[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3883-3885]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           NIGERIAN ELECTIONS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just over a week ago we witnessed a 
seminal event in Nigeria, the West African country that could hold the 
key to stability and prosperity in the region. Millions of Nigerians 
participated in an election to select the first civilian president in 
almost two decades. Since gaining its independence in 1960, Nigeria has 
survived a number of military coups and has been under the military 
rule of one regime or another for most of that time. Last weekend's 
election was only the second democratic presidential election in 
Nigeria the last 39 years. According to the official results, former 
Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo won a majority of votes throughout the country, 
and will be inaugurated as a civilian president on May 29.
  Yet, Mr. President, what could have, and should have, been a proud 
moment in Nigeria's history was marred by significant irregularities, 
fraud and low voter turnout.
  Coincidentally, election weekend was also marked by two important 
announcements by President Clinton: his determinations pursuant to the 
drug certification law and the publication of the annual State 
Department Human Rights Report. Under the drug law, Nigeria was 
identified among those countries that failed to meet the test for 
cooperation on anti-narcotics efforts but were granted waivers 
exempting them from the economic penalties imposed by the law. The 
administration explained this decision with respect to Nigeria by 
expressing hope that it would be able to work more effectively after 
the ``nation's transition to democracy.'' At the same time, the human 
rights report noted significant progress in Nigeria's human rights 
record, although it still acknowledged that significant problems 
remain.
  Now, as Nigeria plots its course through the next stage of its 
multiphase transition to civilian rule, Nigerians, and we in the 
international community, must figure out how to react to these 
concurrent, though sometimes contradictory, developments.
  Let me elaborate. The February 27 presidential elections marked the 
last of a series of four types of elections--local council, 
gubernatorial, legislative and presidential, respectively--that have 
taken place over the past three months according to the transition 
program established by General Abdusalami Abubakar. Despite some 
disturbing irregularities, these elections, and the campaign period 
preceding them, were conducted in a calm and orderly fashion, and--with 
the exception of a few localized incidents--without violence or 
physical intimidation. This process has been marked throughout by a 
clear demonstration of Gen. Abubakar's commitment to the transition 
program, including the handover of power to elected civilian 
authorities on May 29, and the genuine efforts of the Independent 
National Electoral Commission charged with the responsibility for 
conducting the elections themselves.
  Although the turnout was much lower than expected, particularly for 
the presidential election, millions of Nigerians opted to participate 
in the process, either through voting or civic work. According to 
reports from domestic and international observers, the conduct of the 
presidential election in many places was smooth, orderly and 
implemented according to the established procedures. Particularly 
noteworthy was that the head-of-state himself, General Abubakar, was 
denied the opportunity to vote because he arrived at his polling site 
too late to follow the required accreditation process. This adherence 
to proper procedures is indeed encouraging.
  Doubly encouraging is the clear and strong wish of the overwhelming 
majority of Nigerians for a swift and orderly transition to democratic 
civilian rule.
  Mr. President, I commend and congratulate the Nigerian people who 
contributed to these positive developments in the electoral process.
  But Mr. President, these commendations and congratulations are 
dampened by reports of massive irregularities in this election, which 
can be more properly called deliberate fraud. I find these reports 
deeply discouraging.
  At polling stations in several areas, particularly in what is known 
as the South-South zone, the turnout observed by domestic and 
international monitors was significantly lower than the vote totals 
reported at a statewide

[[Page 3884]]

level. This suggests that there were a considerable number of ballots 
included in the final count that were not submitted by legitimate 
registered voters. Domestic and international monitors also noted that 
the reported collated results from a particular local government area 
exceeded the combined total votes from the polling stations in that 
area. Additionally, at some locations, voters were denied the 
opportunity to vote because ballots were delivered suspiciously late or 
in insufficient numbers. Finally, certain procedures established by the 
electoral commission were not consistently applied. According to the 
report issued by the Carter Center/National Democratic Institute 
Observer Delegation, these included the failure to use indelible ink at 
many polling stations, the failure to ensure ballot secrecy, late poll 
openings, and a failure to adhere to an accreditation process that was 
distinct from the actual voting process.
  Reports of these malpractices are indeed disturbing. Although it 
remains unclear whether the fraudulent activities had an impact on the 
ultimate outcome of this election, such irregularities risk bringing 
the legitimacy of the process into question and must be condemned.
  Indeed, former President Jimmy Carter, who led a 66-person 
observation delegation and spent considerable time in the country, was 
so disturbed by these irregularities that he sent a terse, two-sentence 
letter to the chairman of the electoral commission. The letter said--
quote--``There was a wide disparity between the number of voters 
observed at the polling stations and the final results that have been 
reported from several states. Regrettably, therefore, it is not 
possible for us to make an accurate judgment about the outcome of the 
presidential election.'' Since 1989, President Carter has led 
delegations to observe electoral processes in 15 countries and has 
rarely had such harsh words to say regarding the outcome. This 
assessment truly gives me pause.
  Mr. President, in addition to the views expressed by international 
observers, I would also like to emphasize the importance of the views 
of the main domestic observer group, The Transition Monitoring Group, 
or TMG. The TMG is an umbrella organization formed of more than 60 
human rights and civil society groups from throughout Nigeria. 
Together, these organizations fielded some 10,700 monitors to observe 
voting and counting at a large number of the country's 115,000 polling 
stations in all of the country's 36 states. In its interim report, the 
TMG noted that the kinds of malpractices observed in the elections 
``have the potential to erode the confidence of the electorate in the 
whole transition.'' Therefore, the report recommends, and I quote:

