THE United States government has expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing political party process in Nigeria, particularly the seeming zero-tolerance of the federal executive to opposition groups.
The President George W. Bush administration is also worried by the procedure through which the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chose its candidates for the coming general elections as well as what it considers the lack of freedom for opposition politicians to exercise their fundamental human rights.
The U.S. State Department, in a recent report on Nigeria’s human rights record for last year, released as part of its yearly global report on democracy and human rights, expressed strong reservations about the country.
In the report, the U.S. government said concerning Nigeria: “Internal pressure, including threats, was exerted on members of the ruling PDP to limit their ability to select the party’s leadership. Party leadership was imposed from the presidency, and President Olusegun Obasanjo was given a lifetime party leadership post.”
The report, which is statutorily filed by the State Department with the U.S. Congress yearly, continued: “The process for selecting party candidates was not transparent, and rifts between President Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar led to the disenfranchisement of a number of persons in the party’s internal political processes. Most party candidates were pressured to step down, and those who remained were not allowed to campaign at the party convention in December.”
In a specific instance, the U.S. government condemned what it described as the internal pressure and threats that the PDP allegedly exerted on members to limit their choices at the party’s primary election held in December last year.
The report also frowned at the PDP’s prescription that its presidential aspirants “pay $39,060 (N5 million) for a nomination form.” It noted that the party “offered the forms to female candidates for an “expression fee” of $78 (N10, 000).”
The Nigerian government’s human rights record, according to the report, “remained poor, and government officials at all levels continued to commit serious abuses.” According to it, “the most significant human rights problems included the abridgement of citizens’ right to change their government.”
It noted that although Nigeria’s electoral law allowed those who felt they had been disenfranchised to leave one party and form a new one, there were instances where this protection were violated.
For instance, according to the report, ‘in March, the (State Security Services) SSS detained and questioned Alhaji Lawal Kaita, leader of the Advanced Congress of Democrats, a political party that had recently been formed by former members of the ruling PDP.”
The U.S. report noted that the seeming harassment of the septuagenarian by the security agency was later endorsed by the federal executive. It said: “The minister of information defended the SSS action and called the 74-year-old Kaita a threat to public safety and national security for allegedly recruiting thugs for political activities.”
Another example of the Obasanjo administration’s alleged undue harassment of opponents, according to the report, occurred on April 4, last year. On that day, eight leaders of the Turaki Vanguard, a campaign group supporting Vice President Atiku Abubakar, were charged with belonging to an unlawful society. The report noted that “no further hearings were announced in the case by year’s end.”
The report also touched on the crisis over the Petroleum Development Trust Fund (PTDF). It said: “On September 26, the Senate adopted a resolution to launch an investigation into allegations of high-level corruption at the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF). In December, the courts dismissed charges against the vice president because of his immunity from prosecution while in office.”
But it observed that President Obasanjo and Vice President Abubakar” continued to publicly trade accusations of PTDF-related corruption against one another through the end of the year.”
The U.S. government said that preparations for this year’s election were slow last year, causing “widespread concern about the ability of the (Independent National Electoral Commission) INEC to support the election.”
It expressed concern that INEC did not complete voters registration by December 14 as mandated by law “when an effort to electronically register voters fell far short of completion.” Describing the confusing scenario that followed, the report noted that by the end of 2006, the Federal Government was still “discussing whether to address the situation by continuing to register voters electronically, by substituting manual registration for electronic registration, or by revalidating the 2003 voter rolls, which were widely held to be seriously flawed.”
It noted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), “continued a strong anti-corruption campaign during the year, arresting a number of federal, state, and local officials and seizing millions of dollars in assets.”
But the U.S. government also noted that while “some observers lauded the commission’s actions as a centrepiece of the Obasanjo administration’s war on corruption, critics claimed that some EFCC investigations were politically motivated, singling out political opponents of the administration, and that the EFCC did not always follow proper criminal procedure.”
In an apparent reference to Vice President Abubakar and Abia State Governor Orji Kalu, the report said: “During the year, the EFCC brought or threatened criminal charges against several persons intending to run as presidential candidates.”
Commenting generally on the report at a press conference where she launched the report, U.S. Secretary of State Rice said with the release of the 2006 Human Rights reports, the U.S. government was recommitting itself and Americans “to help new democracies deliver on their people’s aspirations for a better life.”
She said: “We are recommitting ourselves to stand with those courageous men and women who struggle for their freedom and their rights. And we are recommitting ourselves to call every government to account that still treats the basic rights of its citizens as options rather than, in President Bush’s words, the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.”