INEC’S MISSTEPS

Nick Dazang 

In ordinary times, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), is in eye of the storm. As a consequence, it is often awash with controversy.

With less than ninety days to the conduct of the 2027 General Elections, the Commission is expected to come under more intense and comprehensive scrutiny. This is more so when recently, the Commission’s Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, addressed a World Press Conference and Stakeholders’ Meeting at the International Conference Center(Abuja) and explained INEC’s preparedness for the 2027 General Elections.

Since that conference, which overarching objective was a “a call to action” on the electoral front, things have taken a frenzied turn at the Commission.

The INEC Chairman has since visited a number of the Commission’s offices outside Abuja. He has vowed, at one such engagement, that the glitch that visited the 2023 General Elections, and which smeared them, would not be allowed to rear its ugly head in the 2027 General Elections. The preliminary Register of Voters, as demanded by law, was displayed, nationwide, for Claims and Objections. Widespread publicity preceded the exercise.

If the Commission’s work took a fevered pitch in the aftermath of the World Press Conference, and if the preliminary Register of Voters was displayed for Claims and Objections, it was alas, not uploaded on the Commission’s website as demanded by the Electoral Act 2026. The Act says, in clear and unmistakable terms, that:”Subject to the provision section 9(6) of this Act, the Commission shall, not later than 90 days to a general election, appoint a period of seven days during which a copy of the voters’ register for each Local Government, Area Council or Ward shall be displayed or published for public scrutiny at every registration area and on its official website or any website established by the Commission for that purpose.”
Not a few stakeholders – the media, civil society and political parties – visited the Commission’s website to scrutinize an online copy of the preliminary Register of Voters. But they did that without success and to no avail: they were, instead, advised to check back.

There is no doubting the fact that the Commission published the provisional Register of Voters for the Claims and Objections which took place between 9th to 15th October. But that did not suffice.

Neither was the Commission in full compliance with the law which insists that the same preliminary Register of Voters should be displayed on its website as well.

By failing to upload the preliminary Register of Voters on its website, the Commission opens itself to the accusation of opacity and lack of transparency. Or the allegation that it has something to hide.

Additionally, when the Commission fails to abide by laws it has freely given unto or bequeathed itself, it speaks clearly to corporate indiscipline and sloth. Besides, how does INEC, as chief driver of our elections, command the moral high ground or take its appropriate place as leader of the electoral process when it violates the sanctity of the laws that inform and govern elections? How can it beam the light that other lesser stakeholders in the electoral process may follow?

As if this misstep were not bad enough, INEC recently effected a minor deployment/reshuffle of its Directors. Such deployments and re-organizations are routine. They go with all Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). In the instance of INEC, such deployments and re-organizations are usually effected long before the conduct of elections. That way, the Directors involved have ample time to settle down and get acclimatized to their new roles. Eyebrows are seldom raised as to the purport of such deployments.

But when such deployments are carried out at the eve of general elections, they are bound to elicit the notice of stakeholders and to arouse controversy.

The particular deployment that continues to stir controversy is that of the Director, Electoral Operations.
The Director must be deserving of her appointment. This may be what informed her deployment in the first instance. But given the cruciality of that department to the conduct of the 2027 General Elections and her spousal relationship to a prominent player in one of the Presidential Campaign Councils (PCC), the Commission ought to have exercised circumspection and sensitivity.

It is possible that in carrying out this deployment, the Commission was not informed or cognizant of her relationship to a prominent politician and one of the spokespersons of a presidential campaign. Now that this is common knowledge, the Commission needs to act promptly. In doing this, it has a number of options.

The Commission can direct the Director to recuse herself of her functions until after the conduct of the elections. Her Deputy(Director) Electoral Operations should then be directed to act in the position(of substantive Director), subject, of course, to the considerations of merit and federal character.

To proceed as things are will do considerable violence to the Commission’s core values of neutrality and impartiality. It will also be an egregious assault on the level playing field which INEC ought to provide to all contestants. These will in turn impact negatively on the credibility and integrity of the elections.
INEC should redress its steps. It will assure all contestants that it has no preferred candidate or that it has “ no dog in the fight”. Furthermore, such a redress will align with its mission to make the 2027 General Elections “a global benchmark for transparency, integrity and peace”.

Show quoted text