Sent: 10 September 2023 12:44
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Preliminary Reflections on the PEPT Judgment and the 2023 Presidential Election
On Sep 10, 2023, at 6:06 AM, Oluwatoyin Adepoju <ovdepoju@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm struck by the variety of views on the election results transmission.
I would like to share some of those that support the judges ruling in case anyone would like to respond to them.
Against the Ruling:
A: The declaration of INEC to transmit live results is more of a social contract than a mere promise.
It became a contract when huge public monies were invested in the process.
It's contractual value is amplified by the modifications in the electoral act signed by the President enabling that method of transmission of election results.
The gravity of the contract escalates when considered in relation to the understanding of that method of transmission as a certain way to create electoral transparency in a country in which elections have often been suspect.
Breaking the contract becomes even more problematic since the transmission method was successfully used in the other elections but was compromised in the most important one.
My concern is with the ruling that INEC is not bound to use the transmission method signed into law and agreed upon with the populace whose money was used in procuring the necessary technology to fulfill this social contract.
Looks like a dangerous style of thinking to me.
In Support of the Ruling
B: There is nothing sacrosanct about the guidelines issued by INEC that they will transmit the results in a certain way.
What the Law says is that the results shall be transmitted.
And it was transmitted.
Guidelines, and even laws, are made for man, not man for the law.
If the law or the INEC guidelines promises transmission by a particular mode, and a t the point of Transmission, when the chips were down, INEC saw the subsisting situation as NOT BEING CONDUCIVE to using a particular mode of transmission, then they have done nothing wrong whatsoever in doing what was expedient in the circumstance.
INEC has explained repeatedly that there was GRAVE AND VERY REAL DANGER of hackers destroying the whole result upload process at that point in time if the results are uploaded by the electronic means, and instantaneously as earlier announced.
What were they supposed to do, ?
To go back on TV to take permission for transmitting the results in the way they think is best in the circumstance?
To go and look for experts to forestall the hacking, which is not even sure to prevent the hackers from doing their evil job, for which they have been paid by election riggers?
To do nothing?
Or to ignore the danger of hacking, and still upload, because the guidelines say so?
And thus hand over the results for our most important election since 1999 to hackers on a platter of gold, for them to do with it as they wish?
Nooo !
INEC did the absolutely right thing. They would be like drones, like robots or zombies to have gone ahead to do what they knew would endanger the ENTIRE process, just for the sake of keeping up with a tiny part of that whole process.
And, has it occurred to us that it was the earlier announcement of results transmission by electronic means that gave the enemies of Nigeria and the Electoral process, the heads-up,and allowed them to carefully plan and recruit international hackers, waiting for the election results transmission process? So that they can truncate the process ?
INEC did the right thing in announcing that the results would be electronically transmitted.
But it also gave riggers the information that allowed them to plan to hack into the results uploading process, and thus destroy the credibility of the whole thing.
INEC did the right thing by sidestepping the trap , and ditching the electronic transmissions.
APPLAUSE to INEC.👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✊🏾
Talking of money wasted in acquiring the equipment is absolutely unnecessary.
What amount of money is worth allowing a potential TRUNCATING of the whole election process?
INEC should be praised for NOT Transmitting the results electronically.
Meanwhile, none of the litigants is claiming that the results CERTIFIED by all parties at the PUs and collation centres is any different from the ones eventually manually transmitted.
It is pettiness and smallness of spirit for them to be harping on instantaneous electronic transmission, when the slow, delayed manual transmission DID NOT ALTER the results certified at the PUs and collation centres.
C: There was no contract.
It was not stated in the electoral law that it would be a live transmission.
You are simply skewing the narrative to arrive at a preconceived notion.
There was a court ruling on this in Osun State.Results of all elections in all the 170,000 plus units in the country were signed at the various units instantly after counting in the present of voters and agents who waited to count the results.That gave birth to the chorus *Eluuupeee 74* etc
The results of the various units in each ward in the local governments were collated by agents at a designated accredited locations in every local goverment.
The results of all the collated results in every local goverment were collated at the state level.
The results of the results collated at the states level were collated in AbujaAll these collations at various levels had the signatures of all the accredited party agents of the parties.
If there was at any time discrepancies between the results in IREV and the hard copies signed by the party agents,it was very easy to prove.
Did Labour Party or PDP point out one single discrepancy in the result collated at the state level and what was announced?NO.Technology played it's part as,even durring collations,the chairman was rejecting many results that did not tally with what he had in the system.Let's stop chasing smokeand shadows..
