CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Election can simply be defined as the process people follow to elect or choose their representative in
both federal, state and local government. However, the first election was organized and conducted in Nigeria in
1922 by the British colonial government in response to the pressures by the nationalists who were agitating for
better involvement in the colonial administration and leadership positions (Odo, 2015).

Later Nigerian had series of elections, which include those organize by the British people, military and the
civilian administration. After the series of elections by the colonial administration, Nigerians were offered the
first opportunity to occupy certain political offices. Though the right for franchise was limited and representation
was inadequate, it was nonetheless an achievement for the nationalists who struggled for the enthronement
of democratic order as a pre-requisite for greater membership in the process of governance. In 1922, several
elections were conducted in different parts of the country at both national, regional and local government levels,
but none was recognized as free fair and credible in the Nigerian context.

In the work of Odo(2015), election in Nigeria can generally be classified into three viz: elections prepared by
the colonial government, those prearranged by the military regimes and the ones prepared by civilian
administration respectively. Among these three classes, it is understood that the elections organized by the civilian
regimes were neither peaceful nor free and fair compared to the other two organized and conducted by the
colonial government and the military administration except 2015 election which was organized by the civilian
Administration.

However, it was the 1959 General Elections that paved way for the emergence of Nigeria as an independent
State. Since then, various elections have been held either in a transition from one civilian government to another or
in the transition from military regimes to the civilian administration yet, Nigeria was unable to hold a free and fair
election, because of some underpinning factors which includes; corruption, religion differences, ethnicity,
regionalism and power incumbency. Though, International Observers Reported that 2015general election was
considered as free and fair and credible election in the country to some extent compared to the previous election,
like that was the presidential election that took place in 1993 and won by MKO Abiola. But the election result was
nullified in June 1993 by the military government. Ekundayo (2015), rightly pointed out and acknowledged that,
election is the heart of democracy in any given state and the democratization process. Many scholars share a
similar consensus that election is the for a democratic political system, and the key to national development.

Moreover, (Diamond 2002and Luqman 2009). Opined that, election is very important in
democratization process this is because it is only through election that people can choose those to represent them
at all level. However, one important thing with election is that elections can hold without democracy, but
democracy cannot operate without elections, with this it is clearly understood election is the heart of any
democracy. Election process is very significant in democratic government because it is the procedure for choosing
representatives, and the means of expressing people’s views in democratic settings, it is one of the device for
changing the government, election help people to decide who should rule them at all levels.

It is, therefore, surprising that the democratic process in Africa in general and the developing countries like
Nigeria continued to derail and collapsed elections and the electoral process. This is because of numerous
underpinning problem such corruption, religions factors, ethnicity, regionalization of the political parties and
power of incumbency and the politics of God-Fatherism that has eaten deeply in to the Nigerian political structures
and the inability of electoral bodies to conduct free, fair and credible elections (W. J. Ekundayo, 2015).

1
 It has been observed by Ekundayo (2015), that right from military regime to the current administration,
Nigerian’s quests for real democratic governance which was challenged with many problems. The power of the
electoral body is a main factor underpinning Nigerian democracy. After the 2011 general elections INEC was
persistently worked to conduct free, fair, credible and acceptable elections in the subsequent elections, it may be
said that at this moment the INEC has impressively prepared some essential devices for a successful and fruitful
election. But with all the efforts of the INEC which is specially burdened with the job of organizing and conducting a
credible election in Nigeria, still it is faced with numerous challenges which if care is not taken the work of the
electoral organization to bring a satisfactory election results for the nation will not be truthful.

