By Editor
Introduction: INEC Under the Microscope—Can the Umpire Be Trusted?
As the governorship election in Edo State approaches, one question looms large in the minds of many Nigerians: can INEC, the Independent National Electoral Commission, be trusted to conduct a credible election? Former President Goodluck Jonathan, in his recent statement ahead of the September 21, 2024, election, placed a “moral burden” on INEC to maintain neutrality and uphold democratic principles. However, for many Nigerians, faith in the electoral body remains fragile, if not outright shattered.
Since its inception, INEC has often been accused of partisanship, inefficiency, and collusion with political actors to manipulate electoral outcomes. While the body has made some strides in improving electoral processes, particularly with the introduction of technology like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), widespread skepticism persists. The controversies surrounding its role in past elections, including allegations of voter disenfranchisement, compromised officials, and technical failures, raise legitimate concerns over whether the electoral umpire can genuinely deliver on its constitutional mandate.
This article critically examines whether INEC can indeed be trusted, especially in the context of the Edo governorship election, where tensions are already high, and the stakes are enormous. Can INEC rise above the skepticism and demonstrate the impartiality needed for a free, fair, and credible election, or will the fears of political manipulation once again overshadow Nigeria’s democratic aspirations?
INEC’s Track Record: Progress or Persistent Failure?
To understand whether INEC can be trusted, it’s essential to review its track record over the years. Established in 1998, INEC has overseen multiple election cycles, each plagued by varying degrees of controversy. While there have been some improvements, particularly in the conduct of the 2015 general elections, which saw the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another for the first time in Nigeria’s history, subsequent elections have called INEC’s integrity into question.
The 2019 general elections were widely criticised for logistical failures, delays, and allegations of bias. Reports of voter intimidation, ballot box snatching, and over-reliance on military personnel raised serious doubts about INEC’s ability to act as an impartial umpire. Even more concerning was the perceived inconsistency in the application of its guidelines, which led to accusations of partiality. If INEC was unable to enforce the rules uniformly in a national election, can it truly be expected to perform better in a high-stakes state election like Edo?
That said, INEC has shown some commitment to reform. The introduction of technology such as the Smart Card Reader in 2015 and the BVAS system in recent elections was intended to curb election malpractices. However, these innovations have not been without their flaws, often marred by operational inefficiencies, technical glitches, and poor handling by electoral officers. Thus, while the commission has made progress, its inconsistent application of reforms raises valid concerns about whether these improvements will be sufficient to guarantee a credible election in Edo.
The Role of INEC Officials: Integrity or Compromise?
One of the primary concerns surrounding INEC is the integrity of its officials. Over the years, there have been numerous reports of electoral officers being compromised, either through financial inducements or intimidation by political actors. In many instances, election results have been marred by the actions of corrupt INEC officials, who either turn a blind eye to electoral malpractices or actively participate in them.
In the lead-up to the Edo governorship election, fears of compromised INEC officials have already surfaced. With the stakes so high in a politically charged state like Edo, where control over state resources and political influence is up for grabs, the temptation to co-opt electoral officers is significant. Unfortunately, past elections have shown that some officials succumb to these pressures, casting doubt on whether they can maintain impartiality on Election Day.
While INEC leadership, particularly under Professor Mahmood Yakubu, has made public commitments to fighting corruption within its ranks, the reality on the ground suggests that the commission still struggles to control local-level manipulation. The Edo election, with its history of political violence and vote-buying, presents a critical test of whether INEC can effectively discipline its officials and shield them from undue influence.
Jonathan’s call for INEC to be an “unbiased umpire” echoes the concerns of many Nigerians who fear that the integrity of the electoral process could be compromised by rogue officials. The success of this election will depend heavily on INEC’s ability to keep its personnel in check and ensure that they adhere strictly to electoral laws.
Electoral Technology: Game-Changer or False Hope?
INEC’s reliance on technological advancements like the BVAS system has been hailed as a game-changer for Nigeria’s electoral process. The Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) is designed to ensure that only eligible voters participate in the elections, helping to curb multiple voting and impersonation—two major sources of electoral fraud. In theory, such a system should boost confidence in the credibility of the process. However, the implementation of BVAS in recent elections has been fraught with technical issues, raising questions about its effectiveness.
In several previous elections, including the 2023 general elections, there were numerous reports of BVAS malfunctioning, causing delays in accreditation and voting. In some instances, election results had to be manually collated after BVAS failed to transmit results electronically, undermining the very purpose of the technology. These technical glitches fuel the perception that INEC is either unprepared or unwilling to fully deploy these systems to their potential.
With the Edo governorship election just days away, concerns about whether BVAS will work as intended are already mounting. The fear is that any technological failure could not only disrupt the election but also provide a loophole for electoral fraud. Former President Jonathan’s call for “a transparent voting process” implicitly underscores the need for INEC to get its technological house in order. Transparency cannot be achieved if the tools meant to safeguard the process are unreliable.
