Africa: Nigeria, One Year After Elections

12 Apr 2012 06:50 Africa/Lagos

Africa: Nigeria, One Year After Elections

WASHINGTON, April 12, 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ -- Remarks

Johnnie Carson

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs

As Prepared

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, DC

April 9, 2012


A year ago today, Nigerians began casting ballots in the first of what would be four days of voting for legislators, governors, and a president. Tensions were high. Voting that had been scheduled one week earlier was abruptly canceled just hours before polls were to open. We did not know for certain whether months of careful election preparations would result in a process Nigerians considered fair and credible or a rerun of the deeply flawed 2007 presidential elections. Skeptics were everywhere; and many said good elections could not be held.

Nigerians had a different idea. They waited in line for hours. They stuck around after the polls closed to ensure that every ballot was counted. They monitored polling places and compilation centers by the thousands, and they sent text messages reporting any irregularities they observed.

The result was clear. Nigeria had conducted its most successful and credible elections since its return to multiparty democracy in 1999. Despite obvious imperfections, these elections have given the country a solid foundation for strengthening its democratic institutions in the years ahead.

As a witness to that historic occasion, I can vouch for the enthusiasm that Nigerians demonstrated towards these elections and their democratic rights. Civil society groups across the country were actively engaged in the process, and on election day, diverse groups, including the Federation of Muslim Women, the Nigerian Bar Association, and the Transition Monitoring Group, joined together in a massive election monitoring effort called Project Swift Count.

There was also a strong commitment on the part of the government to improve the electoral process. Months before the election, a new and highly regarded Independent National Electoral Commission chairman was named, and the Nigerian Government provided adequate funding to pay for the election process. The new INEC Chair – Professor Attahiru Jega – made a good faith effort to register as many voters as possible and to organize the elections in the shortest time frame.

The April 2011 elections were clearly another step forward in Nigeria's continuing democratization process, but more remains to be done to improve Nigeria's electoral procedures and more importantly to strengthen the country's democratic institutions and governance. because what happens in Nigeria affects us all – the United States, Africa, and the global community. We cannot run away from the facts. Nigeria is probably the most strategically important country in sub-Saharan Africa. At about 160 million people, Nigeria is home to over twenty percent of sub-Saharan Africa's population. It is the largest oil producing state in Africa, it is the fifth largest supplier of crude oil to the United States, and the tenth largest global producer. It is home to the sixth largest Muslim population in the world, and it's by far the largest country in the world with approximately equal numbers of Christians and Muslims. In the United Nations, Nigeria is the fifth largest peacekeeping contributing country in the world. And as the most influential and militarily powerful member of the Economic Community of West African States, Nigeria has played a key role in helping to resolve every major political and security dispute in West Africa from the Liberian and Sierra Leonian crises in the 1990s to the recent political problems in Guinea, Niger, and the Cote d'Ivoire, and I might add to that, Mali. Nigeria is a dominant economic and financial force across West Africa, and if Lagos State were an independent country its population would make it the eighteenth largest country in Africa and its economy would be well within the top twenty on the continent.

Nigeria is important and a lot depends on the Nigeria's success. That's why Secretary Clinton inaugurated the U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission in 2010, providing the two countries with a high-level vehicle to work together on the most criticial issues we face. We have supported Nigeria's political and economic reforms and we have tried to be a useful partner as it addresses its social, economic, and security challenges. We have provided technical assistance to support reform in the power sector. We have taken a large energy trade mission to the country, and encouraged the swift passage of a strong petroleum industry bill that brings more transparency to the sector. We have recognized the importance of Nigeria's agriculture sector and supported Nigeria's comprehensive agriculture development plans. And in the health sector, we have committed over $500 million a year to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, demonstrating how critical we consider Nigeria in the worldwide fight against HIV and AIDS. President Obama and Secretary Clinton both recognize the importance of this relationship and both have met with and engaged with President Jonathan on a number of occasions over the past three years. Later this week, Nigeria's vice president will be in Washington and he is expected to meet Vice President Biden in the White House and with senior officials in the State Department.

Nigeria's success is important to us; but we recognize that that success cannot be achieved unless Nigeria overcomes the challenges that have frustrated its progress. Decades of poor governance have seriously degraded the country's health, education, and transportation infrastructure. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue, Nigeria has virtually no functioning rail system and only half of its population has access to electricity. The 80 million Nigerians who have electricity share intermittent access to the amount of power equivalent to what we have in the Washington, DC metro area. Living standards for most Nigerians are the same today as they were in 1970, and nearly 100 million Nigerians live on less than one dollar a day.

