In a previous article on the results of 2003 presidential election in Nigeria, I demonstrated that the bill for the abolition of the offshore/onshore oil dichotomy influenced the ultimate outcome of the election. In the opening paragraph of that article, I maintained that based on the published results, we must reject the hypothesis that the results of the election were fundamentally flawed and should be rejected (annulled). I noted that "despite the allegations of the losers and the observations by some of the international monitors/observers of several cases of mal-practices in some states…the fact is that these cases on average do not seem to invalidate the outcome as they did not result in any significant statistical discrepancies…the few and sometimes isolated cases of mal-practices have been blown out of proportion to the extent of "crowding out" the vast majority of good cases". In this article, I will present further heuristic and statistical arguments to support this position.

The first heuristic argument is that the outcome of the election conforms to general expectations. All the credible opinion polls before the election clearly put Obasanjo in the lead. Despite the alleged poor (below expectation) performance of Obasanjo during the past four years, most Nigerians believed that none of his key opponent was a match for him. As somebody noted before the election, "if not Obasanjo, who?" His closest rival, Buhari, had serious liabilities. His selection as the ANPP flagbearer was controversial, rancorous and regarded by many as "fraudulent". It led to the alienation of some key supporters and political heavy weights, particularly from the SE. The fact that he was a former military head of state also worked against him. Many Nigerians were not just prepared to replace one ex-military leader with another one (recycling of former military leaders!). The choice of Obasanjo in 1999 was based largely on the need to checkmate the military and prevent another coup. Obasanjo has done a good job in this regard, perhaps better than what Buhari and Ojukwu can ever do. Furthermore, many Nigerians have not forgotten the brutality of Buhari’s regime and consequently its brevity. Many people attribute the little successes of that regime (e.g. WAI) to Buhari’s deputy, the late Idiagbon, who was seen as the "brain" behind the regime. Even Buhari’s performance as chairman of the PTI under the despicable Abacha’s regime left much to be desired. The fact that he accepted a job under an unpopular military dictator who was his junior (and in fact a key player in the coup that terminated his regime) portrayed him as a man of poor judgement and an opportunist. Buhari was seen by many as a potential Islamic jihadist, a Sharia zealot, and an Arewa irredentist. With these liabilities, it would have been a miracle to expect Buhari to defeat Obasanjo. But this is not to say that Obasanjo has no liabilities of his own. The fact is that the number of Northerners who are willing to accept Obasanjo far exceeds the number of Southerners who are willing to accept Buhari. Perhaps, ANPP would have performed better if they had another northern candidate with "better" credentials. As for Ojukwu, only a mischievous person or somebody who has no knowledge of Nigerian history and politics would have expected him to defeat Obasanjo. A former rebel leader, he is synonymous with "disunity", an image he has never been able to erase. Prof. Omoruyi was probably right when he asserted that Ojukwu’s role in the election was to create a "stalemate", not to win. I am not surprised therefore when I read a report that he declared himself winner of the election. All the other presidential candidates knew from day one that they had no chance of winning because they had no structures on the ground or the required resources to mount an effective campaign. Some of them simply wanted to add "former Presidential Candidate" in their CVs. This does not mean that they were not good candidates. Some of them may in fact have better ideas or may be more intelligent or may even be better Presidents, but the bitter truth of democracy is that it is not the "would-be best" candidate that necessarily wins an election or becomes No. 1 citizen. In fact, expecting any of these candidates to win would be synonymous with expecting an independent candidate to win in the US. Mr. Ross Perot with all his wealth did not pose any threat to either of the Republican or Democratic Parties when he decided to run as an independent candidate in the US election a few years ago. Neither did Mr. Ralph Nader with all his intellectual brilliance. The fact is that most modern democracies are essentially two party states. As we await the final obituary of the AD, it is hoped that the other parties will now fuse into either the PDP or ANPP. In fact, the new National Assembly should enact a law to nullify the license of any party that fails to secure a minimum of 5% of total votes cast in a general election.

