By C J Okoli Akirika Esq
Essentially. the conduct of transparent election is an integral feature of a functional democracy. Consequently, a procedural template is inexorably emplaced to engender and guarantee a free, fair, and credible electoral process.
The forthcoming 2027 general elections, like previous elections, are being prefaced by some convoluted events such as the controversy surrounding the enactment of the Electoral Act 2026, the “mysterious virus” affecting the leadership of opposition parties, the attendant numerous court cases and the actual execution of the electoral exercise by the Independent National Electoral Commission ( ” INEC” herein), the body constitutionally charged with the solenm responsibility.
Indisputably, by conception, name, and design, INEC is reasonably and legitimately expected to deliver on its mandate but the current brouhaha generated by the contents of the voters register to be used for the conduct of the 2026 general elections is as disturbing and disconcerting as it is devious and ominous.
For certainty, Section 23 of the Electoral Act 2026 mandated INEC to publish the voters register within ninety (90) days before the date scheduled for conduct of the general elections and to give a seven day window for people to interrogate the voters register. As is obvious now, this statutory obligation is evidently not for cosmetics.
The status of properly updated voters register is transcendental and in conjunction with properly serialised ballot papers and functional smart card reader that transmits real-time election base (unit) accreditation and results, the milieu for transparent election is not only established but guaranteed.
It is now not only in the public domain but also unhesitatingly and unconditionally admitted by INEC that the voters register is blemished and compromised from within by INEC staff. A classical case of dangerous internal bleeding or disease.
This is portentous and challenges the imperatives for conduct of transparent election
Aside from the above, what is more problematic and ensnaring is the INEC’s ambivalent and dismissive response to this discomforting anomaly.
Of utmost importance is the undeniable fact that if not for the public outcry, INEC could not have discovered the compromised voters register over which it exercises exclusive dominion.
On the other hand, could it be reasonably opined that INEC was aware of the state of the voters’ register but decided to keep quiet in collusion.
This later stance appears to align with reality on the ground.
By its own account, INEC had traced the identity and number of staff involved in this depraved misconduct. Surprisingly and bizarrely, INEC refused to disclose the identities of those involved or report the established criminal act to the security agencies. Rather, INEC was wondering what were the motives of the unpatriotic staff, who compromised the voters’ register if not to lay the intrinsic systemic foundation to compromise the electoral procedure
This is very shambolic of INEC and symbolic of an institutional abdication of responsibility or cover-up
It is very dishonest and arrant diversionary tactics for INEC to pretend not to know the “intentions” of the acknowledged violators of treasured electoral materials even in the face of supporters and promoters of government in power to “deliver” humongous votes to the ruling party “by all means possible”.
The momentous voters’ register saga should be contextualised within the broader spectrum of preparations for the 2027 general elections. It should not be treated as an isolated “mistake” or ” misdemeanour” on the part of INEC. This approach is recommended in view of the activities and actions of INEC that questioned its impartiality and bona fide
One instance readily comes to mind:
In consequence of the Supreme Court judgement on the Constitutionality of Section 77 of the Electoral Act dealing with party register vis a vis criteria for qualification to contest 2027 elections , INEC proceeded to disqualify, amongst others, the NDC, PDP and ADC Gubernatorial candidates for Gombe, Kano and Kaduma States respectively. The same INEC that “disqualified” these candidates turned round to clear and enlist the PDP Gubernatorial candidate for Gombe State and declined to publish the name of the NDC Gubernatorial candidate for Kano State them as candidates ( citing lis pendis). Curiously, INEC did not predicate its subsequent action on party membership register criterion.
.
The germane question is: “was INEC not seised with the party registers of these candidates at all material and relevant times that it “disqualified” and simultaneously listed one of them as ” qualified” candidate based on the same party membership register in INEC’s exclusive possession
The saga of the voters’ register should be seen and treated contextually: election materials within the custody of INEC are susceptible to manipulation.
Therefore, Nigerians, political parties, civil society organisations, election monitoring bodies, etcetera must be exceptionally vigilant going forward
Thankfully, INEC had laid the requisite foundation when the Commssion publicly and dutifully asserted:
“The Commission appreciates the vigilance of the citizens and stakeholders who have brought these concerns to the public attention. Such scrutiny contributes to the process of improving the accuracy and integrity of the register”
INEC is better schooled to appreciate that public “scrutiny” is not restricted to the unfolding voters register conundrum but to the entire electoral process, including election results.
Therefore, in the most likely event of disputations regarding election results, INEC should not repeat its 2023 non responsive ( go to court) approach but employ Section 65 of the Electoral Act to “review the declaration and return where it receives report” within seven days of conduct of election.
This becomes more compelling and compulsive now that INEC documents ( particularly election report and result) are not only susceptible to manipulation but actually and barefacedly forged by INEC staff as judicially exemplified in Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1864/2026 H E Rochas Okorocha vs H E Hope Uzodinma in which INEC issued contradictory reports with contradictory results.
The above cognately strengthens and justifies the strident argument for ” citizens and stakeholders” ( in the language of INEC) to monitor and publish accurate real-time results of the election, which is legitimately and adjectivally tolerated by law.
But before then, the “scrutiny” continues. Apart from the wholesome engagement with voters, political parties, stakeholders, and citizens shall eagerly and serially monitor and scrutinise the actions of INEC to ensure due compliance with the leters and spirit of the Electoral Act, and the mandates of due process
INEC must not only be independent in name but must carry out the commissioned duty creditably and accontably
Thus, the imperatives of transparent electoral process are immediate and momentous, having been profoundly signposted by the instructive incident of the voters register.
C J OKOLIAKIRIKA ESQ
AWKA BASED ATTORNEY
(08036764900)
