Paranoia at INEC

They claim to have discovered plots to discredit them prior to the 2015 elections. The INEC Chairman’s Chief Press Secretary said a “campaign of calumny” is underway in form of a series of media campaigns aimed a portraying its leadership in a bad light and questioning the Commission’s ability to conduct free and fair elections […]

They claim to have discovered plots to discredit them prior to the 2015 elections. The INEC Chairman’s Chief Press Secretary said a “campaign of calumny” is underway in form of a series of media campaigns aimed a portraying its leadership in a bad light and questioning the Commission’s ability to conduct free and fair elections in 2015.  The media campaign being referred to is actually press reports concerning security agencies investigation of allegations which cast doubts on the integrity of their Chairman. Whatever the truth or otherwise of the allegations, INEC staff should stop being paranoid.
Their Chairman’s personal integrity isn’t a factor in the failure of their organization to win public confidence. There is every reason for opposition politicians to be apprehensive over their performance in the upcoming 2015 elec-tions. Practically every contestant who defeated a PDP candidate in the past had to proceed to Court to claim their mandate denied by INEC.  Large scale manipulation of election results is still a feature of our elections and the Commission seems inca-pable of plugging all the loopholes. All the expense on permanent voter’s cards, card readers, data-capture machines, and so on continues to be a diversionary waste of money. Over 87 billion naira was released for the 2011 elections and a large part of that sum was the cost of data capture machines.
Despite this massive amount INEC resorted to manual verification before voters cast their ballot. In the Ghanaian elections biometric verification was done before any voter could vote. This prevented rigging and enabled correct tallying of votes. For reasons best known to itself INEC have no plans to introduce this simple method of delivering genuine results. They haven’t attempted biometric verification of voters in any election held since 2011 and have stated that no such process will take place in 2015. The problem with our elections has always been the endorsement of fake results by INEC officials. Based on their past record it should come as no surprise that opposition politicians have little faith in their ability to deliver free and fair elections. In all legally contested presidential elections the Supreme Court has ruled the processes to be defective but averred that although flawed they “substantially conformed” to the law. This is the basis under which the nation has stumbled forward with INEC and the electorate deserves an improvement in performance.
As usual the looming 2015 polls will be characterized by the politics of bitterness, attack, blackmail, insults, out-right lies, and manipulation of results. INEC can expect to face a heated polity, schemes for vote rigging, inciting campaign statements and court injunctions. All of which tend to give a sense of déjà-vu. Politicians strive to will ensure that 2015 will be business as usual! The INEC Chairman himself admitted that the voters register for the 2013 Anambra State gubernatorial election con-tained over 93,000 foreign names. According to him over 4 million names had been corruptly injected into the national voters register. The Commission’s plan to prosecute over 800,000 voters guilty of multiple registrations is simply a crass waste of money. No matter how many times a voter registers that person can only vote once. The whole purpose of multiple registrations is to collude with INEC officials in allocating these votes through stuffed ballot boxes. It would be more practicable, cheaper and have more impact if INEC instead chose to publicly prosecute their staff found guilty of collusion.
This is unlikely due to their protectionism and legendary aversion to cons-tructive criticism. From the purchase of unused  “data capture machines” to the never ending contracts for ballot boxes, ballot papers, umbrella’s, vehicles and so on, INEC has developed a voracious appetite for spending money while rejecting any criticism of its modus operandi. Their paranoia has blinded them from accepting alternative suggestions. Instead they delude themselves into thinking no one else can do the job better, cheaper or, more efficiently. They seem totally unconcerned about figuring out how to conduct “voter friendly” elections and appear happy to insist on scheduling voting in a manner which is of great inconvenience to the electorate.  They can’t see the urgent need to stop closing down the economy simply to receive people’s votes.  It isn’t beyond human ingenuity to devise a system whereby people can go about their normal business and cast their vote sometime during the day.
 INEC’s claim that the com-mission has been overhauled and repositioned for future elections is questionable. Des-pite a massive budget they still have problems getting their logistics right. Late arrival of materials, non-accreditation of voters, names missing from the voters register, insufficient materials, inadequate trans-port arrangements and staff not trained to handle crises have become the staple diet of Nigerian elections. Perhaps INEC’s biggest challenge is overcoming the continued and consistent “printers devil” which habitually omits certain party logos and candidates names from ballot papers. It is a major cause for concern that the Supreme Court ruled the numbering ballot papers is not pre-requisite to credible elections. Another cause for concern is the different regulations INEC adopts for each election. Potential voters are continuously being disenfranchised as INEC officials follow new ad-hoc election guidelines. 2015 will be no different.
 It is the height of arro-gance that they see nothing wrong in expecting voters to continuously learn new regulations. There is no campaign of calumny against INEC they must simply learn to acknowledge their consistent failures. For a successful outing in 2015 they must find solutions to their operational lapses, their staffs’ consistent collusion in falsifying results, and the inefficient manner in which voting is conducted. They must improve their logistics, introduce electronic verification of results, and desist from conducting voting in a manner convenient to themselves and grossly inconvenient to the electorate and the economy.