While INEC has reassured voters that it is addressing the issues that plagued previous elections, skepticism remains. After all, how can an electoral umpire be trusted if its primary mechanisms for ensuring fairness—such as BVAS—continue to fail? The success of the Edo election will depend significantly on whether INEC can deploy its technology effectively and ensure a smooth, glitch-free voting experience.
Neutrality of Security Agencies: Another Layer of Uncertainty
While INEC’s role as the electoral umpire is critical, the conduct of security agencies is equally pivotal in determining whether the Edo election will be free and fair. Nigeria’s history of elections is riddled with cases of security forces either aiding political thugs or intimidating voters, leading to widespread fear and voter suppression. Jonathan’s statement rightly emphasises that “security agencies must conduct themselves in optimal neutrality” and resist any actions that could compromise the process.
However, past experiences suggest that achieving this level of neutrality is easier said than done. The involvement of security agencies, particularly the police and military, has been a double-edged sword in Nigerian elections. On the one hand, their presence is necessary to prevent violence and ensure order at polling units. On the other hand, their actions have sometimes tilted the scales in favour of one political party over another.
In the 2020 Edo governorship election, there were widespread reports of security agencies being deployed to protect polling stations. However, there were also claims that security personnel were selectively enforcing the law, targeting opposition members while allowing ruling party supporters to engage in electoral malpractices. With a similar political atmosphere in 2024, there are fears that the same pattern could emerge, with security agencies being used as instruments of political control rather than impartial peacekeepers.
This adds another layer of uncertainty to the question of whether INEC can be trusted. Even if the electoral body performs its duties impartially, the actions of security agencies could still undermine the credibility of the election. Jonathan’s call for neutrality is, therefore, not just a plea for INEC but also a reminder to the police and military that their role in safeguarding democracy is as crucial as that of the electoral umpire.
Voter Confidence: The Erosion of Trust in the Electoral Process
One of the most damaging consequences of perceived electoral malpractice is the erosion of voter confidence. In recent years, voter apathy has become a growing concern in Nigeria, with citizens increasingly disillusioned by a system they feel does not reflect their true choices. The 2023 general elections witnessed historically low voter turnout, partly driven by a lack of faith in INEC’s ability to conduct free and fair elections.
Jonathan’s statement touches on this issue by highlighting the fact that “democracy loses its value when citizens cannot exercise their political choices in a free and fair atmosphere.” Voter apathy is a direct reflection of the public’s trust in the electoral process. When citizens believe that their votes won’t count or that the outcome is predetermined, they are less likely to participate. This creates a vicious cycle where low voter turnout further weakens the democratic process, allowing political elites to manipulate outcomes with even less scrutiny.
The Edo governorship election represents a critical juncture in reversing this trend. If INEC can demonstrate that it is capable of conducting a transparent, credible, and fair election, it could help restore some measure of trust in the system. However, if the election is marred by the usual allegations of rigging, voter intimidation, and ballot tampering, it will only deepen the sense of disillusionment that already plagues Nigerian politics.
The Role of Political Parties: Are They Willing to Play Fair?
While INEC and security agencies bear the brunt of public scrutiny, political parties and their candidates also have a significant role to play in ensuring a credible election. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s political landscape is dominated by a winner-takes-all mentality, where the end justifies the means. As a result, elections are often characterised by fierce competition, with parties resorting to vote-buying, thuggery, and even violence to secure victory.
Former President Jonathan’s statement urges politicians to “pursue their interests within the confines of the law and refrain from activities that could undermine the peace and stability of the state.” However, history suggests that political actors are often the instigators of electoral malpractice, pressuring INEC officials and security agencies to tilt the scales in their favour.
The Edo election will serve as a litmus test for whether Nigeria’s political class is willing to play by the rules. With high-profile figures vying for control of the state, the temptation to manipulate the process is immense. INEC can only do so much if political actors refuse to respect the sanctity of the electoral process. The onus is on these politicians to demonstrate their commitment to democracy by allowing the will of the people to prevail, without resorting to underhanded tactics.
Conclusion: Can INEC Redeem Itself?
As Edo State prepares for its governorship election, the stakes could not be higher for INEC. The commission faces an enormous challenge in proving that it can be trusted to conduct a free, fair, and credible election. With questions surrounding the integrity of its officials, the reliability of its technology, and the neutrality of security agencies, public confidence in the electoral body is at an all-time low.
Former President Jonathan’s statement serves as a timely reminder of the heavy burden that rests on INEC’s shoulders. Democracy can only thrive when citizens have faith in the electoral process, and that faith has been severely eroded in Nigeria. For INEC, the Edo election presents an opportunity to redeem itself and restore some measure of trust in the system.
However, achieving this will require more than just empty promises. INEC must ensure that its officials are beyond reproach, that its technology functions flawlessly, and that it enforces the rules uniformly. Equally important is the conduct of security agencies and political actors, who must rise above the temptation to manipulate the process for their own gain.
Can INEC be trusted? The answer to that question will become clear after the votes are cast and counted in Edo. Until then, skepticism remains the order of the day. But for the sake of Nigeria’s fragile democracy, one can only hope that INEC will rise to the occasion and deliver a truly free and fair election.
An Atlantic Post Editorial Opinion.