D: Did you listen to the judgement?It stated clearly that where INEC rule conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.Who's the President that signed the modification? The incumbent or the previous President?Law no be beans!
--On Sun, Sep 10, 2023, 2:53 AM 'Victor Okafor' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> wrote:
The one point you didn't include in your postulates is that Atiku's presidential quest was built on a foundation of illegality, given that his PDP party set the ball of illegitimacy rolling by breaking its its own constitutional zoning formula, which set the South, and not the North, as the producer of a presidential candidate for the 2023 presidential election. So, Atiku was a flawed candidate from the get-go. Of the three major contestants, he most deserved to loose.
Let it be known that my only major issue with the overall 2023 presidential election was and is that INEC broke the fragile hearts of democracy-loving Nigerians by reneging on its tantalizing commitment to have the election results directly and digitally transmitted from polling stations to INEC's server. It was a massive and historic breach of faith that tainted the announced/declared presidential election results. The video-recorded scenes of polling- booth malfeasance and election- results-tampering at certain collation centers inflicted psychological injuries upon the minds of a generation of youths whose patriotic ferver had been fired by INEC's broken promise to the country that "Nigerians would see their votes transmitted live on election day." (I stayed-up all night waiting in vain to see what would have marked a Nigerian breakthrough onto the family of democracies of this planet). But alas, the "Trouble with Nigeria" interjected its divide-and-rule ugly face that brought sorrow, rather than joy, to the faces of the long-suffering masses of Nigeria. In a normal polity where the rule of law prevails, INEC's chairman should be lawyering-up for trial in what should be rightly titled as "INEC Chairman vs the People of Nigeria."
--On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 5:03 PM Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:
Victor,
Thanks for chiming in. It's possible, as you stated, that regardless of what Atiku and Obi did or didn't do, the outcome might have been the same. I don't know for sure either way, and I would hate to engage in counterfactual speculation on that.
What I do know and tried to highlight in my reflection is that the plausibility/possibility factor, insofar as it is grounded in certain kinds of alliances, creates a perception of possible victory and even inevitability that then influences INEC in its decision to declare one candidate or the other the winner. It also, as I stated, influences elites' and citizens' decisions to accept and make peace with the declaration.
So, for instance, if Obi had not broken away from the PDP and Atiku has kept the South South and Southeast and the Christian North (the traditional PDP areas) in his column, he would most certainly not only have been favored by the plausibility and possibility narrative and the perceptual index that underwrites it but might have in fact been considered inevitable.
The numbers and regional block votes don't lie. He would have added the Southeast and South-south to his narrow victories in the Northeast and Northwest and to his win in Osun, and in all likelihood would have triumphed in some North-central states that Obi won. That scenario would have put him in the poll position. In that scenario, going by my historical analysis of the deterministic nature of the plausibility and possibility factor, INEC would never have declared Tinubu, who would have been a long shot, the winner, no matter the level of rigging and manipulation done by him. And, of course, if Atiku had been declared under that scenario, the PEPT would have likely upheld his election, going by the precedent since 1999.
My point in the last paragraph that you quoted is that with the PEPT pronouncement that electronic voter verification (BVAS) and live result transmission from polling units (I-Rev) are illegal and unnecessary, future elections are now officially and legally not just rigging contests but also a competing quests to have oneself declared winner. The first step in that endeavor, from the point of view of a politician, is to create the appearance of plausibility/possibility and maybe even inevitability through alliance formation and, as Oga said, the management of one's party and camp to prevent splintering and fragmentation.
--On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 2:03 PM Toyin Falola <toyinfalola@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
--Dear Victor:I love your computational analysis and I will stay within its original orbit. Suppose I reduce what Moses says to "authoritarian consensus," how would this work for you?I doubt, and you may disagree, that we can have a system without a critical elite micromanaging it. Wall Street in the US is a hidden source of control. When a small elite generates a consensus, they resolve on a choice of one among themselves. A fellow thief must govern Nigeria. The country works well if you don't see it as the instigator of development. What you all lament is the evidence of success!!!Anywhere in the world, unless you rupture that consensus, the chance of penetration is limited. A person like Obama understood this paradigm so well.If age is on his side, a person like Soludo can become the president of Nigeria if he can run errands. They will not care that he is an Igbo man but want to ensure that he manages state capture.TFGet Outlook for iOS
From: 'Victor Okafor' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 12:43:09 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Preliminary Reflections on the PEPT Judgment and the 2023 Presidential ElectionHello Moses, yours is a thought-provoking reflective piece. And, indeed, it provoked me to submit as follows.
