The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has been heavily criticised for mishandling the results of the Presidential and National Assembly elections conducted on February 25, 2023 nationwide. There are few times when such high-handed criticisms from many Nigerians, local and international observers are spot on. In this case, it was exactly what INEC’s conduct deserved.
Despite having the benefit of experiences from elections past, the lessons from years of progressive reforms, the added bonus of Electoral Act-backed application of technology, four years to prepare and conducting “trial runs” of the technology in Ekiti and Osun States and more than N350 billion allocated for the elections, the agency failed to scale up and avoid the embarrassment that the February 25 polls became.
The mishandling of the election vis-à-vis the severely delayed transmission of results in real time from polling units to the IRev, the INEC results viewing portal, significantly scuttled confidence in the poll and the progress made over time in the electoral reform process. The blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of INEC and its embattled Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu.
While it was significantly seamless for polling officers to transmit the results of the National Assembly elections from the polling units to the viewing portal in real time, a key requirement for the polls, the presidential election results could not be uploaded for several hours after voting and counting had ended because of what the agency termed ‘a glitch’, which I like many believe was human-induced to buy time to rig the election for politicians. Whether this is true or not will come to light someday.
The needless controversy surrounding the difficulty in uploading the result sheets of the presidential election at the polling units, despite Professor Yakubu and INEC’s assurances and reassurances of real time upload of results, has fueled allegations that the agency aided the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, to victory.
Whether these allegations are true or not, the damage that INEC has done to the credibility of the electoral process and its reputation may be irredeemable. This has also tainted the hard fought victory of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the flagbearer of the ruling APC, whom INEC declared winner of the vote in the wee hours of March 1, 2023.
There is also the dispute over whether INEC significantly violated the provisions of the Electoral Act as well as its own guidelines that were supposed to govern the conduct of the February 25 elections with its inability to upload the results in real time, as well as use of the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) machines nationwide. The agency has not categorically responded to these claims.
As at Friday night, while I was writing this piece, almost two weeks after the conduct of the election, INEC had uploaded results from 166,057 polling units out of 176, 846 as seen on the IRev. It remains unclear why it is still struggling to upload the remaining result sheets. This is the crux of the debate. Is this failure significant enough to order a cancellation and revote? The answer depends on who you ask.
Understanding Sections 25; 47(2); 60 (1), (2), (4) & (5); 62; 64(4)(a) & (b); 70; and 148 of the Electoral Act, 2022, governing the 2023 nationwide general elections and paragraphs 38 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022; and paragraphs 2.8.4; 2.9.0; and 2.9.1 of the INEC Manual for Election Officials, 2023, for the conduct of the presidential election, will help the public make an informed decision on the conduct of the vote.
The Electoral Act, 2022, section 25 as reproduced below clearly stipulates how elections ought to be conducted and result declared and transmitted:
“25. (1) The results of all the elections shall be announced by the—
(a) Presiding officer at the polling unit;
(b) Ward Collation Officer at the registration area or Ward Collation Centre;
(c) Local Government or Area Council Collation Officer at the Local Government or Area Council Collation Centre; and
(d) State Collation Officer at the State Collation Centre.
(2) The returning officer shall announce the result and declare the winner of the election at—
(a) Registration Area or Ward Collation Centre in the case of
Councillorship election in the Federal Capital Territory;
(b) Area Council Collation Centre in the case of Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship election in the Federal Capital Territory;
(c) State Constituency Collation Centre in the case of State House of Assembly election;
(d) Federal Constituency Collation Centre in the case of election to the House of Representatives;
(e) Senatorial District Collation Centre in the case of election to the
Senate;
(f ) State Collation Centre in the case of election of a Governor of a
State;
(g) State Collation Centre in the case of a Presidential election ; and
(h) National Collation Centre in the case of election of the President.
(3) The Chief Electoral Commissioner shall be the returning officer at the Presidential election”.
Section 47 states thus:
“47.—(1) A person intending to vote in an election shall present himself with his voter’s card to a Presiding officer for accreditation at the polling unit in the constituency in which his name is registered.
(2) To vote, the presiding officer shall use a smart card reader or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
(3) Where a smart card reader or any other technological device deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a fresh card reader or technological device is not deployed, the election in that unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours if the Commission is satisfied that the result of the election in that polling unit will substantially affect the final result of the whole election and declaration of a winner in the constituency concerned.”
Section 60 of the Electoral Act states:
“60.—(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the Commission as the case may be.
(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.
(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection (2).
(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.
(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.
“(4) A collation officer or returning officer at an election shall collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the—
(a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act ; and
(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60 (4) of this Act.”
Section 62 of the Electoral Act also states as follows:
“62.—(1) After the recording and announcement of the result, the presiding officer shall deliver same along with election materials under security and accompanied by the candidates or their polling agents, where available, to such person as may be prescribed by the Commission.
(2) The Commission shall compile, maintain and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results which shall be a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results, of each election conducted by the Commission in the Federation, and the Register of Election Results shall be kept in electronic format by the Commission at its national headquarters.
(3) Any person or political party may obtain from the Commission, on payment of such fees as may be determined by the Commission, a certified true copy of any election result kept in the National Electronic Register of Election Results for a State, Local Government, Area Council, registration area or Electoral Ward or Polling Unit, as the case may be, and the certified true copy may be in printed or electronic format.”
Section 64 (4):
“A Collation officer or returning officer at an election shall collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the –
a. The number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under Section 47(2) of this Act.
b. The votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under Section 60(4) of this Act”, while Section 148 states that:
“148. The Commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines, or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration.”
I would have preferred an election where the winner’s hard fought win is not being tainted, just as in Tinubu’s case, because of either gross incompetence on the part of INEC or by the ignoble roles of rogue officials in the agency.
Nigerians sacrificed so much to engage in the process and perform their civic duties. One only needs to recall the tortuous difficulties that citizens had to endure to register and pick up their voters’ cards.
Then, there was the task of ensuring that one’s polling unit had not been changed before the man-hours spent under the rain or in the heat of the sun, just to be able to participate in this most critical of elections, only to have this important aspect of it that should give the public comfort and confidence in the electoral process bungled.
The hopes of all Nigerians, who sacrificed so much to be ready to carry out their civic duties and who endured the haphazard logistical issues and intimidation and assaults in the hands of political thugs so as to participate in the general election, have been helplessly dashed. It can only further alienate more and more voters in a country where there is a sense of growing voter apathy. Some Nigerians were first time voters on February 25th and this is a terribly pathetic commentary on the determined push for more voter turnout.
The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which has serious credibility issues due to some dubious and questionable election related rulings, must equitably and judiciously determine the suits by the opposition parties challenging the declaration of Tinubu as winner as well as the conduct of the election. The suits must be determined squarely on merit and facts for it to be widely acceptable.
As we approach the March 18th Governorship and House of Assembly elections, Professor Yakubu and INEC must ensure full compliance with laws and guidelines governing the polls to avoid unnecessary rancour and disputes when it announces the winners of the polls.
About the Author