       It is important for the incoming civilian government to 
     appreciate and understand that the emphasis in the current 
     process has been on transition to civilian rule, rather than 
     the establishment of full-blown democracy to Nigeria. Any 
     triumphalist insistence on a ``winner-take-all'' stance on 
     the basis of a supposed democratic mandate must be avoided. 
     The incoming civilian government must therefore begin to make 
     determined and sustained efforts to cultivate democratic 
     norms and values amongst its members, as well as in the 
     society at large.

  Mr. President, this is a key observation. The large number of reports 
of deliberate fraud, combined with the low voter turnout, appear to 
weaken the mandate for Gen. Obasanjo. His strong mandate, however, is 
for the development of civilian democratic rule. The General certainly 
has the capacity to embrace that mandate and implement true civilian 
rule according to the wishes of his people. Whether he chooses to go 
this route or not remains to be seen. I strongly urge him to take the 
needed steps to allow real democracy to take root in Nigeria. He should 
act decisively to develop effective democratic institutions, establish 
appropriate decentralization of decisionmaking throughout the three 
levels of government, integrate the military into democratic society, 
and create the mechanisms of transparency and accountability that will 
allow the people to gain confidence that they are truly governing 
themselves.
  Key to these measures, of course, will be the adoption of a broadly 
accepted constitution. Amazingly, the ongoing transition process has 
been conducted without the benefit of a constitutional framework. The 
current military government has said it will introduce a constitution 
in the near future. I hope it will be promulgated as an interim 
framework, and not imposed as a final document. Then I hope the 
president-elect will institute a democratic procedure to debate and 
develop a new constitution that can have popular support.
  Mr. President, as I said at the beginning, Nigerians and we in the 
international community, must decide how to react to these 
developments. My own assessment is mixed. Therefore, I have a few words 
to say about the two executive branch announcements that were issued 
just prior to the election, the drug certification decision and the 
human rights report.
  Although there was little concrete progress on important anti-
narcotics efforts between the United States and Nigeria, the President 
decided to grant Nigeria a vital national interests certification in 
order to support the transition underway in Nigeria. That decision 
paves the way for the administration to provide needed economic and 
security assistance to the new civilian government in Nigeria once it 
is inaugurated. In this particular case, I wish the decision to waive 
the sanctions under this law could have waited until inauguration day 
actually arrives. The United States has until now had a strong 
sanctions regime against Nigeria, which has provided significant 
leverage for us in that country. Slowly, we were beginning to open up 
that relationship, with the loosening of visa restrictions last fall. 
Now, however, by appearing to bless the efforts of the current Nigerian 
regime on narcotics enforcement, we have removed an important source of 
leverage. Despite good communication between Nigeria's National Drug 
Law Enforcement Agency and our own Drug Enforcement Agency, the fact is 
little progress has been made in key areas. Nigerian efforts have been 
unsatisfactory on extradition of offenders wanted in the United States, 
implementation of Nigeria's own national drug strategy and related 
laws, stemming corruption among law enforcement personnel, and 
targeting Nigeria-based worldwide narcotics and money laundering 
organizations.
  Mr. President, the loss of our leverage on these important issues 
makes me nervous. Yet I am inclined to be ``cautiously supportive'' or 
at least ``cautiously open-minded'' about this decision as long as the 
administration's plans for working with the government are moderated 
and deliberately paced. A cautious approach is essential so that in the 
event of a severe downspiral, the United States will not be overly 
exposed. I look forward to extensive consultation with the executive 
branch on such plans.
  Mr. President, I must also note some of the observations in this 
year's State Department report on human rights in Nigeria. I am pleased 
that the report indicates substantial improvement in Nigeria's human 
rights record in the latter part of 1998 as compared to its previously 
extremely poor record. Nonetheless, despite progress in the reduction 
of government use of lethal force and torture, the ending of harsh 
suppression of a free press, and the restoration of citizens' rights to 
choose their government, the report acknowledges that serious human 
rights problems persist.
  In particular, Nigerian security forces continue to commit 
extrajudicial killings, although generally not of a political 
character. During frequent fuel shortages, the police and military 
deployed to maintain order at filling stations repeatedly killed 
customers and operators, according to press reports. During the month 
of November alone, members of the combined police and military 
anticrime task force known as ``Operation Sweep'' reportedly committed 
at least 16 extrajudicial killings. Although some improvements were 
made, harsh prison conditions and denial of proper medical treatment 
contributed to the death of inmates. While Gen.