Your last and concluding paragraph, which I hereby reproduce in parenthesis ("Anyway, a message has been sent clearly to politicians. Forge the right alliances and then rig and manipulate the electoral system to get yourself declared winner. If it is a presidential contest, history and precedent tell us that the judiciary will preserve the status quo and search and find both reasonable legal bases and ridiculous technical grounds to do that. You cannot hope for judicial redress after the fact. That's a depressing and deflating message"), undermines all your postulations that preceded it. In other words, if your real point, your implied message is that Nigeria's latest presidential election was won based on "right alliances," ... rigging and manipulation of "the electoral system to get yourself declared winner," then none of the speculative points that you adduced earlier holds. That is to say that Atiku did not necessarily lose because of his political miscalculations, given that finally, the outcome was not necessarily determined by the totality of the true and actual votes of the electorate. Instead, as you seem to have implied, the "winning" numbers were forged/rigged; and Obi did not necessarily lose because the numerical odds were against him from the get-go, given that the actual presidential electoral outcome was not necessarily determined by any of the variables that you attributed to Atiku and Obi but by "right alliances," rigging, and manipulation of "the electoral system to get yourself declared winner." Notice that you did not say "to get yourself elected;" instead, you stated "to get yourself declared winner."
Taken from another angle, the implication of your conclusion seems to be that even if Atiku had gotten his political calculations right, and even if the numerical odds were in favor of Obi, at the end of the day, the outcome was determined by rigging and manipulation of "the electoral system to get yourself declared winner."
I am also persuaded to aver that if your essay were to be coded and subjected to a statistical regression analysis in which Nigeria's 2023 presidential election is set as the dependent variable, besides what is usually allowed as the unknown factor, there would be three independent variables, namely (1) the Atiku factor, (2) the Obi factor, and (3) the factor characterized by attributes of forged alliances, rigging and electoral process manipulation that got one of the candidates declared (but not elected, I must emphasize) as the winner. Given the logic of your concluding paragraph, I put it to you that only factor #3 would prove to be a significant independent variable. Based on the premise of your concluding paragraph, neither factor #1 nor factor #2 would prove to be of any statistical significance.
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 4:00 AM Chika Okeke-Agulu <okekeagulu@gmail.com> wrote:
Brilliant, perceptive, sound! Thanks for this.
--On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:11:07 PM UTC-4 Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Preliminary Reflections on the PEPT Judgment and the 2023 Presidential Election
By Moses E. Ochonu
The February 2023 presidential election looked like Atiku's to lose but through a combination of an inexplicable sense of entitlement and inevitability, he 1) mismanaged the conflict in his traditional PDP camp and allowed it to splinter, and 2) allowed Peter Obi, his former running mate, to walk away from the PDP fold, taking with him the traditional PDP strongholds of the Southeast and South-south and the Northern Christian zones.
Those inexplicable miscalculations sealed Atiku's electoral fate. I will never understand how he and his people couldn't see that these two factors were near-fatal blows, and how, instead of tackling or mitigating them, he continued to campaign confidently afterwards as though he could see things that the rest of us couldn't.
As for Obi, he had no viable path to the presidency and every objective analyst could see that. His role and goal were to disrupt the familiar and uninspiring two-party configuration and to catalyze enthusiasm and youth engagement. Judged on those metrics, he was a highly successful disruptor who punched way above his weight in the last election. But the electoral math was always against him as he had no presence or support in the vote-rich Northwest and Northeast.
We knew he could win more states than the other candidates, but winning more states does not give you the presidency under Nigeria's electoral rules. Winning more votes and securing the required 25 percent spread are the two criteria. There was no way he could do that.
I was one of those who thought Atiku could beat Tinubu big in the Northwest and Northeast, but he didn't. The Muslim-Muslim ticket and a last-minute Northern political and religious consensus proved decisive as a bulwark against Atiku. Even though, overall, he won the two zones of Northwest and Northeast, he did so by a hair, and his wins in some states there were not nearly enough to score a knockout over Tinubu, who kept it close by scoring big margins in APC strongholds in those two zones and in the Southwest and parts of Northcentral, while keeping Atiku's win margins small.
Atiku, moreover, essentially surrendered Kano, where Tinubu secured hundreds of thousands of valuable votes to increase his national tally. Atiku also predictably had trouble gaining the constitutionally required spread, largely due to the Obi factor.
In the end, it was the Tinubu people who read the electoral map accurately and planned for it accordingly. They focused on:
1. Securing significant vote numbers even in states they knew they would lose, to deny their opponents win margins that the opponents might not be able to make up in Tinubu's strongholds, where his people, by legitimate and crooked means, went on to amass big win margins.