Abubakar (2012), revealed that, the appointment of Professor Mohammed Attahiru Jegawas a sign of a
new beginning for organizing a free, and credible election compared to previous elections. Likewise, adoption of the
Direct Data Capture machines (DDCM) was destined to be used for the Voters Register, and update of all the
qualified voters across the country. Despite all the pressures from the ruling party (PDP). INEC had conducted free
and fair election in 2015 general election. After the successful tenure of Professor Mohammed Attahiru Jega,
then, President Mohammad Buhari appointed Mahmood Yakubu as the new INEC Chairman in 2015, his
appointment was a sign of positive changed to the next coming election in 2019. Nigeria which is the Federal
Republic encompassing 36 States and Federal Capital in Abuja. Nigeria is one of the African nations and shared a
border with the of Benin Republic from the western part, Cameroon and Chad in the eastern axis, then Niger in the
northern axis. Atlantic Ocean from the southern axis. However, Nigeria has a total area of 923,768km2 with
inhabitants of 174,507,539 National Population Commission NPC Report(2013). Nigeria falls between latitude 40
and 140 N and longitude 20 and 150 E Okechukwu, (2016).Nigeria is heterogeneous in nature with diverse ethnic
groups and political motives extending from a separate viewpoint. Nigeria is one of the most populated country in
Africa and the world’s eighth-biggest oil producer, but its achievement has been destabilized in recent periods by
cultural and spiritual battle, political uncertainty, corruption, widespread certified exploitation, and a fairly
economy (Falola & Heaton, 2008).

During the course of Nigeria’s chequered political history, different military regimes governed the country
(1966-1979; 1983-1999) in her fifty eight years of independence. On May 29, 1999, Nigerians heaved a sigh of relief
after the military relinquished power to the democratically elected government led by Olusegun Obasanjo, an ex-
military ruler. From that time, Nigeria has enjoyed over 18 years of democratic rule albeit, with various episodes of
violence ranging from the Niger Delta militancy to the Boko Haram Insurgency in some parts of Northern Nigeria.
The year 2015 served as the turning point in Nigeria’s democracy as the main opposition party, the All Progressives
Congress (APC) upstaged the erstwhile ruling party, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) at the general elections. The
major thrust of this paper shall be geared towards analyzing both the pre-election and post-election violence at the
2015 general polls. The first section is the introduction; second focuses on the theoretical contextualization of
electoral violence; the third section deals with the historical account of the trends and patterns of electoral violence
in Nigeria’s fourth republic; the fourth section is premised upon the Nigerian state, electoral violence and
democratic consolidation, while the fifth part is the conclusion.

Since the Independence era, elections in Nigeria have been characterized by high scale of electoral malpractices,
money politics, electoral violence and the use of ethno-religious divide in order to influence the voting patterns of
the electorates. Electoral violence is one of the strategies employed by Nigerian politicians during electioneering
period. Desperate and power drunk politicians often sponsor unemployed youths and stark illiterates to carry out
assaults on their perceived political opponents with a view to manipulating election results to their own advantage.
This paper shall make an in-depth analysis of electoral violence in Nigeria with particular focus on the fourth
republic.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

Elections form the bedrock of a genuine democratic system. Osumah and Aghemelo (2010) see election as a
process through which the people choose their leaders and indicate their policies and programme preference and
consequently invest a government with authority to rule. Roberts and Edwards (1991) cited in Omotola (2007) view

2
election as a method of selecting persons to fill certain public offices through choices made by the electorate; those
citizens who are qualified to vote under the laws and procedures of the electoral system.

Webster’s Encyclopaedic Dictionary (2006) defines election as “the act or process of organizing systematic
(s) election (permitting mass participation and method of choosing a person or persons by vote for a public office
position in which state authority is exercised”. Electoral Violence According to Albert (2007), electoral violence
involves all forms of organized acts of threats aimed at intimidating, harming, blackmailing a political stakeholder or
opponent before, during and after an election with an intention to determine, delay or influence a political process.

Ogundiya and Baba (2005), sees electoral violence as all sorts of riots, demonstrations, party clashes, political
assassinations, looting, arson, thuggery, kidnapping spontaneous or not, which occur before, during and after
elections. Fischer (2002) defines electoral violence (conflict) as any random or organized act that seeks to
determine, delay, or otherwise influence an electoral process through threat, verbal intimidation, hate speech,
disinformation, physical assault, forced “protection”, blackmail, destruction of property, or assassination.

