Friday, 29th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Beyond Abuja accord

By Justice Ayotunde Phillip
19 February 2015   |   11:00 pm
Recently President Goodluck Jonathan and the presidential candidate of the leading opposition party, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, signed 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…

PHILIPS

Recently President Goodluck Jonathan and the presidential candidate of the leading opposition party, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, signed 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. Justice Ayotunde Phillips the immediate past Chief Judge of Lagos state and current Country Chair of NCMG International, Nigeria spoke to a group of journalists on the next steps after the signing of the Abuja accord. Excerpts

Lately, aspirants from key political parties met in Abuja to sign a commitment to peaceful 2015 elections, don’t you think this move is too late in the polity?

Nigeria as some writings have shown is that addressing political violence is engaged as a one-off event. We talk about peaceful elections only when elections are near. This is rather unfortunate as such an approach only calls for peace when machineries of violence are already well developed. If I may say, this approach ignores the reality that violence has become a cultural image of elections in Nigeria which requires a holistic approach to address. That said, let me add that better late than never: the Abuja Accord is a welcome development as it shows a major commitment to peace as elections get nearer.

But violence is never physically carried out by aspirants of political offices but by theirfollowers, I mean their foot soldiers. Giventhis situation, is the Abuja Accord not misguided?

The Abuja Accord focuses on leaders of major political parties and not directly on followership. This approach, I agree with you, should raise some doubt in critical minds about the utility of the Accord.

However, for a start, focusing on majorpolitical parties and their aspirants is not a badidea. For one reason, the articulate view and commitment of aspirants at that level is important to demonstrate to the entire world, particularly the diplomatic community that the major parties, especially the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) acknowledge political violence as a national challenge and are willing to deal with it as such. Also, if taken seriously, the commitment of the aspirants of the two parties to the Accord may go a long way to inspire change in the way and manner campaigns are conducted by their loyalists and supporters.

However, back to my comment to the previous question, I can say in unequivocal terms that the Abuja Accord is not enough. It represents a top-down approach which ignores the point that political violence in Nigeria is grass-root based. In my view, at the local level, it requires more than an Accord to entrench a culture of peaceful elections. For the Accord to have a meaningful impact, it must be supported by awareness campaigns involving youths, market people, artisans and grass root people, the critical groups that are often manipulated by disgruntled politicians to foment troubles and cause mayhem before, during and after elections more importantly, it must include women as their role as mothers, wife and daughters is not to be underestimated.

So are you more inclined to say that the Accord is of little significance to peaceful elections in Nigeria?

No, don’t get me wrong! Since its indepen-  dence, Nigeria has experienced a long history of political violence often characterized by unimaginable acts of thuggery and killings. Despite the promises that the return to democratic governance in 1999 holds, little has changed! For instance in the 2011 elections, though there was no formal Accord, there were appeals for peace.

However, this gesture did not prevent the post-election violence that left over 2,000 dead and thousands displaced following that election. What am I driving at? Considering our experience in previous elections, the Abuja Accord offers a symbolic hope that as a nation, we see electoral violence as a national challenge. It also indicates a collective will to help address a most pressing and unpleasant situation in our democratic development.

More importantly, in my view, it offers Nigerians a useful platform to engage conver- sations and discussions such as the one that you are presently having with me. What is more, it serves as a tool of assessing the campaign approach of aspirants to the office of the presidency, in terms of their commit- ment to peace and tolerance for violence. The Abuja Accord, if supported with strategic awareness campaigns is necessary in a climate of growing anxiety about the likelihood of another major violence in the 2015 elections.

Considering that it is not binding, what can the Accord and possible enlightenment around it achieve at different levels?

You are right in your assumption, the Accord is a moral commitment and is not legally binding on participants. In other words, it does not create a legally binding

obligation which is enforceable in a court- room. However, the truth is, the Accord is not meant to operate in such manner. And this is rightly so. Circumstances which often underlie political violence are not questions of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ which enforceable laws and courtrooms are well suited to deal with.

Often time, as some writings have shown, these are questions of ‘right’ versus ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ versus ‘wrong’ which for their resolution are amenable to awareness campaigns, re-orientation and a change in political values of parties and contestants.

Consequently, although a moral commitment, when it is embraced at all levels of political life, transformation from a culture of violence becomes feasible, bringing about an attitudinal change. Such a transformation is achieved not necessarily when Accords become binding and legally enforceable.

But dont’ you feel that a mere moral commitment will change nothing, particularly, given the myriad of continuing foul languages and actions since the Accord was signed?

We should not be hopeless where we can be hopeful. It is true that since the signingn of the Accord, we hear and read in the papers all sort of indecent comments and provocative body languages which should be a major cause of concern. To buttress your points, lately, we read that a presidential campaign team was stoned.

Also, there have been foul languages from leadership across parties on all sort of personal issues which by themselves can fuel violence in the polity. The issue here is either that politicians have not shown exemplary behaviour for their followers to emulate or that there is a dis-connect between what leadership stands for and what followers believe across all levels of political structure.

In any event, the situation will only change if, in addition to the public Accord by key political contestants, a holistic culture of peace is fostered conscientiously through awareness and sensitisation campaigns beyond the Accord.

How can this holistic culture toward zerotolerance for political violence be achieved?

The goal of the proposed holistic approach would be to encourage and build awareness around critical stakeholders including youths and women and their associations and institutions, as well as vital institutions such as the police, para-military and journalists to commit to a peace pledge whereby they will renounce violence and never to support it before, during and after elections. The pledge will encourage stakeholders to make individual and institutional decision on their own unique ways to inspire peace and discourage predatory politics.

In the long run, the pledge can become the basis of membership of political parties andmay have wider implications of shaping and informing what political parties do and the basis on which they act. Only then may we say we are attentively working toward enthroning a culture of peace and zero tolerance for electoral violence.

Tell us a little about NCMG Internationaland its role on the 2015 elections in Nigeria?

NCMG International is a not for profit organization responsible for the establishment of The Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, the first court connected ADR Centre in Africa. Having recently collaborated with the University of Lagos toestablish the University of Lagos-NCMG College of Negotiation, it is about introducing ADR into the Court of Appeal through the

Court of Appeal Mediation Program. I am the Country Chair (Nigeria) of a 7-member board of directors while Justice James Ogoola a Ugandan is the East Africa RegionalChairman and Justice Muhammadu Uwais is the Chairman of the Global Board of Governors. With regards elections in Nigeria, the commitment of the organization is not limited to the 2015 elections but beyond. In all, the focus of NCMG is towards Zero Violence in elections through Peace Pledge, Awareness Campaign, Capacity Building and most of all justice and fairness in electioneering. There is also the NCMG Eminent Persons Group made up of respectable elder statesmen across the African continent.

Thank you. If you have to give a parting shot, what would you say to all stakeholders as we near elections?

Well, all stakeholders particularly, international and national institutions, supporting and working on peaceful elections must realise that attaining peaceful elections in Nigeria goes beyond Abuja Accord. Importantly, it requires a holistic approach which takes fostering a culture of peace as a main and systemic issue. To the political actors, the issue of peace, if I may say, transcends the capturing of political offices,

which is the specific object of interest to their parties. It is only when we engage the forthcoming elections in such lenses that we can say we are serious about translating the object of the Accord into a reality of peaceful elections in Nigeria.

“Circumstances which often underlie political violence are not questions of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ which enforceable laws and courtrooms are well suited to deal with”

0 Comments