Anyone who followed the conduct of the September 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo State would not have found it difficult to identify several challenges which derogated substantially from what could easily have ended as a free, fair and credible electoral process. Must every Nigerian election be contentious and unduly controversial? Why is it so difficult to play the game of election by its rules in Nigeria?
If Nigerian politicians who have become notorious for their anti-democratic disposition make it hard for the country to attain successful elections, must election managers also allow their unacceptable partisanship to continue to worsen Nigeria’s political dilemma? Many more questions must have been silently considered by well-meaning citizens in the last one week
What the questions partly suggest is that public perception concerning politics and elections in the country is poor. The way forward is for the Independent National Election Commission INEC which has the sole mandate for the conduct of credible elections to immediately recognize the disturbing public perception and take steps to reverse the situation. It is laudable that the INEC office in Ondo State where the next off cycle election is scheduled to hold has already assumed a redeeming posture. According to media reports, Oluwatoyin Babalola, the Resident Electoral Commissioner in the state, has made a passionate appeal to the electorates in the state not to lose faith in the electoral process.
In Babalola’s words, “every vote will count, and we will ensure that everyone’s vote is counted…don’t lose faith in the electoral process … the people of Ondo State should trust us to deliver a credible election.” Whereas assurances such as this are not new, the nation does not have a rich history of how they were actually adhered to. In fairness to INEC, many politicians are fond of viciously attacking the commission once election results are not in their favour. In other words, Nigeria has a host of bad losers in the game of elections. Besides, many of the challenges which are often thrown up during elections are caused not directly by INEC but by other election administrators such as security agencies, the judiciary and indeed political parties themselves.
There are at least two common happenings during elections that are beyond the role of INEC. One of them is vote buying. It is obviously beyond the capacity of election officials who are busy with accreditation and specific procedures for the casting of ballots to, at the same time, seek to control vote buying. One would have expected the security agencies to handle that segment well but it is hardly done. Interestingly, there are allegations that even the security personnel themselves are usually among those compromised as a result of such material inducements. During last Saturday’s governorship elections in Edo State, many people including voters testified that people openly voted for the highest bidder.
A second problem has to do with the sudden relocation of collation venues from the location originally prescribed and publicised. With over 40,000 security operatives reportedly deployed to Edo State last Saturday, it is difficult to understand the expedience of relocating from a venue for security reasons. Why did the security agencies not fortify the prescribed location or are they only able to secure unapproved locations? In addition, each time collation venues are suddenly changed, the common report is always that certain party agents and some journalists and election observers are usually not allowed into the new venues. Considering that such persons were accredited by INEC to be part of the process why are they obstructed from the new venue and why would anyone expect those so disallowed to accept the eventual results announced?
There is however the argument that because INEC is not equipped to deal with security infractions such as the snatching of ballot boxes or intimidation of officials, the commission has to always rely on security advice. But can security advice legitimize unapproved venues? Here, there is a perception that INEC itself seems to enjoy the collusion with the security agencies to relocate from the approved venue to a conducive location for the perpetuation of electoral malpractices. Beyond collusion with other election administrators, INEC itself quite often, performs far below expectation prompting negative reactions not only from politicians but also from voters and the general public.
A good example of INEC’s poor performance is the unending lateness of officials and election materials to polling centres at every election. Whether it is a presidential election which is a massive nation-wide event or voting in only one state or even a single constituency, election personnel and materials must arrive late. Many years back this writer found time to participate in election monitoring where I observed such condemnable canon of behaviour. I was indeed shocked to see that during the Anambra governorship election of November 2013, election materials were late to a polling unit directly behind the INEC office – the operational base of the commission in Awka, the state capital.
Earlier in June, the case of the Oguta election was more scandalous because although it was held in only 4 wards for just one seat in the Imo State House of Assembly, many voters became restive after waiting in vain for several hours for the election process to commence. Painfully, this negative attitude is yet to change as many voters waited for longer than makes sense for the process to start in last Saturday’s governorship election in Edo State. According to media reports, there were delayed arrivals and commencement of the process in some locations such as Oba Market, Zabayo Street and Plymouth Road polling stations in the state capital.
In Edo Central, the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, reported that INEC officials and materials arrived in Okaegben ward one, unit 3 in Ewohimi at exactly 10:30 a.m. that is two full hours behind schedule. Incidentally this was the polling unit of the PDP candidate Asue Ighodalo. Although INEC promptly as usual ordered an extension of time in such locations, many people have continued to deprecate the practice whereby an agency that can conduct an event nationwide can have avoidable challenges in just one of 36 states and the federal capital territory. If as we hear, the electoral body is always having problems from its vendor, why is the same vendor always patronized?
In the case of only one governorship election, there is doubt if INEC needs a third party to handle its logistics. Why can’t the commission pull its resources from all its nationwide offices to surmount logistics challenges or is there a rule which makes it compulsory for INEC to involve an unreliable third party in its arrangements especially one that it can internally handle? Also difficult to comprehend is the inability of the commission to properly manage the critical segment of collation and declaration of election results. One of the allegations often made during elections is over-voting. This is unacceptable because everyone knows that an election result whose figures exceed the number of accredited voters is invalid. Why then do some election officials not crosscheck results before announcing them?
In addition, the practice of assembling agents and other interest groups to listen and comment on collated results has become annoying. This is because INEC normally does nothing about any point raised against what is read to the group. If whatever is announced is sacrosanct what is the purpose of asking for comments? Why can’t objections raised by agents be investigated before results are formally announced when INEC has 7 days to review its figures before announcing them? While it is true that politicians have a tendency to make false claims, INEC has a duty to review specific controversial results such as that of Ward six in Akoko Edo, units 12, 17, 15, 18, 14, and 16 where elections allegedly did not hold yet there were results.
To protect its public image, INEC ought to immediately break its silence over several allegations especially those concerning election officials who were specifically identified for playing reprehensible roles at Edo last Saturday. Apart from an Assistant Director in charge of Electoral operations at INEC headquarters, the Presiding officer at the Osholo Primary School Polling Unit in Weppa, Etsako East Local Government Area, who was alleged to have arrived at over 400 votes when only 213 voters were accredited ought to be investigated. Inaction on these issues can exacerbate adverse public perceptions of INEC.