2. Gaining the required 25 percent. They did this by trying to use every means they could, including rigging in unlikely places where they had APC governors, such as Cross River, Imo, Ebonyi, Nasarawa, and Plateau. Wike was supposed to give Tinubu 25 percent in Rivers through his famed rigging machine but got carried away, determined to stick it to Atiku and impress Tinubu.
Premium Times and other media platforms analyzed the results uploaded to the I-Rev server after the fact and recorded on BVAS and found numerous discrepancies between INEC-declared results and results uploaded on its server for multiple states.
Notable among their findings was that 1) Obi won by a bigger margin in Lagos than what was announced, 2) Obi and not Tinubu won Benue, though it was close, and 3) Rivers was actually Obi's landslide, not a Tinubu's win. Nonetheless, even if you change these three states, Obi still doesn't come to Tinubu in total votes, nor does he overcome his 25 percent spread problem.
Other independent analyses of uploaded results found that in Southern states like Ebonyi, Imo and Cross River, states with APC governors, Tinubu's actual votes were well under the numbers credited to him by the declared results for those states. But the consensus is that even without the doctored numbers from these states, Tinubu might still have either met the two-third votes in two-third of states constitutional requirement or go into a run-off as a slight favorite on the back of his performance in the first round.
I personally think that Atiku would have been a slight favorite if it gone to a runoff as a two-man contest since most of Peter Obi's votes and states would have gone to him. And that was why the APC dreaded a runoff and rigged, manipulated, and engaged in other shenanigans to win in the first ballot and avoid a runoff.
The Logic of Plausibility and Possibility
Elections in Nigeria since 2003 have been won on the two interrelated premises of plausibility and possibility and not on the absence of rigging, manipulation, and other shenanigans or on the premise of free and fair voting and accurate vote totals. The two deterministic premises can be restated as questions:
1. Could/would the person declared winner have won in a free and fair contest?
2. Did the declared outcome broadly and roughly mirror or align with the will of the Nigerian people, given the alliances that preceded the election?
Whenever the answer to these two questions is a "yes" or a strong "maybe," the election's outcome is accepted as being well within the margin of expectation and accorded pragmatic, de facto, even if reluctant, credibility.
Nigeria's presidential elections are fairly easy to predict, given the alliances that precede them and the ethno-religious and regional cleavages and tendencies that produce block votes in particular directions.
As a result, in the lead-up to a presidential election, most attentive observers can predict the election's possible outcomes while allowing for a margin of error to account for the unknown and unforeseen.
In the case of the 2023 election, the realistic pre-election permutations pointed in the direction of a Tinubu or an Atiku win, so the consensus was that if either of them was declared winner by INEC, the outcome would pass the plausibility and possibility test, and political elites across the different regions would broadly accept it because they knew it was possible and within the electoral mathematics of the moment.
This logic of plausibility and possibility also dictates whether and to what extent the electoral umpire, INEC, is willing to acquiesce in rigging, manipulation, and other acts of complicity in electoral malfeasance. INEC honchos too can read the political environment and the unfolding electoral dynamics in the run-up to any presidential election.
If the dynamics point to one clear possibility, INEC will not make a declaration in the opposite direction. They will not risk the conflagration that could result. Moreover, in such a scenario, they would come under pressure from political elites who have reached a rough consensus on the possible and plausible outcomes of the election.
INEC rarely goes against such elite consensus and popular understanding of which outcome is possible and which is not. INEC, in short, usually manipulates elections or makes declarations in elections in favor of candidates it knows have a decent chance of winning and refrains from doing so when the political tea leaves contradict that outcome.
This is the explanation for the seemingly perplexing fact that, in both presidential and sub-national elections, INEC mostly rigs or authenticates rigging and manipulations in contests in which the declared winner's victory was in the realm of possibility but always resists the urge to declare an implausible, unpopular, and long-shot candidate a winner, no matter how much pressure and inducement is thrown its way by incumbents, desperate candidates, or even the federal government.
We have examples from multiple states under different presidencies, where opposition candidates were declared winners against incumbents, some of them supported by federal might, because everyone knew that only the victory of the opposition candidate was plausible and would be considered legitimate.
In all elections since 1999, the plausibility factor made it possible for Nigerians and the political elite to accept and reconcile themselves to the officially declared outcome. This plausibility factor legitimized the outcomes of the flawed elections we've had since the fourth republic began.
Nigerians would shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well, this candidate was going to win or could have won anyway, so it doesn't matter much that he was aided by manipulation and rigging. The rigging only padded a victory that could or would have happened regardless."