The second heuristic argument is the role of the power of incumbency in African politics. Generally, for an incumbent government to be defeated, its performance must have been extremely poor especially in relation to previous governments, or it must have stayed in power for so long that people just want to see a change. Neither of these two conditions applies to Obasanjo’s government. To be sure, his performance has left much to be desired. We are all aware that NEPA is still generating more darkness than light, that strikes are still rampant with the universities remaining closed since the past four months, that the naira is still weak and depreciating further, that fuel scarcity and queues are still everyday experience, that we still live with insecurity and communal conflicts, etc. But Obasanjo inherited these problems and they have become so endemic that many people now think it will be a miracle to overcome them in the medium-term. The fact is that if you benchmark with previous administrations, Obasanjo’s government is not the worst.

The third argument is that Nigerians want to follow winners, not losers. This reminds me of the NPN victory song in 1983: "Winner Oh! Oh! Oh! Winner" and explains the "bandwagon" effect in Nigerian elections. We have noticed this effect in previous elections and this was again replayed in the recent elections. The fact that the PDP won decisively in the April 12 (National Assembly) elections was already a pointer to likely outcome of the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections on April 19. Trust that more Nigerians were going to join the winning train. In fact, it would have been strange (unNigerian) if the opposite was the case. To say that the April 12 elections were fairly OK and then turn around to say that the April 19 elections were totally fraudulent smacks of insincerity. When account is taken of the "bandwagon effect", you cannot but conclude that the result of the April 19 elections was an "enlarged" mirror of the April 12 elections. It is important to note that most of the alleged mal-practices/irregularities were reported to have taken place more in the minority states. While there may be some truth in this, it is not unlikely that it is part of "minority bashing" campaign in Nigerian politics. The fact however is that, most "minorities" have learnt from bitter experience that it does not pay to be in "opposition" because they suffer more than the majority groups whenever they are associated with the opposition. Hence, once the winning party was know after the April 12 elections, it was only natural to expect them to join the bandwagon massively. To change the tide would have required an "extraordinary force/effort" by the losing parties. Unfortunately for the losing party, the winning party was ruling party ("in charge") and it would have been a miracle for any of the losing party to exert any "extraordinary force" in these states.

Now let us carry out a post mortem on the published results on a zonal and state basis to show why the outcome of the presidential election is "admissible". Some of the allegations of rigging are based on the "excessive" voters’ turnout and excessive number of votes received by the winning party in some polling stations, wards, LGA and states. In some cases almost 100% of the registered voters are reported to have voted for the winning party. While this is not impossible in a polling station or ward, it is unlikely to be so in a LGA or State. Based on the "law of large numbers and mass phenomenon" one expects the voters’ turn-out to decline as we aggregate the results from the polling station level up to the state level, because while some polling station may record 100%, it is naturally impossible for all polling stations to record 100%. However there are no benchmarks for "admissible" turnout rates for wards, LGA and states. We can only speculate. I will therefore assume that at the state level, a voters’ turnout rate of over 85% is "abnormally high" (i.e. "excessive") and calls for further investigation. Table 1 shows the distribution of the votes received by PDP, ANPP and the other parties, % of ballots rejected and voters’ turnout rates by the zones.

Table 1:
Distribution of Votes Scored, Ballot Rejection Rate and Voters’ Turnout by Zones

* Voters’ Turnout = Number of votes cast as a % of number of voters on Register (Voters’ List)

I demonstrated in my previous article that the difference between the actual votes scored and the "expected" votes were not statistically significant to sustain any claim that the outcome was a "surprise". Furthermore, the zonal voters’ turnout rates appear "normal" for the SE, SW, NC and NW but "abnormally high" for SS and NE. Taken together, the distribution of the voters’ turnout does not seem to have favored any party (to the disadvantage of the others), at least at the zonal level. However, if we examine the state level data, we have reasons to be worried. Table 2 below shows the number of votes received by PDP and ANPP as well as the voters’ turnout rate in each of the 36 states and the FCT grouped by zones.

