The ICC and Nigeria’s elections

Also published in Daily Trust 

Presumably worried by the rising pre-election tension in Nigeria, which could, if care is not taken, escalate into violence during or immediately after February 14 presidential election, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicated its readiness to send a team to Nigeria before the elections to, according to the Court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, “further engage with the authorities and encourage the prevention of crimes.”

By the way, the Hague-based international court has already launched a preliminary probe into possible war crimes committed by Boko Haram insurgents and Nigerian troops in their ongoing war against the terror group. This is even though the ICC grapples with credibility issues as it is increasingly being seen as biased against poor and less influential countries especially in Africa, due to its real or perceived unwillingness to prosecute and/or convict many civilian, military and militia leaders of some influential countries allegedly responsible for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
 

In any case, though it is admittedly constrained by legal constraints, which limit its jurisdiction to member countries only, major world powers and other powerful vested interests do indeed influence its operations.

Anyway, as President Jonathan’s defeat increasingly appears inevitable in the upcoming presidential election, the desperate beneficiaries of the status quo of unprecedented corruption and confusion in the country continue to make unguarded, reckless and irresponsible political utterances. Though they all threaten violence in the event of the President’s defeat, they differ in style. While some of them only make veiled but serious threats, others are recklessly audacious in their utterances taking advantage of the culture of impunity, which President Jonathan has further entrenched and effectively institutionalized in the country.

For instance, recently and in the presence of President Jonathan, Bishop David Oyedepo threatened to ‘open the gate of hell on those who oppose the President’. Also, former Niger Delta militants Mujaheed Dokubo-Asari, Victor Ben Ebikabowei aka Boy Loaf, and Government Ekpemupolo, aka, Tompolo have all repeatedly and publicly vowed to unleash violence with a view to dismantling the Nigerian state should Jonathan lose the election.

Apparently disturbed about these developments and clearly worried about the possible deterioration of the security situation in the country to an uncontrollable level during the elections, many countries, regional and international organizations warn of the implications of the excessive desperation that defines the attitude of Nigerian politicians and other public figures.

They also caution against election postponement, which President Jonathan and his cronies are reportedly plotting in order to avoid electoral defeat, as it could also plunge the country into unnecessary election-related violence. In the meantime, some countries are taking all necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of their citizens in Nigeria and to, of course, protect their own interests under any circumstances.

In its recently updated foreign travel advice, the United States advised its citizens against travelling to many more other states in Nigeria due to security reasons and worries that the situation may yet get worse during or immediately after the forthcoming elections in the country. 

After all, as the elections approach, there has been a phenomenal increase in communal flights within the country by communities fleeing from one location to another; lest they be caught up in election violence in areas where being demographically minorities makes them vulnerable to election-related violence. In fact, many well-to-do Nigerians have already fled the country while many others continue to follow suit.

Nevertheless, even though the federal government of Nigeria has remained largely indifferent, ignores and apparently underestimates the gravity of the implications of the repeated threats of violence made by some vested interests and individuals in the country, the amount of the international community’s commitment to preventing the occurrence of election violence is not enough in view of the sheer magnitude of the challenges.

For instance, it is not yet clear how the International Criminal Court’s mission will actually encourage the prevention of crimes or how it will actually douse the mounting tension in the country, prevent the eruption of election violence and, if it occurs, how to probe it and prosecute its masterminds and the perpetrators. In fact it is not clear how long its team will stay in Nigeria or even whether it will remain there all through the elections period or not.

Likewise, the United States has so far only threatened to deny entry into the US to anyone responsible for masterminding or perpetrating election violence, as declared by its Secretary of State, John Kerry. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has also cautioned the former Niger Delta militants to refrain from the making inciting comments and threat of violence.

Obviously, against this alarming backdrop, the need for more serious election violence preventive measures in the country have never been more urgent, as the pre-election tension rises amid growing veiled and overt threats of violence. The international community and the ICC in particular should be more proactive in this regard. 

Though I am not an expert on the relevant laws and procedures governing the process of probing and prosecuting cases of possible war crimes and other crimes against humanity, I believe the laws adequately address threats of violence and incitement to violence, which many public figures in Nigeria are making.

The ICC should therefore rise up to its responsibility of not only prosecuting already committed crimes but preventing its occurrence as well, which is much more imperative indeed. It should probe instances of negligence and possible government’s connivance because it simply turns a blind eye to the threats of election violence made by some desperate people who don’t want to come to terms with the reality of the looming electoral defeat.