Similarly, Igbuzor (2010), sees electoral violence as: Any act of violence perpetuated in the course of political
activities including, pre, during and post election periods, and may include any of the following acts: thuggery, use
of force to disrupt cause bodily harm or injury to any person connected with electoral processes. The above
definitions are the hallmarks of electoral violence in Nigeria’s fourth republic. Electoral Security Electoral Security is
defined as “the process of protecting electoral stakeholders such as voters, candidates, poll workers, media, and
observers, electoral information and campaign materials; electoral facilities such as polling stations and counting
centre and electoral events such as campaign rallies against death, damage, or disruption of the electoral processes
(USAID). Furthermore, Fischer (2010), defined electoral security as “the process of protecting electoral
stakeholders, information, facilities or events. political meetings or voting at polling stations, or the use of
dangerous weapons to intimidate voters and other electoral process or to

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

For the purpose of this discourse, this paper will rest on Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism which gives vivid
explanations on electoral violence in Nigeria. Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism suits Nigeria’s scenario. Abbas
(2010) observed that dialectical materialism is premised on man’s inherent motivations of economic pursuits and
needs. Thus, man’s fierce inclinations and struggles to acquire, control and maintain political power at all cost justify
the choice of this theory. Therefore, the relations between the people in the production processes are symbiotically
connected with the nature and direction of the political struggles to capture political power in order to determine
economic factors. Furthermore, this assertion was supported by Dudley (1965 cited in Etannibi, 2004).

Dudley said that: “The reality was that Nigerian politicians perceived politics and political office as investment
and as an avenue for the acquisition of extra ordinary wealth (through corruption) which they think is not possible
through other forms of legitimate vocation and enterprise. Thus, in Nigeria, the shortest cut to affluence is through
politics. Politics means money and money means politics…to be a member of the government party means Open
Avenue to government patronage, contract deals and the like”. In a country where over 70 per cent of the
population lives in extreme poverty, politics is seen as an escape route from poverty. This is worsened by the high
level of corruption among public office holders in Nigeria. Over the years, Nigerian politicians and other public office
holders have promoted ostentatious lifestyles not been mindful of the sufferings of the Nigerian masses.

One of Nigeria’s brightest political scientists, Claude Ake (1964) asserted that:”Those who win state power can
have all the wealth they want even without working, while those who lose the struggle for state power cannot have
security in the wealth they have made even by hard work. The capture of state power inevitably becomes a matter
of life and death. That is one reason why our politics is so intense, anarchic and violent”. Comparatively, it has been
discovered that elected representatives of the people at the local, state and federal levels of government earn
higher wages and allowances more than their counterparts in the developed countries. Hence, the struggle for
political power through any means becomes inevitable in Nigeria’s political space. Electoral Violence Prior to 1999
Electoral violence in Nigeria is traceable to the first republic especially during the 1964/65 elections.

The dominant political parties in the first republic, namely; the Action Group (AG), the Northern People’s
Congress (NPC) and the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC) were ethnically based parties that
3
wanted to maintain the wide followership they enjoyed from the regions were they emerged. AG was essentially
the party for the Yoruba race, NCNC was regarded as Ibo party, while NPC was predominantly a Hausa/Fulani party.
During the 1964/65 elections, politicians were involved in wide scale murder, kidnapping and arson. Also, there
were gross irregularities in the conduct of the elections that precipitated the military to stage a coup that ended
Nigeria’s first democratic experiment. Electoral violence reared its ugly head again during the highly controversial
1983 general elections. The elections were massively rigged for instance, in the then Oyo and Ondo states, the two
Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) controlled states were declared for the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN). The
announcement led to the outbreak of violence (Babarinsa, 2002). The scandalous 1983 elections caused general
apathy among Nigerians. It was not surprising when the military intervened by ousting President Shehu Shagari on
December 31, 1983.

