EZREL TABIOWO in this piece brings to the fore underlying issues raised by the senate and yet to be addressed by INEC during last week’s summon of the commission’s Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega
The summon
Last week’s summon of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Professor Attahiru Jega, by the Senate, was a daring move on the path of the upper chamber in view of the political tension arising from the postponement of the 2015 polls earlier scheduled for February 14, 2015.
The House of Representatives on the other hand, obviously sensing the clear danger and implication of walking the thin line of summoning the commission’s boss, on the contrary declined such an action, apparently in a bid to avoid the arousal of crisis from the matter becoming politicized by members of the lower house who belong to the two major contending political parties in the country, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and All Progressive Congress, APC.
But, the appearance of Professor Jega in the Senate, which to an extent provided answers to the numerous questions by Nigerians over INEC’s preparedness to conduct the 2015 elections, however exposed some gaps that only can be filled by the commission’s performance on the field, and which goes way beyond the mere articulation of intellectual permutations and submissions.
Whilst the INEC chairman’s submissions on the surface value tends to provide answers to the varying range of issues raised by senators bothering on the sanctity of the new election dates, the use of Permanent Voters Card and electronic card readers during the general elections, his approach which some Senators argue rather appears far too objective than practical, fails to provide remedial measures that addresses the problems surrounding the existing realities found in the Nigerian situation.
For instance, rather than invoke the interpretation of the law by spelling the legal consequences in black and white arising from attempting to shift the new dates fixed by the commission for the general election, Professor Jega in his usual style evades the question put to him by lawmakers on the sanctity of the new timetable by throwing the ball back in the court of the military whose security advice in the first place led to the earlier postponement of the polls.
During the three-hour drill, he also amidst his two-way based response explained to the senate that there is no way the new dates slated for March 28 and April 11 can be postponed in view of the absence of constitutional provisions to so do.
He said: “I don’t see how anybody will contemplate any extension beyond these six weeks. There is no constitutional grounds upon which you can do that. It will only have to be unconstitutional. I don’t see how anybody will contemplate any unconstitutional means. For us, we work by the constitution, by the law and far as we are concerned. That is what is guiding us and we should all put the interest of the nation at heart.
Explaining further as to why determining the sanctity of the elections goes beyond the powers of the electoral management body, Jega said: “The human factor is always significant, it is always important but we believe that working together with security and other stakeholders, we should be able to prevent negative human intervention that can create problems.
“I kept saying consistently that INEC is not a security organization. We are an election management body, so we rely a lot on security to be able to ensure that things are done well and that there is no disruption of the electoral process.
“We have been working very closely with the inter agencies consultative committee on election security and that is why for us, if the service chiefs say that we can’t guarantee security, give us more time, what is the alternative security arrangements and if we consulted with the stakeholders and we can not find an answer. We are going to use close to 700, 000 ad hoc staff. We can’t send people to the field in that kind of a situation.”
The INEC chairman however expressed hope that in the next few weeks leading to the general elections, there will be significant improvement in the security situation so as to enable the country proceed to the polls, adding that the sanctity of the new timetable was a question only the military can respond to.
“Our hope and prayer is that in the next six weeks there will be significant improvement in the security situation for us to be doing elections all over this country in a very secured environment. There are certain questions that we are not really competent to answer.
Certain questions should be directed to the military, they can answer it better,” he said.
Against the backdrop of Professor Jega’s position concerning the inability of INEC to take responsibility for guaranteeing the sanctity of the new election timetable, same leaves the senate the alternative of summoning the National Security Adviser, Colonel Dasuki, alongside Security Chiefs this week to respond to all matters arising thereof.
Recall that the Senate President, David Mark, had last Tuesday during a motion brought forward by the Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, on summoning Professor Jega, stated that the chamber would summon the service chiefs if deemed necessary, to brief the senate during plenary into ongoing military operations against Boko Haram insurgents in the four north-east states of Adamawa, Yobe, Borno and Gombe.
The outcome of the briefing, going by the professional assessment and advice of the service chiefs, may very well be the much awaited response Nigerians yearn for, and which Professor Jega’s typical tradition for double-speak was again unable to provide.
The burden of preparedness
Prior to the postponement of the 2015 elections from February to March and April by INEC based on security advice contained in a letter to the commission, the election management body had severally bragged about its preparedness to proceed with the conduct of elections despite glaring gaps which suggested otherwise.
On one of such occasions where INEC insisted on its preparedness was at the council of state meeting which held on February 5, 2015 at the presidential villa in Abuja.
However, as at the time of announcing the shift in polls two days later, over twenty million Nigerians were yet to receive their Permanent Voters Card, PVC, a development arising from the inability of the commission to take delivery of a percentage of the figure, as the cards were yet to be produced. The implication of going ahead to conduct the election at the time would have disenfranchised over one-third of Nigeria’s voting population during the 2015 general elections.
Also, even shocking was the fact that barely a week before the earlier scheduled election, the commission was yet to train its 700,000 ad-hoc staff on the use of the card readers recently introduced by the commission as a new innovative means of accreditation during the 2015 elections.
But for the recent postponement, which clearly on the long run has become a bail out for INEC rather than an impending setback for Nigeria’s electoral process in view of the prevailing lapses and poor preparations by the commission, the performance of the elections management body in this year’s poll would have been truncated largely by INEC’s staunch refusal to neglect its convictions that it was indeed prepared to conduct elections contrary to indications and facts on ground which suggested otherwise.
Another of such scenario wherein the commission again failed to reconcile the facts on ground and its proposed line of action juxtaposed side by side was during the Professor’s Jega’s appearance before the senate last Wednesday.