[[Page 3885]]

Abubakar apparently began a serious effort to release political 
detainees, the lack of authoritative information regarding the exact 
number of remaining detainees served to confirm the fact that Abacha-
era security forces were able to put persons in detention with very 
little concern about due process or accountability.
  In addition, several of the important military decrees, which grant 
the security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention, remain on 
the books.
  Given the longstanding pattern of human rights abuses and some 
uncertainty about how widely accepted the new civilian president will 
be, the report acknowledges that there is significant potential for a 
continued unacceptable human rights environment in Nigeria.
  Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the human rights 
situation in Nigeria. I have introduced several pieces of legislation 
designed to encourage democratization and respect for the rule of law 
in that country. I desperately want to support an active and proactive 
U.S. policy toward the country. For now, most signals seem to indicate 
that the transition will continue to be smooth and peaceful. However, I 
am concerned that in truly wishing the best for the Nigerian people and 
in looking for ways to support the transition, the United States will 
in effect hold Nigeria's rulers to a lower standard of good governance 
than it traditionally has demanded. I know that the administration is 
anxious to work with the new government, and if all goes well, I would 
encourage that.
  The conduct of the elections last weekend did not inspire much 
confidence in the process, and this is a great disappointment. However, 
it does not mean we should throw in the towel in the fight to foster a 
democratic Nigeria. No. In fact the opposite is true. We must continue 
to be vigilant and encourage Nigeria and its new leadership to follow 
the right path. This means the United States should continue to help 
Nigeria develop democratic institutions and to strengthen political and 
civic organizations at all levels of government. We should help the 
military remove itself from political life and become integrated into 
democratic society. But we should do this carefully and thoughtfully. 
And that is the best way we can help Nigeria help itself.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a March 1 New 
York Times editorial on this subject be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 1999]

                    Nigeria's Presidential Election

       Olusegun Obasanjo, a former general, will be the next 
     president of Nigeria, according to preliminary election 
     results. His selection reflects the complexities of power in 
     Nigeria today. When the country's current leader, Gen. 
     Abdulsalami Abubakar, took over last June, he promised a 
     transition to civilian rule after 15 years of disaster under 
     general after general. Mr. Abubakar has kept his promise. But 
     the transition is incomplete. Military officers, who largely 
     bankrolled Mr. Obasanjo's candidacy, will continue to loom 
     over his government. Mr. Obasanjo will have to break with 
     them to have any success in improving life in Africa's most 
     populous nation.
       General Abubakar took power after the death of Gen. Sani 
     Abacha, one of the most corrupt and certainly the most 
     despotic of Nigeria's recent military rulers. Their thievery 
     and mismanagement turned Nigeria, one of the world's richest 
     nations during the oil boom of the 1970's, into one of the 
     world's poorest. General Abacha snuffed out political life in 
     this once-vibrant country, jailing many of his rivals, 
     including General Obasanjo.
       In his nine months in power, General Abubakar reversed much 
     of the political crackdown. Most political prisoners are now 
     free. Newspapers publish openly. This election was the first 
     in many years in which the Government did not dictate the 
     number of parties, although General Obasanjo's opponent has 
     complained about fraud in Saturday's voting.
       But General Abubakar's early promises to bring corrupt or 
     brutal officers to justice have melted away. Some political 
     opponents arrested on trumped up charges are still in jail. 
     General Abacha's decrees muzzling the press are still on the 
     books, and lately some journalists who write sensitive 
     stories have been harassed and their publications 
     confiscated. Police have killed protesters, with the worst 
     repression in the Delta, Nigeria's poorest region despite 
     being the source of its oil wealth.
       Many Nigerians hope that Mr. Obasanjo's government will end 
     the military's political role, but this is unlikely. Mr. 
     Obasanjo, who was president from 1976 to 1979, is the only 
     military ruler to leave office voluntarily. Yet he is still 
     close to the armed forces. Military men finance his party, 
     and one of its biggest supporters is Ibrahim Babangida, among 
     Nigeria's less savory former military rulers. That money 
     allowed Mr. Obasanjo to build a political machine that won a 
     majority in both houses of parliament in elections earlier in 
     February.
       Desperately needed economic reforms and anti-corruption 
     measures will anger officers, the main beneficiaries of the 
     present morass. Reversing the poverty and environmental 
     destruction of the Delta is another urgent task that may be 
     hindered by Mr. Obasanjo's links to the armed forces, which 
     are hated there. Those ties may also prevent him from calming 
     ethnic tensions. He is a Yoruba from Nigeria's southwest, but 
     many Yoruba distrust him, viewing him as closer to the 
     northern army officials who have traditionally run Nigeria. 
     To have any success in tackling these daunting problems, Mr. 
     Obasanjo must make his government not the last stage in a 
     military transition, but the first stage of full civilian 
     rule.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________