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.\u00a0 The resolution was based on a motion presented by Hon. Mark Gbillah (Benue: PDP) who raised several issues concerning the electoral process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First off was INEC\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
INEC\u2019s decision to finally suspend the\nCVR exercise was still met with criticism. However, the commission explained\nthat it will be unable to extend the timeframe further citing the need to begin\nearly production and procurement of Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) and time\nconstraints faced in implementing the pre-election activities in the election\ntimetable. The House resolved to probe this assertion to ascertain the alleged\nconstraints on timely production of voter’s cards for the 2023 elections and\nwhether INEC truly lacks the ability to extend the CVR process without\nhampering preparations for the elections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics of the commission\u2019s decision\nrely on section 9 (6) of the\nElectoral Act 2022 which says the registration of voters is to stop not later\nthan 90 days before the election to argue that INEC is compelled to continue\nCVR until three months to the election day. Indeed, one of the mandates of the\ncommission is ensuring that everyone entitled to vote is captured on the voters\u2019\nregister before the election. Moreover, eligible citizens should not encounter\nbarriers or obstacles to register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Commission is also\nempowered to guide its own processes, which includes making administrative\ndecisions on procedures or dates where the law allows it. While the law fixes a\ntimeline for CVR, it is difficult to argue that the interpretation is that INEC\nmust continue to register persons until the very last allowable day. The\nCommission\u2019s stance that the process of registering voters and producing voters\u2019\ncards and lists is one of its most time-consuming activities cannot be ignored.\nWith threats of lawsuits against INEC on this matter, perhaps a judicial\npronouncement will settle the matter once and for all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another issue which is to be\ninvestigated is the interpretation of section 115 (1) (d) of the Electoral Act\nfollowing comments made by INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Mr. Mike\nIgini that \u201cpoliticians will go to jail for buying more than one nomination\nform\u2026we are preventing them from being candidates for prison.\u201d<\/em> The\ncontroversy over this section followed from the pronouncement of a Federal High\nCourt in Ebonyi that candidates who obtain multiple nomination forms run afoul\nof the Electoral Act. Section 115 (1) (d) makes it an offence punishable with 2\nyears imprisonment for a candidate to sign a nomination paper or result form in\nmore than one constituency at the same election. The House faulted Igini\u2019s\ninterpretation of the law, calling for an investigation into his statement\nwhich they say implies that the commission is making decisions on candidature \u2013\na role meant for the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most contentious issue raised was\nthat of INEC\u2019s transmission of results from polling units, which is being\nalleged to be collated at the ward level by collation officers on their\ncomputers and then transmitted to the central server instead of being\ntransmitted directly to INEC\u2019s central server in Abuja. Related allegations\ninclude that collation staff are able to manipulate votes cast before\ntransmitting same and that INEC technicians who are deployed to monitor the\nBVAS machines during elections can tamper with the machines. Furthermore, it\nwas implied that INEC has a loose decision-making process that tends to favour\ncertain political parties. Consequently, the House resolved to mandate the\nCommittee on Electoral Matters to examine INEC\u2019s voting process, from\naccreditation to transmission of results including a \u201cpractical demonstration\nto the Nigerian public\u201d to ascertain the existence of a central INEC server,\nthe transmission of results from polling units, the existence of e-collation\nofficers and the ability to manipulate voting results at that level, and the\nability or not to manipulate the BVAS machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These particular allegations are\nweighty and worrisome. The claim of lack of entrenched due process in INEC\u2019s\ndecision making seems to be connected to the commission\u2019s decision to extend\nthe deadline for parties to conduct their primaries after the\nprocess had begun, which critics said gave the ruling party an advantage of extra time to plan its convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The suggestion of even a remote\npossibility of ability to tamper with election results presents a potential\nchallenge to stakeholder confidence in the upcoming 2023 general election. INEC\nhas made efforts to introduce technology in the elections as a means of curbing\nrigging and other forms of election malpractice. It deployed the Smart Card Readers\nin the 2015 general elections to authenticate voters and has gone a step\nfurther with the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), which was\npiloted at the\nIsoko South 1 State Constituency bye-election in Delta State held in September\n2021. The BVAS is an innovative