(a) South-South States (Niger Delta)

In South-South zone, the voters’ turnout rates for Akwa-Ibom, Delta and Edo States appear normal while those of Bayelsa, Cross Rivers and Rivers appear "abnormally high". Particularly worrisome is the 100% turnout rate for Rivers State, which implies that all registered voters participated –almost impossibility! Even when the 11,015 "invalid" (rejected) votes are excluded, we still have an effective 99.5% voters’ turnout. Clearly, there is need to carry out the investigation at a lower level to identify the LGAs, wards and polling stations that have produced the "abnormal results". The same applies to both Bayelsa and Cross Rivers State with actual turnout rates of 97.05% and 96.04% respectively (with "effective" rates of 96.43% and 95.67%, respectively).

In the South-East zone, the turnout rates for each state appeared normal. However, this does not rule out "abnormally high" rates at the LGA, ward and polling station levels which should be investigated where they exist, e.g. as reported in Enugu state.

In the South –West zone, with the exception of Ogun state, all the other states recorded "normally" low turnout rates. The 86.59% rate recorded in Ogun state is expected given the fact that this is the home state of Obasanjo. It can be argued that a higher turnout rate in this zone would have widened Obasanjo’s margin of victory. The reported heavy rainfall in Lagos and neighboring states on April 19 may be partly responsible for this low turnout. How do you handle a situation where Mother Nature seems to have worked against or in favor of a party or candidate? Perhaps, in future some candidates may "conjure" rainfall to disrupt elections in the strongholds of their opponents!

In the North-Central zone, all the states, except Nasarawa, have normal turnout rates. Even the 86.94% recorded by Nasarawa is not alarming. However, there may be cases worth investigating if we analyze the LGA and ward level results.

The North-East zone is almost a replay of the South-South zone. Here, three states (Borno, Gombe and Yobe) have "normal" turnout rates while three others (Adamawa, Bauchi and Taraba) have abnormally high rates, with Adamawa and Bauchi recording 100% like Rivers. Even when the invalid (rejected) ballots are netted out, the effective turnout rates (96.16% and 96.61% respectively) are also disturbingly high. Clearly there is need for further investigation of the results in these states. It is important to note that PDP’s votes in Adamawa state more than doubled that of ANPP. On the other hand, ANPP’s vote in Bauchi state more doubled that of PDP. It appears to be a case of "you rig me here, I rig you there".

In the North-West zone, all the states, except Kano, recorded normal turn-out rates. Kano state (where the ANPP’s vote more than tripled PDP’s vote) recorded 100% absolute turnout and 94.77% effective turnout (after discounting the 119,867 invalid votes). Like in the other states with abnormally high rates, there is need for further investigation here.

It is clear from the above analysis that while we cannot deny the fact that there may have been several cases of irregularities in the Presidential (and Gubernatorial) elections, most parties may have been involved in the cheating game. It is difficult to say which party benefited more from cheating. However, whatever the degree of cheating or irregularities, it does appear that they did not affect the ultimate outcome, even though they may have affected the margin of victory. In other words, if the results of the "queried" states , LGAs, wards and polling stations are annulled, PDP will still emerge the winner. The best and patriotic thing any aggrieved person or party should do now is to go to the electoral tribunals to challenge any result in a polling station, ward, LGA or State. I believe the tribunals will consider all cases on their merit and adjust the results accordingly. I am however 99.99% confident that the "amended" results will not alter the verdict of the election –the victory of the PDP (Obasanjo/Atiku). Whilst hoping that the tribunals will complete their assignment before May 29^th, I do not think that any delay should led to the postponement of the inauguration of Obasanjo/Atiku for their second term on that day as some losers have been canvassing. We simply cannot afford to create another atmosphere of uncertainty. In this regard, Okadigbo’s recent call for an interim national government must be rejected. To use his own (infamous) words, the call is the "ranting of an ant". We all know the price we paid for the "interim contraption" that was foisted on us in 1992 following the annulment of the victory of MKO Abiola. Nigerians will certainly not want to go through that route any more. Let us uphold PDP’s victory and move forward. And let the losers hold their peace and plan for 2007.