 The social, economic rights and accountability project CERIB has urged the international criminal court to launch investigation into Nigeria's pre-election violence. According to the body, if the situation is not addressed, it might lead to post-election aggression. The group urged the ICC officials to urgently send a legal team to Nigeria to promote free and fair elections to collate potential proofs of election-related violence before, during and after the general elections. Joining us to discuss this and more is Oluwadari Kalawale. He is the deputy director of CERIB. Thank you so much, Mr Luwadari, for joining us. Good evening. Thank you very much. Good evening. It's interesting because I just finished talking with a representative of the Labour Party here in Lagos, who was also talking about the experience that they had during the last rally that was held here in Lagos. We saw videos, pictures. I'm not sure if you did. If you are on social media, then you must have seen those videos and pictures, reportedly, of people who were attacked on the day of the rally. Now, this is not the first time we're seeing pictures like this. It might not have been the Labour Party in the case of Danfair State or in the case of Kaduna State. And we've seen pockets of violence. We've seen also how convoys of presidential candidates have been attacked and several other issues. Let's start by looking at what's at the core of these violence that we've had. Many people would say that this Nigeria has had a history of election violence and it's not going to stop today. Do you agree? Yes. I agree that the electoral violence that we've seen over the years appears to be escalating this year. But that's not surprising, both in the scale and the manner in which this violence is happening. It is true that we've had a rather long history of electoral violence, right from the onset of it, right from independence and this democracy in 1999. But what makes these attacks more brazen and possibly more worrisome is the scale at which these violence is growing. And the causes, the cause of this kind of violence is it's not 5H really. We cannot have remote causes and immediate causes. We cannot have governance on the basis of impunity that despite the rule of law and respect elections to be violence free. So elections being a very critical part of the democratic process happens once in four years apart from the off-cycle election that I make conducts. So what do we expect when the various institutions do not function like they should, because you are either on the fundage we do by corruption or just inefficient by a reason of impunity. So what do you expect? So the violence that we've seen is not because we do not have public institutions that can prevent these attacks or that can bring the perpetrators to book. It is because the absence of political will to make these public institutions function in the first place is absent. It is quite lacking. And so the public institutions cannot do their jobs. If we have issues and challenges with having quality affordable education, we have issues with health, we have issues with every public sector institution that you can think of. What do you think will make the elections and deception? So rather than appeal to the morality of people to be law abiding, which is very important by the way, what should be done and what should have been done is to equip the public institutions that can't prevent violence and that can't stop violence to function as they should. These things just do not happen in any way, unfortunately. I'm sorry, I'm not in any way saying that violence is good and I'm not in any way promoting violence, but you're telling people to be law abiding. But then the people who are supposed to be leading them are not necessarily law abiding. So who's going to stop who from going about it the violent way because you see a lot of people are getting away with murder in quotes and I'm using the word murder loosely here. And nothing really is done about it. We hear a lot of statements being issued and then the police will talk tough, but nobody's docked. Nobody's used to set an example. So who's going to stop the people who are one way or the other backing or overzealously supporting these people who one way or the other either through the restricts or through their body language are encouraging the violence? Exactly when we have public leaders who cannot lead by example, whose utterance is demino and actions. For the past four years it includes impunity and is then for the rule of law. We do not set a good precedent for followers to follow. But much more importantly, these public institutions that should function effectively cannot function. And this is not the absence of public institutions of laws that has empowered these institutions. For instance, a major provision of the Electoral Act 2022 empowers INEC, that's section 145, to prosecute all the electoral offenses in the Electoral Act 2022 and the Electoral Act, there are many and lots of these violence fall within the context of the criminal offenses in the Electoral Act. For instance, section 116 and section 118, these pockets of violence that we've seen that are going by the way falls clearly within what can be called electoral offenses. And they're also offenses by the criminal code law of various states. So the question is, what are the police and all the law enforcement agencies who have the power to arrest, investigate and prosecute? What have they been doing? What has INEC done up to this moment? We've seen nothing done because the pervasive atmosphere of impunity and the absence of the rule of law is playing itself out. Only the only difference is in this instance, it is that of electoral violence. And that is why we feel so strongly as a group in serum that the international criminal court was stepping at this time by using of the prosecution of powers and investigation of powers of the court to prevent the violence which we've seen at the pre-election stage from escalating to further violence during the elections and post-elections. We've seen this happen not only in India but in other African countries. And there is a good precedent for this. We've seen this happen in Cote d'Ivoire, we've seen this happen in Kenya and we've seen the role that the international criminal court has played. And that is why we are very optimistic that the court will help to prevent the growing violence as we approach the 2023 elections, which is just a 12 or 13 days away, and to ensure that during the elections there is no violence. And if perhaps we see people who perpetrate acts of violence, the international criminal court can activate its politicians by guiding much needed evidence to prosecute such individuals. So this means if I'm not wrong, it means that we have, one way or the other, exed our own courts within the land saying that they might not necessarily have a balance of judgment to deal with this issue. This is what it means because we're always quick to either go to the air court or go to the ICC on cases like this when our courts have one way or the other failed. So can we say that our judiciary has failed in terms of making sure that the right kind of judgments are passed on these issues or should we blame, again, the government because the judiciary has this clear cut job and there's supposed to be a check, our balance of sorts between the judiciary, the legislative and of course the legislature, I beg your pardon, and you know the executive. But then when you look at the executive and the legislature, these are all made up of politicians, so this is where the cuts come in. And with judgments such as the one that we saw over the last weekend that has allowed for the Senate president to be running for an office where he did not participate in the primaries, can we fully say that the judiciary in Nigeria has failed? We cannot blame the judiciary in this instance, either for the acts of electoral violence that we've seen or for not stemming the tide of the violence. In this instance, the law is very clear. The police and other law enforcement agencies are critical members of the executive. The police should investigate. They have the statutory powers to do so under the constitution and the police act. They have the powers of arrest and naturally arrest and investigation or investigation and arrest would ultimately bring those girls who are caught for the court. That is when the powers of the judiciary can be activated. But what we have seen and why we've taken this step as Sarah is part of what is called the comparative principle in international law. It means that the International Criminal Court cannot assume jurisdiction in this instance because Nigeria has the state party to the Rome Statue as either refused, cannot or does not or is rather unwilling to take steps to bring the perpetrators of this electoral violence, which we see clearly are crimes against humanity to bring them to face justice. That is why we have written the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to activate the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in this instance to investigate. It is very important to understand the mechanisms of the International Criminal Court. It has investigative powers and it has prosecutary powers as it is. What we've done by this petition is to activate the investigative powers of the International Criminal Court that is the prosecutor. The office of the prosecutor is distinct and separate. So what you will do in this instance is to ask permission of the trial chambers to commence an investigation and that means visiting Nigeria pre, before the elections, during the elections and post elections to ensure that it prevents growing violence and to ensure that they gather much in the evidence to ensure that those who carry out acts of violence are prosecuted. But in this instance, the executive arm of government by the law enforcement agencies have refused to even act in the first place to arrest them, to investigate them and to bring them before the courts. So we cannot build a judiciary in this instance. This is squarely the fault of government but much more noticeably the fault of the executive arm of government, which we think can be repaired by the International Criminal Court. So we're solely putting this at the feet of the government and you're saying that they failure to act, failure to prosecute. But who's holding their foot to the fire, aside from Serap? Who else is holding the foot of government to the fire? But let's keep that on the side. You made mention of the examples of the DRC and Kenya. I was recently in Kenya and I had a talk with the head of the electoral commission there. And it's interesting that we have observers and monitors who go to these countries. I mean, the last Kenyan election was a success. Many were surprised that there was not the violence that they expect every other cycle of the elections in Kenya. And you know how it's been between the supporters of Raya Odinga and of course the sitting president, but that was a different scenario this year. And I did speak to him about what the key thing was that helped them to stem the tide of violence. If we have former heads of government serving as observers and monitors of these elections, who know, who have understood the mechanisms that have been used, why is it so difficult for us to borrow a lift from it? Is it that we do not know or we have chosen not to go that route? Thank you very much. I think the question was either as a former president will help for them to come to an objective assessment of whether the elections are free and fair. But these does not on its own prevent election, violent pre-elections that we've witnessed in Nigeria presently during the elections. What that will do is they will be able to give an objective assessment as external stakeholders in Nigeria to give an objective assessment of whether the elections are free and fair. What that can also do to a government that is responsible is that knowing that there are international observers and other stakeholders who are actively watching, it should make government to wake up more to its responsibilities to ensure that Nigeria is seen as a pillar of democracy and that is one of the effects of having international observers in the country. But with the unwillingness of the regular government to act now pre-elections, how can we be so sure that this same government will act to prevent this acts of violence during the elections and after the elections? It is very important to see the key role that international criminal court played in the instance of Côte d'Ivoire in 2010 and in Kenya in 2007 and 2009. It held a long way to stem the tide of violence, not in that particular elections, but in the subsequent elections. Which is where we think if that happens now, it will help prevent what could be a serious problem. More particularly since the crimes against humanity are happening now and they are growing at an alarming rate, just 12 days or so to the elections. We need to act now. We need to have the international community intervened in the