This was the case in 2007 in an election that the winner himself admitted was marred by manipulation. The question Nigerians posed at the time was whether Yar'Adua could/would have won without the irregularities and rigging, and the unanimous answer was yes. He was, after all, running against Buhari, who at the time was a provincial northern candidate without a national appeal or political infrastructure.
Even in the 2019 election that Buhari rigged massively to deny Atiku victory, many Nigerians rightly believed that despite his woeful performance in his first term, Buhari remained a live underdog and was competitive in that election because Atiku was not an inspiring candidate and because the country was divided on the question of going back to the PDP after four years. This reality made Buhari's victory plausible, even if unlikely, and caused Nigerians to acclimate to his declaration as winner by INEC.
In the 2023 presidential election, the plausibility and possibility of Tinubu's victory was always apparent but was magnified by the splintering of the traditional PDP political tendency into three factions—Atiku, Obi, and Kwankwaso, with the last of the trio dominating vote-rich Kano but not without Tinubu getting a sizeable share of the votes there.
The Absurdity of the Dual Citizenship Ruling
I agree with those who have called attention to the absurdity of the judges' dual citizenship ruling, which states that the petitioners did not submit Tinubu's second passport as evidence. This is incredible! Did the judges expect Tinubu to hand over his passport to his challengers so they could submit it to the tribunal? Was it not enough that they submitted copies of it and that Tinubu's lawyers admitted that indeed their client had obtained said foreign citizenship?
I had expected the judges to rely on an earlier court ruling that one interlocutor pointed to about only citizenship obtained by naturalization counting as dual citizenship under Nigerian law, but they opted for a ludicrous technicality.
Undoing Nigerians' Tentative Hope for Electoral Transparency
For me though the most disturbing part of their ruling is with respect to electronic transmission of results. If the learned judges are saying that no Nigerian law mandates the transmission of results electronically, are they saying that the crafters of the revised electoral law signed by Buhari in 2022, which was widely hailed as a game changer for mandating instantaneous electronic result transmission, lied to Nigerians or that the provision was removed?
Does this not mean we're back to where we began on electoral integrity and credibility? Does this not mean that future elections, much like past ones, are now legal rigging contests? Does this not make nonsense of all the work activists put in to legalize electronic transmission of results for purposes of electoral transparency and verifiability? I see this reckless ruling opening the door to unprecedented voter apathy.
The considerable enthusiasm and youth participation in the 2023 election was in part a function of Obi's effective social media campaign and his embodiment of a third option, but it was also catalyzed by the excitement over the mandated electronic transmission of results from polling units to the central server.
For once, it seemed to young people that their votes would count not because the politicians wanted them to count but because the law required technology that would make votes count.
With that provision in the electoral law now ruled illegal and legally unnecessary, how many enlightened and young voters will care to vote in future elections?
Moreover, are the judges saying that the N300 billion INEC "spent" on the BVAS and I-REV infrastructure was wasted and was an illegal expenditure with no utilitarian or legal value to the country? What do the judges make of the fact that, for the House of Reps and Senate elections held on the same day as the presidential one, real-time electronic transmission of results worked perfectly but either broke down or was sabotaged for the presidential election?
Anyway, a message has been sent clearly to politicians. Forge the right alliances and then rig and manipulate the electoral system to get yourself declared winner. If it's a presidential contest, history and precedent tell us that the judiciary will preserve the status quo and search and find both reasonable legal bases and ridiculous technical grounds to do that. You cannot hope for judicial redress after the fact. That's a depressing and deflating message.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/b152fe57-856a-4c99-9de4-09b8693664cfn%40googlegroups.com.
--
--Sincerely,
Victor O. Okafor, Ph.D.Professor and HeadDepartment of Africology and African American StudiesEastern Michigan UniversityEmail: vokafor@emich.edu
Tel: 734.487.9594Food for Thought:"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAO3oEcwznvR1wGjC5pJgqEPfJKZsSoWtc0DOqmBJ84dc1OBxQA%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/PH0PR06MB90040C11702619EE4F8482B1F8ECA%40PH0PR06MB9004.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPoKnba4nJrdy9VumTK%2BUN%2Bps6WkSXArKVgFq2CqAVAJ4g%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAO3oEcwO4p2z-gTQV65Qtf%2Bni-b%3DZmWvCTNP21Z3SuBtg6%3DJ%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAGBtzfNmPb7Pwo9g0sJEHBy4kfr4AKZMy8ASMXiQ0s0KM2U1AA%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/13D32BDB-ED36-4D9D-B488-FF5D3D32AC03%40gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment