On 21 June 2013, voters in Ekiti State trooped out in the midst of
tight security to vote in an election that turned out to be an upset. In
that election, the incumbent Governor Kayode Fayemi failed to secure a
mandate for a second term. His opponent, Ayodele Fayose, won the
election in all local government areas of the state. Mr Fayose was the
former Governor of Ekiti who was impeached from office in very
controversial circumstances midway into his tenure and had been under a
protracted investigation and prosecution by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC) since then.
In an interesting show of sportsmanship and maturity, Dr Kayode
Fayemi accepted defeat and congratulated Fayose on the latter’s success
at the polls. This show of gallantry in defeat has tended to support
the view that the elections were free, fair and peaceful. It should be
recalled that Fayemi’s ascension into the office of governor of Ekiti
was based on series of court rulings over the contested election in
Ekiti State in 2007. The process involved the cancellation of elections
in some wards and re-runs.
Furthermore, the events leading to the elections left much to be
desired. The announcement of the election time table witnessed a rise in
the spate of violence as candidates intensified the effort to woo
voters. Several lives were lost in the build up to the June 21, 2014
governorship election. Victims include Foluso Ogundare, who was killed
at Emure-Ekiti, and Ayo Jeje who was killed at Erijiyan-Ekiti.
Aspirants, candidates and supporters of political parties were attacked.
There were cases of destruction of billboards, campaign vehicles,
campaign offices and other property. Campaign rallies were violently
disrupted and convoys attacked. There were palpable fear and anxiety in
the state of possible breakdown of law and order, hence, the massive
deployment of security agents during election. The peaceful character of
the election and the acceptance of defeat by the incumbent represent a
peaceful anti-climax to a highly competitive election.
Also important was the fact that the elections did not suffer from
significant failures on the part of the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC). Electoral materials arrived promptly at the various
polling units, there were no cases of collusion by INEC officials with
politicians to rig the elections, the ballot papers were properly
numbered and coded to specific polling units. There were also no cases
of ballot snatching or vote buying during the elections. There were,
however, cases of distribution of foodstuff like rice and other items to
woo voters before the election. Importantly, the heavy presence of
security agents may have generated apprehension among the electorate.
Indeed, the All Progressives Congress has announced that it is going to
court to challenge the result based on the inauspicious atmosphere in
which the elections were conducted. The APC spokesman, Lai Mohammed, has
complained that some governors and party leaders were prevented from
going to Ekiti State to campaign or witness the elections. The APC
argues that the elections were militarised, that some of their
supporters were attacked by the police, and their leaders were arrested
and detained. In the words of Mohammed, “with thousands of armed troops,
police, state security service and civil defence personnel deployed to
Ekiti, the state was simply under a total lockdown.”
There are several lessons to be learnt from the Ekiti elections.
The first is that the Ekiti elections have shown that Nigerians are
capable of conducting free and fair elections, and that the failings in
the last Anambra State gubernatorial elections do not reflect the height
of Nigeria’s electoral possibilities. Certain conditions have to be
continuously fulfilled for a repeat or an improvement on the experience
from Ekiti. INEC must remain unbiased and ensure that it deploys the
skills of its professionals to increasingly devise and implement
measures to reduce malpractice. Security agencies must also contribute
to the achievement of credible elections when they do their work
diligently and prevent the intimidation of voters. Voters should be
vigilant and protect their votes. Politicians must embrace politics
without bitterness. If these stakeholders behave as expected, future
polls will be violence-free and credible.
The election has shown that performance comes in various ways. That
performance must be based on the expectations and desires of the
electorate. Although, Fayemi’s administration recorded some
developmental strides, they apparently did not touch the people where it
mattered most. The people want leaders, not only at the level of
governor, to identify with them at the grassroots. They do not want
leaders who are neither resident in their community nor share in their
life experiences. It should not be mistaken that the Ekitis do not want
physical infrastructure. Rather infrastructure and social protection
are not alternatives. Focusing on infrastructure must be done side by
side with poverty alleviation and social protection for the abject poor
and vulnerable. After all, development is vitally about poverty
alleviation, reduction in inequality and job creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment