JOHN Campbell, former American Ambassador to Nigeria has alleged that the presidential election was rigged in favour of President Goodluck Jonathan. His evidence for this serious allegation is the submission of the Civil Society Election.

Situation Room. Campbell calls it “a distinguished Nigerian civil organisation.”

Nigeria’s electoral laws have never foreseen elections that will meet everyone’s expectation of free, fair and credible elections, in the manner the world thought applied to America, until the rigging of Florida’s 25 electoral votes in the 2000 presidential election.

Florida was a revelation about years of election rigging in America. Al Gore, the Democratic candidate knew that any further insistence on investigating the ballots would have damaged America. George W. Bush, the winning Republican candidate, scored 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266 (with one elector abstaining in the official tally).

Bush received fewer popular votes than Gore.  It was the closest election since 1876. The world watched in bewilderment as Jeff Bush, governor of Florida and brother of the winning Bush, tried explaining the rigging in Florida. This was America only 11 years ago!

Credible elections are the aspiration in most democratic settings. The truth is that they, like aspirations, are not very attainable. Campbell knows this, but the Council for Foreign Relations, the 90-year-old Washington intelligence centre  he works for, considers America’s interest above everything.

The enthusiasm with which Campbell has promoted his inclinations for chaos in Nigeria has reflected on series of articles that he posted on the Council’s website. He even did a book, Nigeria – Dancing On The Brink.
His penchant for predicting doom in Africa, where he is dubbed an expert after diplomatic postings to South Africa and Nigeria, is all-embracing, ranging from Cote d’Ivoire to Sudan.

At a time Nigerians are searching for solutions to post election violence, Campbell posts an article that states the election was rigged. We had expected that he would have had better evidence.

Campbell sounded triumphant about the riots. He had predicted the elections could affect Nigeria’s stability.
He believes that prediction is unfolding. He surely does not understand Nigeria.

To the credit of the candidates in the presidential election, they have called rioters to order.

They have decided to explore the law. They do not see the election results as religious, ethnic or sectional – things that Campbell emphasised.

From 1988 to 2007, Campbell served twice in Nigeria, as political counsellor from 1988 to 1990 during the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, and as ambassador from 2004 to 2007 during the civilian presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo.

It was convenient then to keep quiet about elections in Nigeria.

The danger in contributions like Campbell’s is that the man is taken serious enough and considered an “expert on Nigeria.” “With the country split in half on regional and religious lines, and with many of the losers convinced the elections were stolen, the result has enraged the North against the rulingparty, (including northern elites who are associated with the ruling party such as the Sultan of Sokoto and the Emir of Kano) and also against Christians in many places,” Campbell continued in his divisive agenda.

Nigeria will find solutions to these electoral problems without the doom the Campbells are expecting. Everyone should stand up against electoral malpractices, but not to the ends Campbell wants.