The June 12, 1993 election organized by then Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida was expected to
break the jinx of Nigeria’s chequered political history. The campaign strategies; government’s support, the
enthusiasm of registered voters and the generality of Nigerians towards June 12, 1993 are yet to be surpassed. The
election was supposed to put an end to the eventful regime of General Ibrahim Babangida and usher in a
democratically elected government (Olowojolu, 2015). Two political parties were created namely, Social Democratic
Party (SDP) and National Republican Convention (NRC). The June 12, 1993 was unique in the sense that the two
political parties fielded two muslim candidates in the person of highly influential billionaire MKO Abiola and the
affable Bashir Tofa. MKO Abiola, a Yoruba from Western Nigeria was the Presidential flag bearer for SDP while,
Bashir Tofa, a native of old Northern city, Kano was the Presidential candidate of NRC (Olowojolu, 2015). Despite
the choice of SDP in picking Alhaji Babagana Kingibe as running mate, Nigerians did not raise eyebrows on the
muslim-muslim ticket of SDP. On the other hand, NRC picked Sylvester Ugoh, a Christian from Eastern Nigeria as
Tofa’s running mate. Throughout the electioneering period, religious and ethnic affiliations did not influence voting
patterns of Nigerians. June 12, 1993 election widely believed to have been won by MKO Abiola remains the freest
and fairest election in Nigeria’s history. The hopes of many Nigerians were dashed when the military government
annulled the presidential election. Shortly afterwards, nationwide protests, industrial strike action and civil
disobedience engulfed the country. The post June 12 crisis led military ruler, General Babangida to abdicate his
exalted position as head of state on August 27, 1993. General Babaginda hurriedly relinquished power to an
unpopular Interim National Government (ING) headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan (Olowojolu, 2015). The Interim
National Government was sacked by General Sani Abacha on November 17, 1993. In 1994, General Abacha arrested
the acclaimed winner of June 12, 1993 election, MKO Abiola on the account of treason as Abiola declared himself
the president elect. Abacha’s authoritarian regime expired when the head of state died on June 8, 1998 under
controversial circumstances.

On June 7 1998, MKO Abiola died on what was supposed to be his date of release. The newly appointed military
ruler, General Abdulsalami Abubakar promised to return Nigeria to civilian rule in 1999 (Olowojolu, 2015).
Eventually, the military regime ushered in Nigeria into the fourth republic. On May 29, 1999, ex-military ruler, Chief
Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn in as the President of Nigeria. It marked the beginning of a new era in Nigeria’s
history. Trends and Patterns of Electoral Violence in the Fourth Republic Nigeria’s fourth republic has witnessed the
conduct of general elections in 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 respectively. These elections have been deeply
enmeshed in series of violence before, during and after the elections. The 1999 elections had minimal record of
violence largely because the military supervised the electoral process that birthed the fourth republic. The 2003
elections were conducted by President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration who was seeking his second tenure. The
2003 elections were characterized by manipulation, rigging, thuggery and the assassination of perceived political
opponents. The ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) swept the polls as it consolidated its hold on the Nigerian
political landscape. After the completion of two terms as President, Obasanjo’s administration conducted perhaps
the worst election in Nigeria’s history. Prior to the 2007 elections, the outgoing President Obasanjo asserted that
the election was going to be a “do-or-die” for the ruling PDP.

Animashaun (2008), argued that there were massive irregularities in the 2007 elections and it was characterized
by inflation of voting figures, declaration of results where elections were never held or not conclusive, intimidation
of voters as well as manipulation of the security services. Results of elections conducted in some were totally
different from those announced in Abuja contrary to the provisions of the 2006 Electoral Act (TMG, 2007). The
Human Rights Watch (2007) noted that there were scores of political killings, bombings and armed clashes between
4
rival political groups. The outcome of the 2007 elections generated a lot of controversies and wide spread
condemnation from both the local and international observers. The winner of the presidential election, late Umaru
Musa Yaradua admitted that the electoral process in 2007 was highly fraudulent. Shortly after assuming office as
the Executive President, Yaradua instituted an Electoral Reform Committee headed by Justice Uwais with a view
towards correcting the ills in Nigeria’s electoral system. Some of the recommendations of the Electoral Reform
Committee were included in the amended Electoral Act. It is also on record that Yaradua’s administration promoted
non-interference in the judiciary. This was evident in the various judgements dispensed at both the Tribunal and
Appeal courts over electoral disputes. Gubernatorial elections in states such as Ekiti, Osun, Edo and Ondo that were
initially declared to have been won by PDP were upturned in favour of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and Labour
Party (LP) respectively (Aniekwe, et al, 2011).

