The 2003 election period in the Nigerian nascent democracy was characterized by anxiety, fear and uncertainty. This was due to the unsuccessful civilian-to-civilian transitions in the past. It was therefore not surprising that when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), released the time table for the 2003 general elections, many people viewed it as a litmus test for the sustenance of democracy in Nigeria. These elections were very important for the democratic development of Nigeria. They also present an important measure for the credibility of the dispensation.

Academic Associates PeaceWorks (AAPW), as a neutral and nonpartisan organization, which had in the past, conducted several peace and development activities in Karu Local Government, felt the need to carry out independent monitoring activities that involved both civil society and the security agencies working together to ensure that the 2003 elections were free and fair within the local government area. To facilitate a smooth and successful deployment of volunteer local monitors, AAPW recruited, trained and coordinated local monitors.

Recruitment of volunteer local monitors
With about 34 polling units in the 3 ward areas namely Karu, Gurku/Kabusu and Aso/Kodope in Karu Local Government area, AAPW recruited 26 volunteer local monitors, supplemented by 6 AAPW staff including the Executive Director.

1-day training of volunteer local monitors
The 1-day training was conducted by the duo of Imam Mohammed N. Ashafa and Pastor James M. Wuye of the Muslim/ Christian Dialogue Forum, Kaduna. They were among those trained by the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) for the 2003 elections. AAPW supplied funding for the training and transport allowances of volunteer local monitors, while INEC supplied the Domestic Observer identification tags.

How Civil Society and Government Reinforce Each Others’ Efforts
When AAPW set out to monitor the 2003 elections in Karu Local Government area, it realized the important role the security agencies, especially the Police, will be playing to ensure that a peaceful election was achieved. Therefore, before the beginning of the monitoring exercise, the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) in charge of Karu
Local Government was informed of AAPW’s intentions. Incidentally the DPO and some of his men were among the participants trained by AAPW in both Conflict Management and Responding to Early Warning Signs of Election Conflict workshops in Karu and Abuja respectively. The cordial working relationship that existed between AAPW and the police during the election monitoring has shown that the security agencies and the civil society can work harmoniously and benefit from each other. Several examples of how this working relationship yielded positive results are as follows:

• During the National Assembly elections, AAPW discovered that a polling unit at Tudun Wada had no security personnel to keep law and order. The Executive Director, with the Chief of Masaka, and some AAPW staff contacted the DPO who, with some of his men, were going round the various polling units to check how things were going. When the DPO was informed of the situation at Tudun Wada, he quickly dispatched two of his men to that polling unit.
  
  
• Also during the National Assembly elections, one polling unit in Mararaba had several hundred voters whose names were not on the computerized register, and tensions were rising that they were being disenfranchised because they’re Muslim. Close inspection of the voters’ tear-off slips showed that there had been a clerical error in which codes for local government and polling unit were reversed. We assured the voters that we would clarify this before the election the next weekend, and the crowd dispersed peacefully. A few days after the April 12 election, we held an assessment meeting with civil society monitors, the DPO, Director of SSS and INEC officials. Before the next election, INEC had brought the handwritten voters’ register, which included the missing names and thus the voters were able to exercise their civic responsibility. This is an example of how a simple misunderstanding and suspicion could have degenerated into violence if not handled promptly.
  
  
• During the Gubernatorial/Presidential elections, voters at Mararaba Garage polling unit had rejected the idea of using only one ballot box and therefore refused to vote. The DPO, some election observers, party agents and AAPW staff had a brief meeting at which the DPO was advised to go and get another ballot box from INEC office which he quickly did. This timely decision helped to calm people and voting commenced peacefully.
  
  
• Also in Mararaba White House there was a crowd of about 800 people, many of them Hausa Muslim supporters of Buhari, the ANPP presidential candidate, lingering around the polling unit during the gubernatorial/presidential elections. AAPW met with the Sarkin Hausawa, to request his support in ensuring that his people did not provoke a crisis. When tensions were high at the end of the collation, our monitor, who luckily was a Muslim Hausa woman, gave us the correct results, which we then verbally transferred to the DPO to ensure that the written results were not altered when they reached the ward or local government level. Thus the voters were assured that their mandate was respected.
  
  
• Sgt. Gayus Caleb a policeman attached to AAPW roving monitors proved very useful as he provided useful information about the nature of some polling units and the voting pattern of the voters.
• The DPO, on so many occasions, displayed impressive leadership qualities. For instance, he honoured the invitation extended to him by AAPW to brief the volunteer local monitors on the security measures taken by his department. He was able to give a lengthy lecture on the security situations at the various polling units. On many occasions he was on hand to advise the monitors on the steps they should take to avoid confrontation with voters or party agents.
  
  
• Finally, the security agencies had shown, through their conduct during the election, that it was easier to work with the civil society in order to achieve a violent-free election.

The 2003 elections in Karu Local Government of Nasarawa State were generally peaceful. Each polling unit had 500 registered voters. Here hundreds of voters form an orderly line to cast their ballots at the voting center at the palace of the Esu Karu.

In Muslim areas, separate lines were formed for men and women. AAPW had a civil society election monitor in each of the 34 polling units. The Transition Monitoring Group, FOMWAN (Federation of Muslim Women Association), CAN (Christian Association of Nigeria), and JDPC (Catholic Justice, Development and Peace Commission) also had monitors at most polling units. The civil society monitors cooperated among themselves and with the security agencies to ensure peaceful elections.

3. Results being collated at the polling unit, with the benefit of a gas lantern. Thirty political parties contested the elections, making the ballots very long and cumbersome.

Results were collated at each polling unit and then taken to the Ward Collation Centre. The photo shows the centre for New Karu Ward, in a primary school. Because the polls were open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., results often reached the ward level after dark, necessitating use of a generator. The Collation Officer, in blue, was brought from outside Karu, to ensure impartiality. Party agents, representing the various political parties, observed the process.

A large crowd gathered at the Mararaba White House polling unit. Many of them were supporters of the ANPP political party, concerned about protecting their mandate in the largely PDP local government.

The AAPW monitors visited the Mararaba White House unit again at 9 p.m., just as the results had been collated and were being transferred to the ward centre. To dispel fears that the results might be changed, we contacted the Divisional Police Officer, to give him the correct figures. The Director of SSS in Karu Local Government later confirmed that these figures were indeed included at the ward and local government collation centres.