Before the National Assembly proceeded on its annual long recess, the House of Representatives passed a resolution on Wednesday, 27 July 2022 directing its Committee on Electoral Matters to probe the credibility, transparency and accountability of the processes of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), particularly its Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise and Implementation of the Electoral Act, 2022. The resolution was based on a motion presented by Hon. Mark Gbillah (Benue: PDP) who raised several issues concerning the electoral process.
First off was INEC’s insistence to end the CVR exercise on 31 July 2022 in spite of many eligible registrants who were queued up to register. According to data released by INEC, 10,487,972 Nigerians carried out their pre-registration online and of this number only 3,444,378 Nigerians, representing 32.8 per cent, completed the process at physical centres. The CVR process was extended by INEC after its initially planned end date of 30 June 2022 and this followed from several pleas from citizens and stakeholders.
INEC’s decision to finally suspend the CVR exercise was still met with criticism. However, the commission explained that it will be unable to extend the timeframe further citing the need to begin early production and procurement of Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) and time constraints faced in implementing the pre-election activities in the election timetable. The House resolved to probe this assertion to ascertain the alleged constraints on timely production of voter’s cards for the 2023 elections and whether INEC truly lacks the ability to extend the CVR process without hampering preparations for the elections.
Critics of the commission’s decision rely on section 9 (6) of the Electoral Act 2022 which says the registration of voters is to stop not later than 90 days before the election to argue that INEC is compelled to continue CVR until three months to the election day. Indeed, one of the mandates of the commission is ensuring that everyone entitled to vote is captured on the voters’ register before the election. Moreover, eligible citizens should not encounter barriers or obstacles to register.
However, the Commission is also empowered to guide its own processes, which includes making administrative decisions on procedures or dates where the law allows it. While the law fixes a timeline for CVR, it is difficult to argue that the interpretation is that INEC must continue to register persons until the very last allowable day. The Commission’s stance that the process of registering voters and producing voters’ cards and lists is one of its most time-consuming activities cannot be ignored. With threats of lawsuits against INEC on this matter, perhaps a judicial pronouncement will settle the matter once and for all.
Another issue which is to be investigated is the interpretation of section 115 (1) (d) of the Electoral Act following comments made by INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Mr. Mike Igini that “politicians will go to jail for buying more than one nomination form…we are preventing them from being candidates for prison.” The controversy over this section followed from the pronouncement of a Federal High Court in Ebonyi that candidates who obtain multiple nomination forms run afoul of the Electoral Act. Section 115 (1) (d) makes it an offence punishable with 2 years imprisonment for a candidate to sign a nomination paper or result form in more than one constituency at the same election. The House faulted Igini’s interpretation of the law, calling for an investigation into his statement which they say implies that the commission is making decisions on candidature – a role meant for the courts.
The most contentious issue raised was that of INEC’s transmission of results from polling units, which is being alleged to be collated at the ward level by collation officers on their computers and then transmitted to the central server instead of being transmitted directly to INEC’s central server in Abuja. Related allegations include that collation staff are able to manipulate votes cast before transmitting same and that INEC technicians who are deployed to monitor the BVAS machines during elections can tamper with the machines. Furthermore, it was implied that INEC has a loose decision-making process that tends to favour certain political parties. Consequently, the House resolved to mandate the Committee on Electoral Matters to examine INEC’s voting process, from accreditation to transmission of results including a “practical demonstration to the Nigerian public” to ascertain the existence of a central INEC server, the transmission of results from polling units, the existence of e-collation officers and the ability to manipulate voting results at that level, and the ability or not to manipulate the BVAS machine.
These particular allegations are weighty and worrisome. The claim of lack of entrenched due process in INEC’s decision making seems to be connected to the commission’s decision to extend the deadline for parties to conduct their primaries after the process had begun, which critics said gave the ruling party an advantage of extra time to plan its convention.
The suggestion of even a remote possibility of ability to tamper with election results presents a potential challenge to stakeholder confidence in the upcoming 2023 general election. INEC has made efforts to introduce technology in the elections as a means of curbing rigging and other forms of election malpractice. It deployed the Smart Card Readers in the 2015 general elections to authenticate voters and has gone a step further with the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), which was piloted at the Isoko South 1 State Constituency bye-election in Delta State held in September 2021. The BVAS is an innovative technology meant for efficient human recognition through a biometric verification mechanism, using both fingerprint and facial recognition of voters. It was introduced to guarantee the credibility of voter accreditation by preventing the incidents of multiple voting or the use of stolen PVCs to vote. Before then, INEC had introduced an innovation by piloting the first real-time uploading of polling unit results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) in the Nasarawa Central State Constituency by-election in 2020.
The introduction of these technologies, while commendable, have not been without challenges. Cases of malfunction of the BVAS and delays in authentication were reported in the Anambra state gubernatorial election in November 2021 and the FCT Area Council Election in February 2022, as well as subsequent governorship elections in Osun and Ekiti States even though such incidences were much reduced in the latter.
The introduction of new technologies in the electoral process brings potential benefits, but also risks and challenges for INEC and other election stakeholders. While the use of technology in election can help build trust through more secure elections, it also raises important questions of transparency of the electoral process. As can be seen from other jurisdictions, lack of trust and poor public perception can render even the most sophisticated technology unpopular and ultimately ineffective. The biggest challenge for stakeholders is understanding newly adopted technology and equipment, which is crucial for public confidence. In this regard, the commission has a duty to build much needed understanding and confidence in the process by demonstrating capacity and efficiency in their use. With the expansion of INEC’s powers in the new Electoral Act, there comes an increased level of expectation for them to exercise those powers in a transparent manner. However, many will agree that with politicians in the mix, the seamless execution of this power by the election umpire can be quite tricky. And the recent resolution by the House of Representatives proves this point.
Clearly, the National Assembly has powers of legislative oversight, and this can be done via post-legislation scrutiny of laws it has passed, in this case, the Electoral Act. On another hand, legislators are also subject to the same law and for some, this presents a conflict of interest. Legislative oversight however is a fundamental check and balance that is backed by law. In fact, in 2017, the 8th House of Representatives had called for similar investigation into INEC’s compliance with the then 2010 Electoral Act.
On the other hand, allegations of bias or questions of credibility against the commission is not new and a historical excursion would reveal that the tempo of such contentions often increases just before the elections. With the introduction of technology in the elections process and the indication that it will not be business as usual for politicians planning to subvert the electoral process, the recent allegations could be seen by some as an attempt by politicians to question the credibility of the institution, undermine its efforts and whip up public sentiment against the process. For others however, particularly the legislators adopting the resolution, the commission has serious questions to answer.
That effective electoral administration underpins the survival of our democracy cannot be overemphasized. There cannot be democracy without elections and elections cannot be free and fair unless electoral rules are fair and coherent, unless they are properly administered and unless they are actively enforced.
In relation to this, the expectation is that in carrying out its oversight and investigative duties, the House will ensure that its powers are not misused or abused by its members or committees especially considering that partisanship and personal interest of legislators often gets in the way of effective oversight.
Legislative scrutiny of the implementation of the electoral law and the commission’s activities, which are paid for by public funds is essential in helping the commission build trust and confidence. It is important however, that in doing so, the commission’s independence is respected, and that good faith is demonstrated in the enquiry. The House of Representatives has given its committee eight weeks to report back its findings on the resolution. It is hoped that the findings are produced based on demonstrable evidence that can withstand the public’s scrutiny of the legislature’s own process.