Nigerians are hungry for progress and an improvement in their lives, but northern Nigerians feel this need most acutely. Life in Nigeria for many is tough, but across the North, life is grim. A UN study shows that poverty in the 12 most northern states is nearly twice that of the rest of the country. The health indicators reflect this. Children in the far north are almost four times as likely to be malnourished. Child mortality is over 200 deaths per 1000 live births, leading to lower life expectancy. Educational standards are just as bad. Literacy in the far north is 35 percent as opposed to 77 percent in the rest of the country. Seventy-seven percent of women in the far north have no formal education, compared to only 17 percent in the rest of the country. In northern Nigeria, primary school attendance is only 41 percent, while youth unemployment is extremely high. All of this contributes to joblessness and a deepening cycle of poverty.

The statistics are disturbing, but they are not the whole story. Poverty in northern Nigeria is increasing. Despite a decade in which the Nigerian economy expanded at a spectacular seven percent per year, the Nigerian National Bureau of Statistics estimates that extreme poverty is 10 percent higher than in 2004. It's even worse in the North. Income inequality is growing rapidly. These trends are worrying for economic, political, and security reasons.

While ninety-one percent of Nigerians across the country considered the April 2011 elections to be fair and transparent, most people in the far north backed opposition candidates that did not win. The post-election violence that occurred in several northern cities reflected strong dissatisfaction with elites who protestors thought controlled the election process. Public opinion polls and news reports suggest that there is a strong sentiment throughout the country, but especially in the North, that government is not on the side of the people; and that their poverty is a result of government neglect, corruption, and abuse. This is the type of popular narrative that is ripe for an insurgent group to hijack for its own purposes.


Which brings me to Boko Haram.

As you all know, over the last year Boko Haram has created widespread insecurity across northern Nigeria, increased tensions between various ethnic communities, interrupted development activities, frightened off investors, and generated concerns among Nigeria's northern neighbors. They have been responsible for near daily attacks in Borno and Yobe states. And they were behind the January 20 attack in Kano that killed nearly 200 people and three major attacks in Abuja, including the bombing of the UN headquarters last August. Boko Haram's attacks on churches and mosques are particularly disturbing because they are intended to inflame religious tensions and upset the nation's social cohesion.

Although Boko Haram is reviled throughout Nigeria, and offers no practical solutions to northern problems, a growing minority of certain northern ethnic groups regard them favorably. Boko Haram capitalizes on popular frustrations with leaders, poor government service delivery, and the dismal living conditions of many northerners. Boko Haram seeks to humiliate and undermine the government and to exploit religious differences in order to create chaos and to make Nigeria ungovernable.

Boko Haram has grown stronger and increasingly more sophisticated over the past three years, and eliminating the Boko Haram problem will require a broad-based strategy that employs the establishment of a comprehensive plan rather than the imposition of more martial law. While more sophisticated and targeted security efforts are necessary to contain Boko Haram's acts of violence and to capture and prosecute its leaders, the government must also win over the population by addressing the social and economic problems that have created the environment in which Boko Haram can thrive. The government must improve its tactics, avoid excessive violence and human rights abuses, make better use of its police and intelligence services, de-emphasize the role of the military, and use its courts to prosecute those who are found to be responsible for Boko Haram's kidnappings, killings, and terrorist attacks.

Nigerian officials should focus on the political environment that makes Boko Haram so dangerous. By demonstrating the benefits a pluralistic society has to offer, the government will deny Boko Haram and other extremists the ability to exploit ethnic and religious differences. The government should redouble their efforts to resolve ongoing disputes in Jos and other high violence flashpoints. By becoming more responsive to the people, the government can put distance between itself and the accusations that it is blind to the needs of everyday Nigerians.


Numerous northern civil society organizations have come out against Boko Haram – at great personal risk – that could multiply serious government efforts to address longstanding northern grievances. I want to stress that religion is not driving extremist violence in either Jos or Northern Nigeria. While some seek to inflame Muslim-Christian tensions, Nigeria's ethnic and religious diversity is a source of strength, not weakness, and there are many examples of communities working across religious lines to protect one another.

Containing and eliminating Boko Haram today will be much more difficult than it was four years ago, when it was under the leadership of it now deceased leader, Muhammed Yusof, who was killed in police custody. Today, Boko Haram is not a monolithic, homogenous organization controlled by a single charismatic figure. Boko Haram is several organizations, a larger organization focused primarily on discrediting the Nigerian Government, and a smaller more dangerous group, increasingly sophisticated and increasing lethal. This group has developed links with AQIM and has a broader, anti-Western jihadist agenda. This group is probably responsible for the kidnapping of westerners and for the attacks on the UN building in Abuja. Complicating the picture further is the tendency of some officials to blame Boko Haram for bank robberies and local vendettas that are carried out by common criminals and political thugs.

