Human rights key as Nigeria picks president

On February 14, Nigerians take to the polls to vote in presidential and parliamentary elections. In the wake of a year in which Boko Haram’s campaign of violence has claimed 10,000 lives, gained global notoriety for the abduction of 300 schoolgirls, and been met with a government response widely perceived as ineffective, people in the besieged north are now looking to retired general and former military ruler Muhammadu Buhari for new leadership. 

Buhari’s brief tenure in power in the 1980s was notable for harsh measures against corruption and “indiscipline”, and for violations of press freedom. He remains a controversial figure, and a lawsuit seeking to disqualify him as a candidate, claiming that he has not furnished the requisite proof of his secondary education, is due to be heard on February 9. In addition to contesting the presidency in 2003 and 2007, Buhari was President Goodluck Jonathan’s primary opponent in 2011. The general’s defeat that year—perceived as unfair—sparked protests by his supporters which turned into severe sectarian violence, resulting in over 800 deaths.

{mosads}In January 2015, a coalition of northern Nigerian activists, working with Dutch international lawyer Göran Sluiter, announced that they have video evidence of Buhari making remarks directed at inciting the violence in 2011. This evidence formed the basis of a petition by the group to the International Criminal Court—which has been investigating events in Nigeria—calling for Buhari to be prosecuted for complicity in crimes against humanity. The petition claims that he made televised claims of false ballot papers being flown to his state and called on supporters at rallies to “lynch and roast alive” anyone perceived to be responsible for election fraud.

This is not the first time that blame has been leveled at Buhari for the violence. A federal government panel set up by President Jonathan to investigate the events concluded that people had “misconstrued” remarks by Buhari made shortly before the election (“if anyone tries to prevent you from guarding your vote, kill them”) as a call to violence.

The activists’ announcement is nonetheless a reminder that there has been a complete lack of accountability for the brutal killings committed in 2011. Recommendations made by the federal panel have not been followed, and despite a commission of inquiry in the state of Kaduna naming over 200 suspects, police took little action and few suspects have been prosecuted. The result has been revenge attacks by vigilantes—indeed, Boko Haram disingenuously claims it has carried out some of its attacks because of the impunity for violence against Muslims. 

The inaction is all the more staggering in light of the federal panel’s finding that failing to punish perpetrators of previous episodes of violence was a causative factor in 2011, creating a culture of impunity. There are, it follows, legitimate fears that the coming election could also be violent. In 2012, Buhari made a remark interpreted by many as a threat of violence—“if what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood” —though he may have been mistranslated. He previously also made comments that could be taken as a threat of another coup: “[i]f you choose correct leadership, there won’t be any need for the military regime.”

United States Secretary of State John Kerry has called for all sides to conduct the election peacefully, warning that anyone who incites violence will be denied a visa to the U.S. Similarly, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has exhorted candidates and leaders to honour the pact they made to refrain from violence during and around the elections. She has also pointedly stated the view that “[c]rimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC have already been committed” in Nigeria.

The crimes to which she refers are the thousands of murders committed by Boko Haram since 2009, and hundreds of alleged summary executions at the hands of Nigerian security forces in the context of that conflict. The prosecutor’s office has also investigated the 2011 elections as part of its broader examination of violence in Nigeria. However it could not clearly conclude, based on the information it had, that the post-election violence was “systematic”, as it must be to amount to crimes against humanity. Proving such crimes requires showing that the violent acts were taken pursuant to a policy of attacking a given civilian population. 

The ICC’s work does not take place in a vacuum, and an investigation into Buhari potentially poses risks to Nigeria’s interests and stability. If Buhari is elected next month and then indicted while in office, the international assistance Nigeria seeks in combating Boko Haram may be imperiled, as other nations feel forced to distance themselves from the new government and—if a President Buhari sought to travel to their country—arrest him or face sanctions. The ICC referred Malawi and Chad to the UN Security Council for sanctions to be imposed after each country hosted Sudanese president and ICC-indictee  Omar al-Bashir and failed to arrest him. 

Investigation by the ICC might also have effects on Nigeria’s internal politics. Just as the indictment of (then) political candidates in Kenya may have contributed to the relatively peaceful nature of the 2013 elections by serving as a deterrent to violence, so too the shadow of a prosecution may deter incitement and hate speech in Nigeria—particularly given that the ICC prosecutor plans to have a team on the ground to work with authorities on preventing crimes. Conversely, in light of Buhari’s veiled threats, and the recent warning by his party (the All Progressives Congress) that they would form a “parallel government” if President Jonathan is re-elected by unfair means, they might seek to blame a loss at the polls on a “slanderous” or “politically motivated” ICC complaint if indeed they intended to build support for a coup—or secession. 

When the north continues to be terrorized by Boko Haram, the vilification of the candidate behind whom many in that region have rallied could cause the north to follow in the footsteps of the Igbo minority in the east. In 1966, Igbo resentment at the dominance in government by northern Hausas led Igbo soldiers to assassinate the president and prime minister. The pogrom which ensued against the Igbo, killing tens of thousands, led to eastern states seceding as the republic of Biafra, and a three-year civil war. 

President Jonathan called the violence which followed the 2011 elections a “sad reminder” of the events that led to that prior, bitter conflict. When little action has been taken to address the violence of 2011 as the next poll approaches, the reminder remains highly prescient.

Jones is head of Doughty Street International in The Hague, and head of Doughty Street’s international criminal law team.  He specializes in extradition, war crimes, removing Interpol red notices and sanctions.