuine and well-impacting poverty alleviation programmes must be put in place or pursued by government, while also widening employment opportunities for our teaming jobless youths who fall play as recruits for electoral violence. 8. There must be ensured that the police force and all relevant security apparatus develop creative strategies and equitable deployment of security to the various election centers during elections And Rapid Initiative Response Force be deployed to immediately and impartially arrest any tensed situation. The procurement of sophisticated arms for the police in an election period and not against the teeming and visible armed robbers plying our highways and visiting our homes unsolicited and are daily subjecting and tormenting innocent citizens pursuing their legal affairs is questionable as it was an expression of lack of faith in the normal democratic processes. 10 SECTION II MANDATE PROTECTION DURING ELECTIONS. During most of the elections in Nigeria, but especially that of 2003, Nigerian people went to polls with high hopes of electing candidates that would embody their fears, hopes and aspirations. These enthusiasms in exercising their franchise immediately paled and resulted in frustration and anger against the electoral system and the democratic process. This was when politicians, political parties, security agents, electoral officials and the supervisory electoral body connived with governments at various levels to frustrate genuine electoral mandates. In some States of the federation, the votes were nether cast nor counted when governments, political parties and their candidates who out of greed, mischief and lack of confidence in the ballot box indulged in brazen rigging. While security agents and electoral officials were used in some cases to perpetuate these indulgence, in others, sponsored thugs were used to defraud the voters from given mandates to candidates of their choices. But while few of the aggrieved candidates and parties who sought refuge in the Election Tribunals got delayed justice in the case of Anambra State for example, others were knocked out on technical and jurisdictional grounds. So all these combined to create the kind of fears, apathy and anxiety that the 2007 elections may be fundamentally flawed and its outcome may hardly represent the genuine wishes of the Nigerian citizens. The nasty experience in 2003 coupled with the incapacity of the governments to connect with democracy and with the people was aggravated when attempt was made by the President in an unholy alliance with undemocratic characters within and outside government conspired to amend the 1999 constitution for the elongation of his term of offices against all known democratic norms. Known as the Third Term Agenda, this attempt rather galvanized Civil Society groups, the media, spirited religious leaders and some patriotic members of the National Assembly to frustrate the Agenda. The attempt showed to Nigerians that the rule of law, accountability, transparency and genuine elections were not elements those presently in government recognize as important for our democracy or that they could be simply circuited for personal gains and glory. The danger of this was that it dampened the interest and enthusiasm of most Nigerians in the electoral process and confidence on our leaders to conduct free and fair elections in the 2007. While some unfortunately but genuinely begin to compare democracy and military rule, even preferring the latter out of frustration, the so called politicians who in real sense are ’polluticians’ are carrying on as if the Nigerian people do not matter at all in matters of democracy and its survival. 11 This is where the importance of mandate protection comes into play in our electoral process come 2007 elections. That is to say mandate protection is a process of sanctifying our votes and the electoral process. It must go beyond platitudes, sermons and grandstanding as means of producing credible elections. Mandate protection is an effort to be put in place through the unity of patriotic and genuine stakeholders to ensure credible elections. CONCLUSION Electoral violence and mandate protection are very important issues in Nigeria’s current democratic processes. Though this fourth Republic appears to be the oldest or longest since the country became independent in 1960, we are being faced with a dicey situation as the General elections comes around the corner. In fact, the polity has become highly tensed and this further makes the elections the most topical issue in the political landscape today even as there is genuine concern on whether the elections would hold at all and if it were held the likely negative response that might follow. As we are ‘workshoping’ now, INEC is being awaited to make its stance today on whether the elections are to be held at all following the death of Chief Adefarati the Presidential candidate of Alliance for Democracy. Our concern is also built around the fear that with violence in the polity further to the elections, none of our neighbouring countries can cater for a handful of Nigerian refugees be it Benin, Niger, Chad or Cameroon Republics. The truth is that the Independent National Electoral (C)omission INE(C) is undoubtedly ill-prepared for the gigantic responsibility of organizing an election of this magnitude. The way and manner it handled the voters registration exercise was to say the least shoddy and questionable. The media claim by INEC that it displayed the names of registered voters as required by law was rather a myth as no one could vouch to have seen such names displayed and then verified anywhere. Therefore the claim by INEC to have registered over 61 million voters is a farce, a claim not supported scientifically by facts of verification. In fact, nobody is even sure whether his name is included, whether he will vote at all and where to actually cast ones vote. INEC’ eleventh hiccups are meant to abort the elections by anti-democracy elements. INEC never appears to be a serious and credible impartial umpire as far as the 2007 elections were concern. But the fact remains that that there are other stakeholders out there that must ensure that the elections are not only held, but that it must be free, fair, credible and acceptable so that for God sake this regime leave office as constitutionally stated on 29 May 2007. A free, fair and credible election does not solely lie with INEC nor the governments is either reluctant to leave office or is desperate to remain a little longer. This is where our roles as citizens come into play. We must never, never shy away from our responsibilities of defending democracy, we must never abandon the defence of our country and we must liberate our nation from the clutches of these bunches of so-called democrats. 12