The Abuja peace accord

It was a great relief for millions of apprehensive Nigerians
watching President Goodluck Jonathan and the presidential
candidate of the leading opposition party, Major-General
Muhammadu Buhari, hugging on television last week. Both
men were seen in a warm embrace with hearty smiles after
signing what is now known as the ‘Abuja Accord,’ which
commits them and their political parties to peaceful
electioneering campaigns, peaceful polls and effective
management of the outcome of the 2015 elections to ensure
that there is no outbreak of violence.
Credit for initiating, moderating and facilitating the accord
must go to many men and women of goodwill who felt that
the tone and form of the electioneering were leading the
country toward a tinder box. We commend all those who
contributed to this accord, including two of Africa’s foremost
international public servants, former UN Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan of Ghana, and former Commonwealth Secretary-
General, Nigeria’s Chief Emeka Anyaoku, who flanked
Jonathan and Buhari as they signed the accord.
By this agreement, all Nigerian political parties are bound to
non-violence. President Jonathan, the presidential candidate
of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Gen. Buhari,
the presidential candidate of the All Peoples Congress (APC)
represent the two largest parties in the country. One of them
must emerge as president in the election.
This peace accord is symbolic but significant. Twelve other
candidates also signed the agreement along with all the
political party chairmen, thereby committing the 14 political
parties to the terms of the accord. The forum for the signing
of the accord was the “2015 General Elections Sensitisation
Workshop on Non-Violence” jointly organised by the Office of
the National Security Adviser and the Office of the Special
Adviser to the President on Inter-Party Affairs.
To add greater credibility to the accord, Nigeria’s development
partners and members of the diplomatic corps witnessed the
occasion.
Before this accord, the belligerence that defined the campaigns
of the two leading candidates had been unsettling to many
Nigerians. Threats of a parallel government and other warlike
inflammatory statements had kept many Nigerians on edge.
There was suspicion that large numbers of small arms and
light weapons were finding their way into the country. This
was in addition to the jihadist onslaught of Boko Haram,
reputedly the most bloodthirsty terrorist group in the world.
We wholeheartedly support this accord. The need for peace
during and after the elections is paramount because, as Kofi
Annan said, Nigeria cannot be allowed to slide into chaos for
the obvious reason that it would destabilise the entire region,
if not the whole continent. The brief conflagration which
followed the 2011 elections was disastrous. Its scars are still
being felt till today and many of its victims are just now
receiving compensation for their pain and suffering.
We commend President Jonathan and General Buhari for
signing the accord and urge them to abide by it. Nigerians
count on them to discourage violence, intolerance and inflam­
matory statements capable of raising tensions in the country,
and this accord should guide their actions and reactions.
Let there be a sincere commitment to peaceful elections. The
commitment, we must say, should not only be at the level of
the individual candidates, but also include that of their
campaign teams. In that regard, the candidates and their
parties must frown at, and stop the increasing use of
inflammatory political advertising and other distasteful hate
campaigns by their supporters.
The accord will not be worth the paper on which it is printed if
distracting and hateful communication continue to come out
from the candidates’ campaign offices.
Nigerians expect the political leaders to act in consonance
with the accord they signed. We expect them to eschew every
impulse or temptation to violence. No electoral victory is
worth a drop of Nigerian blood. Certainly, there will be life
after the elections.
The inadequacies of the Electoral Act in relation to electoral
violence are, however, quite glaring and demand the earliest
revision. The prescribed punishment for offenders under the
act seems more like a slap on the wrist. We urge Nigerians to
use every opportunity to remind one another that violence
cannot be part of a free and fair election because it con­
tradicts free choice which is the basis of democracy.