The Chairman while fielding questions from Senators was unable to give sufficient explanations that succinctly addresses the concerns raised by Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe who amidst his views expressed fears that a lot of voters might be disenfranchised owing to the time it takes for the card reader to process the information of the Permanent Voters Card during the process of accreditation fixed by the commission to take place between 8am and 1pm of the same day.
Though Professor Jega posited that it would take a maximum of 30 seconds to complete accreditation of a voter, a practical demonstration on the floor of the senate with the card reader proved otherwise, and on the contrary lasted almost five minutes without completing the task.
Even more disturbing was knowing that the card readers intended to be used for the accreditation of voters in the 2015 general elections would utilize the unreliable networks by service providers.
The revelation which was made by Jega has generated heightening concerns that rural dwellers may be mostly affected going by the number of those likely to be disenfranchised, especially given the poor quality of service from network providers operating in the country.
But rather than focus on, and addressing these new sets of problems brought about by the commission’s decisions under the short period of time that translates to less than six weeks to the rescheduled date for elections, Professor Jega has yet again in his never erring style reassured Nigerians that the commission has everything well under control.
Highlighting INEC’s effort so far towards guaranteeing a hitch-free conduct of elections, Professor Jega told senators last wednesday that the commission had commenced the implementation of a list of measures intended to span the six weeks period of extension.
Among such measures are field evaluation by National Commissioners, inter-agency committee meeting on election security, and meeting of the commission with all the resident electoral commissioners to review progress of additional things needed to finalize arrangement for the March 28 and April 11 elections.
According to him, the collection of PVCs, an area which has attracted wide public commentaries, has also being prioritized by INEC to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised during the forth coming elections.
He added that the commission as at last week recorded an average nationwide collection rate of 75.94 percent, following INEC’s decision to extend collection date to March 8.
Professor Jega further disclosed that though specialized tests had been conducted on the card readers with INEC’s partners in Nigeria and Texas, USA, plans by the commission were still underway to organise mock tests of the card readers in each of the nation’s six geopolitical zones, one to be supervised by the Information and Communications Technology department of INEC in conjunction with the voter registry and electoral operations department.
In his words, “the period of extension has offered us (INEC) an opportunity to further perfect the electoral process for the delivery of free fair credible and peaceful elections to the satisfaction of the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians.”
The PVCs, card reader controversy
Recently, the controversy bodering on the use of the Permanent Voters Card and the card reader sparked off heated public debates in the media which went back and forth and questioned whether the introduction of such innovation by the commission contravenes the provision of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
The Chairman of INEC, in his response before the senate last week cleared the air that the introduction of the PVCs and card readers for the 2015 election by INEC was backed by constitutional provisions, and in no way contravenes any section of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
His words: “With regards to the card readers, the use of the PVCs and the card reader for the conduct of the 2015 election we believe are in accord with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. They were introduced also, pursuant to the powers granted to the commission by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), INEC is empowered by Section 16(4) of the Electoral Act 2010 to and I quote: wherever it considers it necessary, replace or any voter card for the time being by voters’”
“The decision of the commission to replace TVC with PVC is in accordance with the provisions of the electoral Act as amended. An election is said to be validly conducted if it meets certain basic requirements including accreditation of voters. An election cannot be said to be properly conducted, if the if the steps provided by section 49 of the Electoral Act 2010 are not complied with.
“This section requires that anybody intending to vote shall present himself with his voter card to a presiding officer who shall certify him or herself that person on the person is on the register of voters before issuing such a person with ballot paper.
“The use of the card reader for the purpose of accreditation of voters is one of the innovations introduced by the commission to improve the credibility of the electoral process, in particular, the accreditation process. It is not offensive to the electoral Act or to the constitution.
It adds value to the desires of Nigerians to have a credible election in line with international best practice.”
“Whereas section 52 of the electoral Act of the Electoral Act prohibits the use of electronic voting, the card reader is not a voting machine and it is not used for voting, it is merely an electronic devise introduced to improve the integrity of the voting process. It should be remembered that section 78 and section 118 of the constitution grants INEC powers to register voters and to conduct election in Nigeria,” Professor Jega added.
Detailing the advantages of the card reader, the INEC chairman said: “once the card reader is configured, it can only read PVC issued by INEC at the polling unit that it has been configured.
“Second, it reads the embedded chip card not the back code.
Third, it enables authentication of the identity of the voter by matching his or her finger print with that code on the chip of the card. Four, it keeps a tally of all cards read and all cards verified or authenticated with all their details including the time when this was done.
Five, this information can be sent to a central server using an SMS. Six, the stored information on the server will enable INEC to audit results from polling units as well as do arrangement of statistical analysis of the demographics of voting, something INEC has never been able to do effectively.
Seven, the ward collation officer can use this information to audit polling unit result sheets and to determine whether accreditation figures have been altered, a common feature of electoral fraud in our jurisdiction.”
On the challenges associated with the use of the card reader, Professor Jega explained, “In the likely event that a card reader fails, we have enough spares to deploy before the end of the accreditation at 1pm.
“If we (INEC) cannot replace before the end of accreditation, then the election in that particular point will be postponed to the following day when a new card reader will be provided for election. And we agreed with political parties to do this because if you say if a card reader fails we go back to manual voting, we are worried that everywhere we will revert to manual because there are many people who don’t want card readers to be used.”
He added: “If a voter’s PVC has been read and the details have been verified but his finger print cannot be authenticated or he or she has no fingers, an incidence form will be written by the presiding officer at the voting point and the voter will then be accredited. Party agents and observers will be there to testify to this.
“In the next six weeks, the commission hopes to utilise the period of extension to organise more public enlightenment programme and use of the card reader but we have already done a number of tests.”