The 2011 general elections were adjudged by many observers as the most credible election organized by the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) since 1999. For example, Terence McCulley, U.S. Ambassador to
Nigeria praised the National Assembly election as the first-ever ‘credible, transparent, free and fair general election’
in Nigeria, and declared that it provided a ‘historic opportunity for Nigeria to consolidate its democracy and further
expand its voice on the world stage’ (Agbambu and Ajayi, 2011).

In the same vein, EU Election Observation Mission to Nigeria said ‘the 2011 general elections marked an
important step towards strengthening democratic elections in Nigeria, but challenges remain’ (EU EOM, 2011). Prior
to the presidential polls, some Northern politicians including Adamu Ciroma, Iyorchia Ayu, Lawal Kaita, Bello Kirfi,
Yahaya Kwande, and Bashir Yusuf Ibrahim wrote a letter to the PDP National Chairman on 17 September 2010
requesting the party leadership to restrain President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2011 elections under
the party’s platform. The group argued that the eight-year, two-term presidency ceded to the North in line with the
PDP, which began with former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2007, must continue through another Northerner
following Yar’Adua’s death. The group warned that the failure of the ruling PDP to apply the principle of zoning
would threaten the stability of Nigeria, saying; ‘we are extremely worried that our party’s failure to deliver justice in
this matter (power-shift to the North) may ignite a series of events, the scope of magnitude of which we can neither
proximate nor contain’ (Abdallah, 2010, Obia, 2010). Inflammatory messages sent through the social media
worsened the tensions created by religious and ethnic campaigning by supporters of President Jonathan and
Muhammudu Buhari (Harwood and Campbell, 2010).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Elections and other political processes are pivotal to the quality of a country’s governance and can either greatly
advance or set back a country’s long-term democratic development, as well as USG country, regional, and global
foreign policy priorities.

The most fundamental principle defining credible elections is that they must reflect the free expression of the will of
the people.
To achieve this, elections should be transparent, inclusive, and accountable, and there must be equitable
opportunities to compete in the elections. These broad principles are buttressed by several electoral process-
related obligations, as well as a number of key rights and freedoms, each of which derive from public international
law. The electoral cycle approach depicts elections as a continuous, integrated process made up of building blocks
that interact with and influence each other, rather than as a series of isolated events.

There have been criticisms from within and outside the country on how the INEC has been conducting
general elections in Nigeria. The criticisms came from individuals, organizations and international community about
the conduct of a free, fair and credible election in any nation. Nigeria is faced with many challenges before, during
and after the election. The justification for Nigeria and INEC. Is that looking at the economic position of Nigeria in
African setting as the giant of Africa, its educational background, its population, the size of the country, and how the
nation is blessed with both human and materials resources. Yet it cannot organize and conduct free fair and
credible election in the country. It is on this note that the study tried to identify and examine the factors or the
challenges undermining free, fair and credible election in Nigeria.

5
 Political Thugs are on increase every day among the youths this is because of illiteracy, poverty and
inadequate employment opportunities for the youth which was artificially created by the politicians. All the
politicians have their political thugs that are hired to disrupt election by causing confusion during and after the
election, in addition to that they still involve themselves in stealing the election materials. However, most of
these political thugs are unemployed adolescences who want to earn a living by hook or crook, at the same time
they are use in doing some negative political activities ranging from political assassination, stealing of ballot box or
ballot papers political rallies and disobedient to the electorates and the INEC officials. The government is pleasing
such youth to cease from such wicked act or inhuman behaviours that will jeopardize the success of the election in
every part of the country. Most are time these political thugs will be dump after winning the election, they
cannot remember them in enjoying the dividend of democracy until after four years when the election comes. It is
high time for the youths to reason and protect their votes, right, democracy and the nation at large(Samuel et al.,
2013).

