Non state actors have a role to play in election security---Group

Emeka Ibemere

Following the aftermath of the general election in Nigeria, between March 28 and April 11, including the supplementary elections that followed it, a non-governmental organisation has recommended for the engagement of Non State Actors in election security in Nigeria.

This observation was made known in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, FCT, during the group’s recent assessment of the entire 2015 election conducted in Nigeria.

According to the group, CLEEN Foundation, Nigeria and other African countries, needs to give roles and engage the Non state actors:  such as NURTW, vigilantes, civil society organizations (CSOs), community based organizations – including traditional and religious institutions in supporting, and maintaining safety and security so as not to allow participatory democracy to be imperilled and crippled by election insecurity.

CLEEN Foundation buttressed this during her “seventh Security Threat Assessment (STA)” and noted that there were few concerns about the capacity and neutrality of state security agencies going into the 2015 elections.

The Programme Manager for the Foundation, Nengak Daniel said the desperate acts of some politicians in collaboration with mostly young persons have continued to endanger the electoral process in Nigeria; which ordinarily should bring them to power based on the decisions of the electorates.

The group stated that the 2015 Election Viability Polls, conducted by the organisation had found that the polling units and the result collation centres were hotspots for violence and suggested that collaborations between security agencies would produce the best results for future elections security management in Nigeria.

“The existence and prevalence in our urban and rural spaces of non-state actors such as vigilantes, civil society organizations, and community based organizations – including traditional and religious institutions in supporting, and maintaining safety and security across the country underscores the need for a larger and enhanced collaboration between the state and non-state peace and security actors in providing election security”, the group added.

“This policy brief assessment explored recent trends of non-state actors observed in the 2015 General Elections in Nigeria and draw attention to factors which could affect election security management in Nigeria”.

CLEEN Foundation’s key findings showed that in many democracies across the world, the management of elections is increasingly becoming less of a technical affair to be left exclusively to the election management bodies (EMBs) and more of a terrain of broad civic engagement.

According to the CLEEN Foundation report,  conscious and deliberate efforts are needed to be carried out to identify and map out organizations and institution with agenda or capacity to promote peace and security during election; particularly, the armed and un-armed non-state actors.

“Unfortunately, there are no guidelines and codes of conduct for identified, organised, and un-armed non state actors such as NURTW, CSOs etc on issues such membership, training, accountability remains critical in ensuring election safety and security.

“Development of platforms for partnership, networking and collaboration is very imperative. This realization led to the establishment of the Inter-Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security (ICCES) by INEC in 2011 to ensure coordinated engagement of all the security agencies during election periods”, Nengak Daniel said .

According to the Programme Manager, there are opportunities for the conduct of periodic exercises to assess security risk relating to electoral process at all levels of elections and across different geographical areas.  He explained that consultations should involve all relevant stakeholders including EMBs, relevant ministries especially, the interior, defence, police, justice, health, transport, local governments, political parties and civil society organizations.

The group observed that there are key risk factors requiring keen attention and action to improve and coordinate the role of non-state actors in elections security provisioning which according to them; includes, legal framework.  “There is an apparent lack of a legal framework that identifies, categorizes, and assigns clear electoral security responsibilities to non-state actors. This creates room for overlapping functions and lack of coordination and manipulations by politicians. This in turn questions the legitimacy of the engagements and actions”.

Also, they pinpointed rules of engagement as one of the critical areas that needed to be clarified. According to the, there is no clear and standard definition of the rules of engagement for non-state actors in election security.

“The loose nature of membership, control, management and leadership amongst non-state actors makes them prone to political manipulations and hijack by politicians and open to the highest bidder, ethnicity, nepotism and religious undertone”.

Explaining further, the Foundation programme manager said functional partnership is also necessary. According to him, no formalized collaboration mechanisms for coordination and information exchange that existed between non-state actors, electoral management bodies, and other relevant agencies.  He said: “Similarly, no mechanisms for partnership, coordination and information exchange exist between the security sector agencies and non- state actors on the one hand and between the non-state actors on the other”.

“Proliferation of Small and Light weapons: There is poor regulation and control of the proliferations of small and light weapons in the hands of many youths ranging from ethnic militia, cultural and self-determinations groups, state sponsored vigilantes, to youth wings of political parties. Rather than supporting election safety and security, this might become an avenue for test of superiority or tuft protection”, Nengak Daniel explained.

He said dearth of funding and support would also affect the participation and engagement of non-state actors in election security management.  “There is usually no budgetary allocation; hence, funding may become a bait to swing the direction of activities of non-state actors”.

While not allowing the system without any solution, the group recommended that there is need to map organizations and individuals with an agenda or capacity to promote peace and conflict resolution during elections at a national, state and local government levels.

Stating further, he said there is also the need for forums for participatory dialogues between EMBs, security sector agencies and non-state actors in all phases of electoral processes and explained that the coordination between state and non-state actors during elections needs to be formalised and that sufficient financial and human resources be mobilized for joint action.

“Consultations with traditional and religious leaders are needed in order to understand their interest and potential to assist in mediating electoral conflict. A coalition or network of non-state actors could mobilize organizational expertise to carry out a comprehensive electoral risk assessment early on in the electoral processes. This assessment must look into the historical and current electoral conflict dynamics in different geographical regions, the group concluded.