INEC and the burden of a hitch-free election

Whenever we discuss “free, fair, and credible election” in Nigeria, many people think, or believe, the whole thing depends on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). They have the erroneous notion that the commission has all it takes to conduct a hitch-free election, and therefore, heap all the blames on the commission, if anything goes wrong, be it violence orchestrated by political thugs, or low voters’ turn out. While I do not dispute the fact that, much depends on the electoral umpire to deliver a free, fair, and credible election, I do not subscribe to the notion that, all depends on it.

To put things in their proper perspectives; a free, fair and credible election is the one in which the electorates are, free to make their choices through the ballot without fear, inducement, threat, or intimidation from anyone. While a fair election is one in which, all contestants are given a level playing field to compete without anyone enjoying any undue advantage over the other(s). And a credible election, is the one which process is steep in transparency, with the result devoid of manipulation, and underhand dealing by critical stakeholders, like INEC, among others.

Looking at each of the above-mentioned three components, one after the other, it would be realised that; to ensure a hitch-free election, an adequate guarantee of security is a sine qua non, yet, INEC does not command any troop, military or paramilitary, with which it can protect, even, its own materials, and personnel, let alone, the voting public. What that means is that, the security agencies must be in their respective elements, and at their professional best, to complement whatever arrangement INEC puts in place to ensure the conduct of a hitch-free general election. Where there is no synergy between INEC and the security agencies, a hitch-free election becomes a pipe dream. Political thuggery would no doubt have a free rein.
Meanwhile, INEC has no lien on those thugs. They belong to the politicians. INEC has no leash on them. The onus is, therefore, on their paymasters to keep them in check.

What about an atmosphere of zero-toxicity? INEC has no control over political stakeholders’ choices of language, while campaigning. The use of inflammatory languages that would heat up the polity is beyond INEC. Hate Speech is another of those things that unnecessarily increase the political temperature of the country, to such a boiling point that if care is not taken, we’d all watch, while the country goes up in flames. As we speak right now, the kind of expletives being traded by the spokespersons of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential Council (PCC) is out of this world. Decorum has been traded for indecency in their exchanges of brickbats. The term “criminal” is being deployed to describe one another, as though, it is a compliment. In that case, I do not think the INEC should share in the blame, if such a barbaric act leads to anything that undermines the election’s being free, fair, and credible. In a situation where, what Festus Keyamo (SAN), or Senator Dino Melaye say on-air or before the microphone/camera, ignite violence, what could INEC have done in such a case to avoid any conflagration? Nothing. Absolutely nothing because, it does not control the emotions of millions of supporters out there. But the relevant agencies of government like, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the National Press Council (NPC), the National Orientation Agency (NOA) among others, have responsibilities, with commensurate statutory enablement, to proactively prevail on parties, candidates, and the media, to ensure that these excesses are checkmated, to complement INEC’s quest for a hitch-free election.

Furthermore, we live in a country where electoral offences carry little, or no sanction – something which, in itself, serves as an incentive for perpetrators to remain in business. The issue of electoral offences is worsened by the failure, so far, of the executive and the legislature to collaborate on the establishment of the electoral offences tribunal. That is an agency that would try anybody apprehended for electoral offences like vote-buying, ballot box-snatching, assault against electoral officers and voters on election day, counterfeiting or vandalisation of electoral materials and INEC’s facilities, among others.

The media, in addition to strong advocacy for free, fair, and credible election, has a responsibility to ensure that, the polity is not heated up unnecessarily through “toxic reportage”, or provision of wind behind the sail of fake news. Reportage of issues and events must be balanced at all time. Ditto for the religious leaders, community leaders, and parents. Their influences must be brought to bear, positively on the conducts of their respective followers, during the period of electioneering.

To ensure a fair election, there must also be a legislation to ensure that the power of incumbency is not abused, through being deployed to the undue advantage of the ruling party and its candidates, and that, the law enforcement agents, and INEC officials do not lend themselves to political manipulation by political desperadoes who want to remain in power by all means possible – seeking to get, through the backdoor, what they fail to get in an open electoral contest. It is a low-hanging fruit for the incumbents to enlist the services of corrupt state agents in rigging elections, but it must be prevented through a robust law. This is also beyond INEC. I have witnessed in this country, where results were snatched from a collation officers by thugs (aided by the belief that, there would be no consequence whatsoever), under the full watch of security agents. And he (the collation officer) was then arrested and placed under what they tagged, “protective custody”. They claimed that if they did not allow the thugs to make away with the results, it could endanger his personal safety, undermine their capacity to protect him. Plausible, but it was outright falsehood. What happens to those results? Of course, your guess is as good as mine. The figures would be mutilated to favour those who sent them. These are things over which INEC has no control. Success in that regard is dependent, not only on the electoral umpire, but also, on synergy between it, and the relevant stakeholders.

The last (but not the least) one – credibility is, however, almost wholly dependent on INEC. Credibility of the election is a product of how transparent the process is. Like I said in one of my recent articles that, “to some of us who are not card-carrying members of any political party, the result is not as important as the process”. So, it is incumbent on the electoral umpire to evolve a process that would put its integrity, and that of the process, beyond questioning, in the conduct of elections. This also depends on adequate funding. But, funding, is one aspect in which, no one can fault this administration. President Muhammadu Buhari, in line with his vow that, as a matter of legacy, he would leave behind a better electoral system than the one that brought him into office, has ensured that the commission is not starved of funds. And in fairness to Professor Mahmood Yakubu, much progress has been recorded, as far as improvement of our electoral system is concerned. A good example is, the introduction of Bi-modal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), an electronic device, for double-checking the authenticity of Permanent Voter Cards (PVC), and authenticate voters, using their fingerprints. This has made rigging, somewhat, a preposterous endeavour. It is a massive improvement on what we used to have in the past, when total votes recorded would be more than the total registered voters. That is, over 100% voters turnout. Impossible. Call it “ridiculous”, if you like. With the introduction of BVAS, that ugly part of electoral history, has been confined to the dustbin of history.

It must also be pointed out that, the term “free, fair, and credible election” is one that is susceptible to definitional manipulation. An election in Nigeria is free, fair, and credible, if the speaker is the winner, or if the result is favourable to him or her. In that case, INEC is also helpless.

With the above illustrations, I, therefore, do not think it is logical for anyone to pin the responsibility of conducting a free, fair, and credible election, wholly, on INEC. So, if we want to stop electoral vices, and ensure a free, fair, and credible election at all times, we must look beyond INEC. Let every stakeholder play his or her roles as defined by both the constitution and public morality, and make every other agency of the government do its statutory works without let or hindrance.

Abubakar writes from Ilorin. He can be reached via 08051388285 or marxbayour@gmail.com