This kite can’t fly

According to Bakare, Nigeria ‘is at war’. In his opinion if the nation was thus engaged, how would the Goodluck Jonathan administration explain the ‘invasion and annexation of Nigerian territory’ by insurgents launching attacks from neighbouring countries?  Section 135(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that if the federation is at war, and holding elections is […]

According to Bakare, Nigeria ‘is at war’. In his opinion if the nation was thus engaged, how would the Goodluck Jonathan administration explain the ‘invasion and annexation of Nigerian territory’ by insurgents launching attacks from neighbouring countries?  
Section 135(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that if the federation is at war, and holding elections is not practicable, the National Assembly may extend the government’s tenure in office by six-monthly instalments.
On the surface, Bakare’s query may appear to be a valid one; however, the fact is that Nigeria is not at war. In order for Section 135(3) of the Constitution to become applicable, a formal declaration of war must be made; but this is not the case, for now. On 17th Sept ember, when the president requested for $1 billion to purchase arms, the Senate suggested to the government to formally declare war on Boko Haram. In a motion on the “Threat to national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria by insurgents”, 107 Senators urged the government to declare war on the insurgents. Senate President David Mark observed at the time that there was no difference between what Boko Haram was doing and what an external enemy waging war against Nigeria would do, and that the issue was beyond mere internal security. Apart from the government’s occasional declaration that it was waging a ‘war on terrorists’, it wisely stopped short of declaring that the country was at war on a scale and in circumstances that could warrant invoking the relevant portion of the Constitution. For it, the imposition and extension of a state of emergency in the three most affected states was apparently sufficient.  
Apart from being wide off the mark regarding the nation’s status of hostilities with respect to Boko Haram, Pastor Bakare made the curious presumption that results of the elections that are yet to take place would not be acceptable to supporters of the two main presidential candidates if either was declared the loser. In his opinion, it was “certain” the country would erupt in crisis. Such dire predictions from someone of Bakare’s stature are not helpful, and indeed could encourage supporters of the candidate that may lose in the polls to take the law into their hands.  Politicians must remind their supporters that democracy is not a guarantee to getting what you want. It is about getting what the majority has decided through a fair election. More than anything else, this country desires peace in order to develop and be prosperous.
Rather than heed to such a call to ignore constitutional provisions, Nigerians should be bracing themselves to strengthen democracy and ensure its viability and stability. Bakare may have made his suggestion in good faith, given the dangerous trend of rhetoric and abusive language that candidates for elections are fond of. But the nation cannot allow this kind of bellicosity to divide the electorates into ethnic camps that could threaten peace and stability.  Every election must produce winners and losers. If no party is prepared to accept defeat, there was no reason to enter the contest in the first place.  The concept of “transitional government” is therefore alien to the Constitution, and any suggestion for it now is dead on arrival.  Predictions of doom negate the notion of nurturing democracy and accepting the results like good sportsmen. Political and religious leaders should instead engage themselves in the more patriotic task of creating the atmosphere that brings calm that would lead to free, fair, and credible elections.