There are some who say that Boko Haram is comprised mostly of non-Nigerian foreigners, and that the group is being funded by a handful of resentful politicians nursing their wounds from the last election. This would be unfortunate if true, but I have not seen any evidence to support either of these theories.

To fix the Boko Haram problem, the government will have to develop a new social compact with its northern citizens. It will have to develop an economic recovery strategy that complements its security strategy. It will have to draw on the support of northern governors traditional Hausa and Fulani leaders and local officials and organizations. The Nigerian Government should consider creating a Ministry of Northern Affairs or a Northern development commission similar to what it did in response to the crises in the Niger Delta.

Northern populations are currently trapped between violent extremists on one hand and heavy-handed government responses on the other. They need to know that their president is going to extraordinary lengths to fix their problems.

Achieving this will not be easy. Although the problems are not the same, it has taken the central government in Abuja nearly ten years to bring the problems in the Niger Delta under some semblance of control. Resolving the problems in northern Nigeria will require the government to act more swiftly and to make a strategic course correction. It will need to adopt a comprehensive strategy and remain disciplined and committed in its implementation, especially at the state and local level where accountability is low and corruption high. all of whom have put a high premium on promoting sustained economic development, job creation, greater agricultural productivity, and more foreign investment. Given time and political support from the top, this team has the ability to shape and lead Nigeria's long term economic transformation.

The Nigerian Government has also taken a positive step in trying to address its long standing problem of corruption. Through two strategic appointments, the government has signaled that is once again going to try to get a handle on high-level corruption. For four years, we scaled back our technical assistance programs to Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) because we did not believe the previous leadership was committed to reform. In November, President Jonathan appointed a new chairman to run the country's EFCC – the country's main anti-corruption agency. The appointment of Ibrahim Lamode to lead the EFCC gives us confidence that the high-level corruption that has hobbled the delivery of government services will be seriously addressed. President Jonathan's appointment of Nuhu Ribadu to oversee a commission to monitor and audit the government's vast oil and gas revenues is also a very promising sign. Before he was fired several years ago, Ribado earned a well-deserved reputation as Nigeria's most zealous prosecutor of high level corrupt officials. His return, like that of Ngozi and other economic reformers, should be taken as an indication of the promise and potential of getting it right. We hope these high performers will encourage others, like the Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, to accelerate key reforms, including the long awaited Petroleum Industry Bill.

There is also a bright side to be found in a number of statehouses across Nigeria, where governors are responsible for delivering most public services. A handful of governors embraced the challenges of their jobs and have made a real difference. The governors in Lagos, Edo, and Kano have demonstrated what strong, honest, and responsible leadership at the state level can accomplish.

We continue to use the U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission as our primary vehicle for exchanging ideas and promoting engagement with Nigeria.

We want to elevate and expand our dialogue and are ready to work with Nigerian authorities at the national and state level and to expand our programs in states with high performing executives, particularly in northern Nigeria where the need is greatest. We are committed to helping Nigeria develop a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy and to improving collaboration among Nigeria's intelligence services. We want to support the Nigerian Government's efforts, especially in the areas of agriculture, electrical power generation and transmission, and anti-corruption. We sent a high-level energy trade mission to Abuja and Lagos in February to attract U.S. private investment in the energy field, and we would like to do something similar to highlight the opportunities that exist in agriculture and infrastructure – where we think we have something real to offer. The agricultural investment forum sponsored by the Corporate Council on Africa and the Nigerian Embassy starting tomorrow similarly aims to direct U.S. resources towards Nigerian development.

I am bullish on Nigeria. I have been ever since I served there as a young Foreign Service officer. There is no doubt that Nigeria's challenges are serious, but we should not underestimate the skill and ability of the Nigerian people and leaders to address them. I believe the forces that are holding Nigeria together are stronger today than the forces that are pulling Nigeria apart. Nigeria remains the giant in Africa, and I remain optimist about its long term future. By working with Nigeria, we can contribute to the country's economic growth and political unity – two objectives that are important to the United States, Africa, and the global community. A strong, vibrant, politically stable, and economically prosperous Nigeria is in everyone's interest. I hope you agree. Thank you.


Source: US Department of State

Tweet