technology meant for efficient human\nrecognition through a biometric verification mechanism, using both fingerprint\nand facial recognition of voters. It was introduced to guarantee the credibility of voter\naccreditation by preventing the incidents of multiple voting or the use of\nstolen PVCs to vote. Before then, INEC had introduced an innovation by piloting the first real-time uploading of\npolling unit results to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV)<\/a> in the Nasarawa Central State\nConstituency by-election in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The introduction of these\ntechnologies, while commendable, have not been without challenges. Cases of\nmalfunction of the BVAS and delays in authentication were reported in the\nAnambra state gubernatorial election in November 2021 and the FCT Area Council\nElection in February 2022, as well as subsequent governorship elections in Osun\nand Ekiti States even though such incidences were much reduced in the latter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The introduction of new technologies in the electoral process\nbrings potential benefits, but also risks and challenges for INEC and other election stakeholders. While the use of technology in\nelection can help build trust through more secure elections,\nit also raises important questions of transparency of the electoral process. As can be seen\nfrom other jurisdictions, lack of trust and poor public perception can render\neven the most sophisticated technology unpopular and ultimately ineffective. The biggest challenge for stakeholders is understanding newly adopted\ntechnology and equipment, which is crucial for public confidence. In this\nregard, the commission has a duty to build much needed understanding and\nconfidence in the process by demonstrating capacity and efficiency in their\nuse. With the expansion of INEC\u2019s powers in the new Electoral Act, there comes\nan increased level of expectation for them to exercise those powers in a\ntransparent manner. However, many will agree that with politicians in the mix,\nthe seamless execution of this power by the election umpire can be quite\ntricky. And the recent resolution by the House of Representatives proves this\npoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clearly, the National Assembly has\npowers of legislative oversight, and this can be done via post-legislation\nscrutiny of laws it has passed, in this case, the Electoral Act. On another\nhand, legislators are also subject to the same law and for some, this presents\na conflict of interest. Legislative oversight however is a fundamental check\nand balance that is backed by law. In fact, in 2017, the 8th <\/sup>House\nof Representatives had called for similar investigation into INEC\u2019s\ncompliance with the then 2010 Electoral Act<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, allegations of bias\nor questions of credibility against the commission is not new and a historical\nexcursion would reveal that the tempo of such contentions often increases just\nbefore the elections. With the introduction of technology in the elections\nprocess and the indication that it will not be business as usual for\npoliticians planning to subvert the electoral process, the recent allegations could\nbe seen by some as an attempt by politicians to question the credibility of the\ninstitution, undermine its efforts and whip up public sentiment against the\nprocess. For others however, particularly the legislators adopting the\nresolution, the commission has serious questions to answer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That effective electoral administration\nunderpins the survival of our democracy cannot be\noveremphasized.\nThere cannot be democracy without elections and elections cannot be free and\nfair unless electoral rules are fair and coherent, unless they are properly\nadministered and unless they are actively enforced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In relation to this, the expectation is\nthat in carrying out its oversight and investigative duties, the House will\nensure that its powers are not misused or abused by its members or committees\nespecially considering that partisanship and personal interest of legislators often\ngets in the way of effective oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legislative scrutiny of the implementation\nof the electoral law and the commission\u2019s activities, which are paid for by\npublic funds is essential in helping the commission build trust and confidence.\nIt is important however, that in doing so, the commission\u2019s independence is\nrespected, and that good faith is demonstrated in the enquiry. The House of\nRepresentatives has given its committee eight weeks to report back its findings\non the resolution. It is hoped that the findings are produced based on\ndemonstrable evidence that can withstand the public\u2019s scrutiny of the\nlegislature\u2019s own process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1026,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2846","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2846","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2846"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2846\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2856,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2846\/revisions\/2856"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/placng.org\/Legist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}