way that we are spoken of. Not only as observers that we are spoken of, but activated decisions of an important decision like the international criminal court will help to prevent the violence and to ensure that those who are plans to do so if they intend to kinder them down, we will face justice ultimately. I'm going to use the old saying that prevention is better than cure. Now the prosecution and the investigation of the criminal court is obviously to gather evidence and see if we can have a case against the people who have perpetrated these violence. But what can we do in the interim to try to reduce the level because it's the same question I asked my previous guest. Like I said earlier on, take for example, at some point the deputy governor of Lagos State made a statement about a sudden presidential candidate who was campaigning in Lagos telling him to go back to where he came from and campaign there. And these are certain things that obviously one way or the other could cause certain people who are overzealous to be violent. We've also seen governors using their powers to either shut down campaign offices, order destructions of billboards, even shut down campaigns totally in the estates because they have the power. So how do we make sure that these people, because I mean they know they have the power, they're in charge so they can do whatever they like. But then in the interim, how do we make sure that these people do not one way or the other, overuse these powers that they have to cause violence? Because I'm guessing if this violence is beneficial to these people who are causing it, then who's going to stop them? If it's beneficial, then they're never going to get in the way of making it stop, right? So how do we, what do we do in the interim other than going to court? How do we make sure that people can want to come out on election day and vote? Unfortunately, this is one of the various drawbacks, the negative effects of impunity and the lack of adherence to the rule of law. That is what we are seeing playing out now. And that is why we've left with more or less moral persuasion to those who are perpetrating this act, particularly those who are in positions of power, those who are in public office. And it need not be so, like I've mentioned, the laws are there, the public institutions that should prevent and ensure that people follow the law, they are there. But there has been a consistent habit of impunity. Government does not obey the judgment of God. Government does not follow due process. A rule of law is not there too. So, we are at the crossroads, we are approaching elections, violence is happening, nothing is being done. So, we are left with persuasion. We can do this by way of moral persuasion. I think I've been meeting today, for instance, with the major, with the political parties, to try to ensure that they commit to some sort of peace accord. While that is not able, that need not be the major approach to ensure that the violence doesn't happen. We have the law. The electorate is clear as to how political parties must conduct parties. Because you are clear about the power of law. What is the essence of a peace accord? We're not at war, are we? We're just having pockets of violence. So, should we not be looking at something other than a peace accord? Because if you ask me, it's one of those routine things that we do before elections, which does not in any way hold water. So, what do we need it for? Exactly. And we need to learn a lesson to ensure that good governance, good governance is not about, is not only about providing infrastructure. It means following due process, what does the law say, and then to follow them. And that is the point I'm making, that we are left with, rather call it, mundane or artificial steps, not call it kinetic steps, which is this kind of meetings with this political parties. If it's good, don't get me wrong. But those are not the key things that should be done. Violence has been happening. Individuals have been identified. You've mentioned instances in this regard. Why can't the police, why can't INEC take steps to activate this investigative or prosecutor powers to ensure that these people are brought to justice? But what have we seen? Nothing has been done. So, people get emboldened to commit on lawful acts when they know clearly it is a crime. And those who have seen other people do it and get away with it, continue to do it. And so, we can see a growing level of violence, not because the elections around the corner, mind you. It is because these acts of impunity have been on for a long time. So, what we can only do as a solution is to ensure that these public institutions are able to do their work. The laws are very clear. Like I've mentioned earlier, the electorate is very clear as to how a political party should conduct its campaign. The constitution is clear as to the powers of the governor, as a public officer, what he or she can do or cannot do. So, why can't these public institutions, who should hold these officers to work? Why can't they do their work? That should be the point of advocacy now to ensure that we prevail on government to follow the law and make sure that these public institutions work. The police must arrest those who have been seen and found to have committed or incited acts of violence. They should bring this work for the courts, for the courts to do their job, to ensure that they face justice. Until we do that, this is likely to escalate. And the consequences, they are not good for anyone. Which is why we've taken that step to ensure that the international criminal court steps in now to prevent the growing violence. For in other countries where we've seen violence escalate but it's going to Africa, it started with a spark such as these small, these small pockets of violence. And we need to stop it now, as we have put the elections. Well, let's hope that there is a start now, especially with the DSS or the police inviting one of the spokespersons of the leading police, the APC for statements that were credited to him about a cool plot. Let's hope that that will be a start and hopefully we will be able to hold a lot of people's feet to the fire. Cola Waluwluwadari is the deputy director of CERAP. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Thank you very much. All right. Well, that's it on plus politics tonight. I'll see you tomorrow. Don't forget, elections are very, very important and they have consequences. Make sure that you're ready to vote come February 25. My name is Mary Anna Cohn. Have a good evening.