However, there was a serious misconduct in Nigeria’s past election in 1999, 2003,2007 and 2011 most of the
politicians are in doubt on if Nigeria would achieve a free and fair election. In 2007 general elections, the election
was extremely faulty (Human Rights Watch, 2007). The international observers have predicted this even Before
the commencement of the election several influential people analyze their interests and change their sectarian
positions In some states in the country, ballot papers were distributed late to the polling units. In the southern
Niger Delta zone and some part of the Northern states, political thugs stole the election materials and
substituted it with thumbprint ballot papers and other ballot boxes to win the election at all cost. Despite
assurances by the Inspector General of Police that all the necessary security measures will be taken to ensure free
and fair election in the nation. Yet some candidates from the opposition party were stressed or detained by the
political thugs voters were destabilized by the political gangs, and more than three hundred (300) people
were killed (Bratton, 2008).

Human Rights Watch reported that deadly election-related and communal violence in northern Nigeria
following the April 2011 Presidential voting left more than eight hundred (800) people dead.

A violent electoral process scares away a good number of the electorate who refuse to participate in the process.
Hence, voter apathy ensues. Voter apathy is one of the worst thing that could happen in a democratic system. It
gives the few evil politicians the opportunity to vote or declare their unpopular candidates winners where the
opposite should have been the case. This ultimately defeats the essence of election.

Violence forces electorates to stay away from exercising their civic duty as they prefer to stay indoors than falling
into the deadly hands of the political devils. This tarnishes the credibility of the elections. The situation in which a
serving President was attacked in Katsina and Bauchi states, and bomb detonated in an APC rally arena in Port
Harcourt at electioneering campaigns raises questions about the safety of electorate who may decide not
participate in the elections.

Post-election violence is capable of entrenching the nation into uncontrollable situation. This is so because violence
begets more violence. Ultimately, electoral violence, could be a free and unmitigated gateway to the disintegration
of Nigeria. The country is already at the brink of collapse and gradually approaching the status of a failed state.
Therefore, any serious challenge beyond the nation’s capacity to control may result in disintegration.

One most important organ for credible elections; is the independent of the judges, a well-organized political party
in the country. Whereas a well-organized system is the essential device for viable elections, and an
independent judge is essential for the firmness and resolution of democratic conflict, INEC has the utmost
power to organize and carryout the election. This is because the quality and reliability of every election are
based on the capability of the organizing body (Edigheji; Yaqub; W. J. Ekundayo, 2015). The INEC Should be
provided with Adequate Election Materials on time This will save time in distributing the necessary election
materials to the various polling units and commence the election exercise on time as stipulated in the INEC

6
constitutions this can, however, reduce the rate of election rigging, violence and the manipulation of the election
results etc

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

RECOMMENDATIONS

To have a free, fair and

as guaranteeing that all devices are put in place and working towards an effective election that will yield free,
fair and credible as well as
Acceptable election results to Nigerians and international society at large.
ü There is a need for government to enlighten the public on the importance of
Education, this will enable the electorate to know their right and privileges.
ü Government should establish Electoral Crime commission and give them the
Independent authority to arraign anybody involves in election misconduct.
ü The electoral body should be provided with the election materials on time to avert the
Problem of late distribution, and late submission of the election results,
ü The INEC should give ample time to the electorate to enable all the electorates to cast
their votes.
ü Government should provide tight security during and after the election in order not to
Encounter previous mistakes.
ü The adoption of the Card Reader will help in overcoming the problem of election
Malpractice in Nigeria.

REFERENCE

Olowojolu Olakunle et al., (2019), Trends in Electoral Violence in Nigeria. J. of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Vol.
11, Number 1, Pp. 37-45

Abubakar A. Propect and the Challenges of INEC in Nigeria, 2012.

7
Bratton M. NigeriaVote buying and violence inn election campaigns. Electoral Studies
2008; 27(4): 621–632.

Brian C. Public Administration. Encyclopedia Britannica: Ultimate Reference Suite, 2008.

Ekundayo WJ. A critical evaluation of electoral managment bodies in Nigeria and the
perenial problem of electoral managment since independence in 1960. Public Administration